Proposed Oklahoma skyscraper gets redesign to become USA's new tallest building
A proposal to build “Legends Tower” in Oklahoma City, which would surpass One World Trade Center as the tallest building in the U.S., is prompting skepticism over its economic logic, urban fit, and physical risk in a low-density, tornado-prone region. Commenters question whether OKC’s demand, incomes, and zoning justify a supertall mixed-use tower, suggesting the project is more about prestige, marketing, or politics than practical need, and predicting financing will be hard to secure. Others see potential benefits in added housing and a landmark tourist attraction but argue that mid-rise, “missing middle” development and broader urban improvements would deliver more value than a single, iconic megaproject.
Urban context & aesthetics
- Many note OKC’s downtown is relatively low-rise and dominated by parking lots, so a lone supertall would look striking and out of place.
- Some see the design as garish or “Dubai-like” and mismatched to its surroundings; others are excited by the ambition and “sense of wonder” of a new record-height tower.
- Comparisons are made to existing OKC architecture (60s–70s concrete “bunkers”) and to skyline patterns where a single outlier breaks the usual gradual height taper.
Economics & feasibility
- Strong skepticism that OKC’s low density and income levels justify one of the tallest buildings in the world. Comparisons to Chicago and other larger, denser cities are common.
- Cost estimates around $2–3B and ~1,776 units lead some to argue the implied cost per unit makes no financial sense, especially with higher interest rates.
- Multiple comments expect only the smaller “phase one” towers to be built, viewing the supertall as a bargaining chip, marketing/portfolio piece, or vanity project.
- Others counter that outsiders can’t know the pro forma; if serious money is committed, developers must see a viable model, potentially including tourism appeal.
Engineering, hazards & safety
- Concerns focus on tornadoes (including EF4/EF5 events) and induced earthquakes from regional fracking.
- Some argue the direct-hit probability of an EF5 on any single building is tiny, and other US cities with tornado risk still build high-rises.
- Discussion of typhoons vs tornadoes, glass damage, and possible hardened “skins” or other protective measures.
- A few note personal discomfort with sway and vertigo in tall buildings.
Urban planning, parking & transit
- Questions about where residents and workers will park; rough back-of-envelope suggests multiple acres of parking even for the residential component alone.
- OKC has public transit, but commenters doubt it’s robust enough for such a concentrated spike in density.
- Several argue that if the goal is housing affordability, mid-rise “missing middle” multifamily and zoning changes would be far more efficient than a prestige supertall.
Skyscraper design & meta
- Debate over cost efficiency of one very tall tower vs many mid-rise buildings, focusing on elevator cores, structural mass, and diminishing returns above certain heights.
- Discussion of height-as-ego (spires, record-chasing) vs functional significance.
- Thread includes culture and politics subtext (regional/class tensions, “prosperity” symbolism) and some meta-complaints about excessive negativity.