OKC’s Devon Tower Taller Than St. Louis’ Arch
The tallest building in St. Louis is Metropolitan Square at 593 feet, just under the 630 foot Arch. The Devon Tower under construction in downtown Oklahoma City reaches a height of 850 feet! Wait, what?
Yes, Oklahoma City is getting a massive new tower added to it’s skyline. More like dwarfing the rest of the skyline. Tuesday I posted about how Chesapeake Energy is redeveloping retail shopping adjacent to it’s campus and today the story of another OKC corporate giant, Devon, changing Oklahoma City. Cost estimates are $750 million.
The 2nd tallest building in OKC is the 1971 Chase Tower at 500 feet. The 3rd is the 493 foot First National Center built in 1931. Forty year gaps between these buildings, though I doubt in 2051 a building will top the Devon Tower. Â I won’t be around anyway…
Devon’s employees are already downtown, just in various buildings. Consolidating into one facility makes sense but the scale is enormous. I look forward to seeing the completed building and how well it connects to the streets.
Meanwhile in St. Louis we don’t seem to have any companies even considering a new building. Â We certainly have plenty of available land.
– Steve Patterson
They consider new buildings it just happens to be in West County and St Charles Co. st LOuis leaders need to come to the realization that we need a vibrant downtown business community in order to compete with other cities for jobs.
They consider new buildings it just happens to be in West County and St Charles Co. st LOuis leaders need to come to the realization that we need a vibrant downtown business community in order to compete with other cities for jobs.
“I look forward to seeing the completed building and how well it connects to the streets.” My prediction is that you won’t like it, since appears to have the obligatory attached parking garage covering most of the block: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?buildingID=78797
“Meanwhile in St. Louis we don’t seem to have any companies even considering a new building.  We certainly have plenty of available land.” What we don’t have are growing companies that both need more space AND want to locate / remain in the city.  Express Scripts and Mastercard are two that have invested in and expanded their campuses recently, only not in the CBD. Available land is the least important part of the equation, since any skyscraper is invariably replacing smaller, obsolete structures – they’re rarely greenfield developments, except maybe in Houston or the middle east. And Devon Energy certainly fits the definition of a growing company, one that both needs the space and can afford to pay for it.
Part of the challenge is that skyscrapers are so last century. They speak more to ego than to efficiency. With advances in technology and the growth of the global economy, needing to house thousands of employees in an environment where daily face-to-face contact is worth the cost of admission is becoming less and less important. The other half of the equation is the company’s view of mass transit. If employees are willing / forced to use mass transit, then the vertical circulation skyscrapers offer is a positive. But if employees are more comfortable / insist on driving AND the company is willing to provide parking, density becomes counter-productive (congested streets, cost of structured parking, etc.). Finally, if you’ve ever worked in a high-rise, you soon learn to hate the elevators, especially if you’re on an upper floor in an elevator bank – there is simply no way to get in or to get out quickly.
“I look forward to seeing the completed building and how well it connects to the streets.” My prediction is that you won’t like it, since appears to have the obligatory attached parking garage covering most of the block: http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?buildingID=78797
“Meanwhile in St. Louis we don’t seem to have any companies even considering a new building. We certainly have plenty of available land.” What we don’t have are growing companies that both need more space AND want to locate / remain in the city. Express Scripts and Mastercard are two that have invested in and expanded their campuses recently, only not in the CBD. Available land is the least important part of the equation, since any skyscraper is invariably replacing smaller, obsolete structures – they’re rarely greenfield developments, except maybe in Houston or the middle east. And Devon Energy certainly fits the definition of a growing company, one that both needs the space and can afford to pay for it.
Part of the challenge is that skyscrapers are so last century. They speak more to ego than to efficiency. With advances in technology and the growth of the global economy, needing to house thousands of employees in an environment where daily face-to-face contact is worth the cost of admission is becoming less and less important. The other half of the equation is the company’s view of mass transit. If employees are willing / forced to use mass transit, then the vertical circulation skyscrapers offer is a positive. But if employees are more comfortable / insist on driving AND the company is willing to provide parking, density becomes counter-productive (congested streets, cost of structured parking, etc.). Finally, if you’ve ever worked in a high-rise, you soon learn to hate the elevators, especially if you’re on an upper floor in an elevator bank – there is simply no way to get in or to get out quickly.
Wasn’t there talk of building a 50 story tower at the bottle district before the economy tanked?
Wasn’t there talk of building a 50 story tower at the bottle district before the economy tanked?
Curoius, how many US cities have towers 600+ feet in construction right now? Â This is an aberration, not the norm, unless you are talking about NYC or Chicago. Â Tall towers are outdated in today’s age as no one can justify the rent per sq ft the building owners will be charging. Â
Curoius, how many US cities have towers 600+ feet in construction right now? This is an aberration, not the norm, unless you are talking about NYC or Chicago. Tall towers are outdated in today’s age as no one can justify the rent per sq ft the building owners will be charging.
I think your ignoring the efficiencies of vertical development in stating that towers are outdated. Yes, I would agree it is relatively easy and inexpensive in mid size cities to buy land and spread your campus and employees. As JZ71 pointed out, St Louis companies such as Express Scripts or Mastercard that have expanded the most decided to do it outside of the central business districts – downtown and Clayton. Where as companies that are expanding downtown such as Peabody, Ralcorp, Stifel Nichols simply haven’t need as much space or nearly had the growth as Express Scripts. But Centene did chose to stay in Clayton business district and almost anchored a Ballpark Village Tower.
But what efficiencies are you gaining and what indirect benefits do you have with a large surface parking lot? Having your back office workforce spread among multiple buildings and locations? Not having transportation options for your employees. However, expanding and growing cities like Houston will have vibrant central business district that favors and will always favor vertical space. If anything, the rest of world is still building skyscrapers because their is nothing outdated with them in my opinion. Its the US that has decided on convenience or preferences of greenfield corporate campuses over effficiencies.
Is it good or bad? another debate which will go back to sprawl and energy and the large amount of infrastructure built for a horizontal infrastructure instead of a vertical infrastructure.
Two related issues – technology and transit – drive our built environment. The vast majority of us interact with relatively small workgroups, of, at most, 20-30 people, even in large companies. With advances in technology, there’s been less need to co-locate these employees in the same place – working from home or India isn’t much different from working in a cubicle on the 27th floor. And how those employees commute is related to density, as well. Providing parking for 1,000 vehicles creates different architectural responses than providing for 1,000 employees arriving by public transit. Transit and high-rises are made for each other, while low-rise offices and single-occupant vehicles are also made for each other.
Part of it is driven by the preferences employees express and part of it is driven by the vision set at the highest levels in a company. The personal preferences and philosophies of the CEO have a huge impact on where offices are located inan urban area – Peabody and Ralcorp are both located to downtown because of both history and inertia, but there are no guarantees that they’ll stay – don’t become complacent. The corporate offices for Miller-Coors, originally housed in Milwaukee and Golden, Colorado, respectively, are now in Chicago, as are the corporate offices for Boeing, which moved from Seattle. Bottom line, there are no sure things – leaders change, technology evolves and new priorities create new answers, both urban and suburban.
Downtown St. Louis has a lot of potential, we just need to work to be more like Clayton and less like East St. Louis or Granite City – a century ago, all three were pretty comparable nearby, small, suburban cities, and as history has shown, the past can’t predict the future . . . .
I’m just saying, tall building are not getting built these days pretty much anywhere, b/c the rent the owners would have to charge is so much higher than similar rent in comparable office spaces, in most any downtown USA. In ‘today’s day and ago’ (i.e. this terrible economy), most companies do not wanna spend the money to upgrade. I have no idea where you got the idea that I suggest sprawl campuses were a good idea. I am just saying, there are not 800 foot towers going up in every city but STL. OKC having one is not the norm. Yeah, we would all love a shiny new tall tower, to show our pride, every city wants them, but be realistic please.
I think your ignoring the efficiencies of vertical development in stating that towers are outdated. Yes, I would agree it is relatively easy and inexpensive in mid size cities to buy land and spread your campus and employees. As JZ71 pointed out, St Louis companies such as Express Scripts or Mastercard that have expanded the most decided to do it outside of the central business districts – downtown and Clayton. Where as companies that are expanding downtown such as Peabody, Ralcorp, Stifel Nichols simply haven’t need as much space or nearly had the growth as Express Scripts. But Centene did chose to stay in Clayton business district and almost anchored a Ballpark Village Tower.
But what efficiencies are you gaining and what indirect benefits do you have with a large surface parking lot? Having your back office workforce spread among multiple buildings and locations? Not having transportation options for your employees. However, expanding and growing cities like Houston will have vibrant central business district that favors and will always favor vertical space. If anything, the rest of world is still building skyscrapers because their is nothing outdated with them in my opinion. Its the US that has decided on convenience or preferences of greenfield corporate campuses over effficiencies.Â
Is it good or bad? another debate which will go back to sprawl and energy and the large amount of infrastructure built for a horizontal infrastructure instead of a vertical infrastructure.
Two related issues – technology and transit – drive our built environment. The vast majority of us interact with relatively small workgroups, of, at most, 20-30 people, even in large companies. With advances in technology, there’s been less need to co-locate these employees in the same place – working from home or India isn’t much different from working in a cubicle on the 27th floor. And how those employees commute is related to density, as well. Providing parking for 1,000 vehicles creates different architectural responses than providing for 1,000 employees arriving by public transit. Transit and high-rises are made for each other, while low-rise offices and single-occupant vehicles are also made for each other.Â
Part of it is driven by the preferences employees express and part of it is driven by the vision set at the highest levels in a company. The personal preferences and philosophies of the CEO have a huge impact on where offices are located inan urban area – Peabody and Ralcorp are both located to downtown because of both history and inertia, but there are no guarantees that they’ll stay – don’t become complacent. The corporate offices for Miller-Coors, originally housed in Milwaukee and Golden, Colorado, respectively, are now in Chicago, as are the corporate offices for Boeing, which moved from Seattle. Bottom line, there are no sure things – leaders change, technology evolves and new priorities create new answers, both urban and suburban.Â
Downtown St. Louis has a lot of potential, we just need to work to be more like Clayton and less like East St. Louis or Granite City – a century ago, all three were pretty comparable nearby, small, suburban cities, and as history has shown, the past can’t predict the future . . . .
Two related issues – technology and transit – drive our built environment. The vast majority of us interact with relatively small workgroups, of, at most, 20-30 people, even in large companies. With advances in technology, there’s been less need to co-locate these employees in the same place – working from home or India isn’t much different from working in a cubicle on the 27th floor. And how those employees commute is related to density, as well. Providing parking for 1,000 vehicles creates different architectural responses than providing for 1,000 employees arriving by public transit. Transit and high-rises are made for each other, while low-rise offices and single-occupant vehicles are also made for each other.Â
Part of it is driven by the preferences employees express and part of it is driven by the vision set at the highest levels in a company. The personal preferences and philosophies of the CEO have a huge impact on where offices are located inan urban area – Peabody and Ralcorp are both located to downtown because of both history and inertia, but there are no guarantees that they’ll stay – don’t become complacent. The corporate offices for Miller-Coors, originally housed in Milwaukee and Golden, Colorado, respectively, are now in Chicago, as are the corporate offices for Boeing, which moved from Seattle. Bottom line, there are no sure things – leaders change, technology evolves and new priorities create new answers, both urban and suburban.Â
Downtown St. Louis has a lot of potential, we just need to work to be more like Clayton and less like East St. Louis or Granite City – a century ago, all three were pretty comparable nearby, small, suburban cities, and as history has shown, the past can’t predict the future . . . .
I’m just saying, tall building are not getting built these days pretty much anywhere, b/c the rent the owners would have to charge is so much higher than similar rent in comparable office spaces, in most any downtown USA. Â In ‘today’s day and ago’ (i.e. this terrible economy), most companies do not wanna spend the money to upgrade. Â I have no idea where you got the idea that I suggest sprawl campuses were a good idea. I am just saying, there are not 800 foot towers going up in every city but STL. Â OKC having one is not the norm. Â Yeah, we would all love a shiny new tall tower, to show our pride, every city wants them, but be realistic please. Â
Anyone remember when Kevin McGowan proposed an 81-story office tower on the south edge of downtown? Â Yeah, I barely remember it too. Â Those were days before the economy crashed, when anything seemed possible, even Kevin McGowan’s wildest dream. Â Now he can’t even afford to reinforce Cupples 7 or board up the old Heer’s store in downtown Springfield, Mo., another aborted Blue Urban project. Â So I think we can safely cross the MW Tower off the list of future developments, and since Ballpark Village is just as much of a mirage, I don’t think we’ll see anything close to OKC’s new tallest structure anytime soon. Â That said, if we could eventually see the many unattractive surface lots and parking garages around downtown replaced with smaller mid- or highrise buildings, I’d be perfectly fine with that.
Anyone remember when Kevin McGowan proposed an 81-story office tower on the south edge of downtown? Yeah, I barely remember it too. Those were days before the economy crashed, when anything seemed possible, even Kevin McGowan’s wildest dream. Now he can’t even afford to reinforce Cupples 7 or board up the old Heer’s store in downtown Springfield, Mo., another aborted Blue Urban project. So I think we can safely cross the MW Tower off the list of future developments, and since Ballpark Village is just as much of a mirage, I don’t think we’ll see anything close to OKC’s new tallest structure anytime soon. That said, if we could eventually see the many unattractive surface lots and parking garages around downtown replaced with smaller mid- or highrise buildings, I’d be perfectly fine with that.