Quote Originally Posted by BDP View Post
I'm not sure what it says, but if it does say that, then it's kind of making the case that something should be done with the Mill site.

Without a coast, mountains, or large population base, appealing development becomes even more important. In a sense, it's the city's only chance to improve its image. Image may seem superficial, but we're talking about people who have to make a decision where to live, work and/or visit based on limited information. Most people can not afford to "test drive" every city to which they may locate by living in it for a period of time. So, image, polls, raw data, etc. make a real difference. Of course, when there's a poll with data that people don't like, they will always dismiss it as biased. But, if we're being honest with ourselves, do we really think that OKC has a better image than the cities listed above it in the survey and that it's just a flawed survey? Of course, the oil mill and its smell does not create this image on its own, but could very well reinforce a negative image if and when someone does visit the city.

I'm not saying that Oklahoma City isn't a better place to live than those cities, but I can't imagine that even the most objective poll would show that it has a better reputation or perceived image than most of those cities. And I think the first step to changing that is to recognize it as a real problem and work to reverse it. In fact, I think that is the entire reason MAPS was started in the first place and why those original architects of the plan were able to begin to concretely take steps through development to begin to reverse years of erosion, both literally and in the public perception. Without a lot of natural features that are attractive to people when deciding where to live, we essentially have to build a great city through exceptional development. And I don't necessarily think it had to be BIG development, just good development that creates a place that is attractive to people seeking many different kinds of lifestyles.

So, with that in mind, I think the Oil Mill site is probably going to be a part of the equation at some point. However, with it currently being a working and viable business and with all the other development opportunities sill left within Oklahoma City's core, it may be awhile before it becomes an economically feasible redevelopment project. If we were to a point where major downtown developments could only be made possible by relocating existing businesses and clearing sites, then I think we'd have to look at ways to orchestrate it, if the market couldn't handle it on its own. If and when redevelopment does happen, there are actually a lot of good examples of how formally industrial areas have been re-purposed into popular destinations for living, working, and playing. Cities must always look ahead to stay relevant and these types of projects have been a big part of how many of the more favorable cities have done just that. However, as much as I like to see the Oil Mill and its stench make an early exit, I'm just not sure what current factors would make that imminent.
Excellent post!

If you don't think OKC has a negative image, spend some time on the City-Data national forum or even the state forum. That forum is populated mostly by upwardly mobile, creative twentysomethings seeking to relocate - the demographic that OKC wants to be in the running for. Most people from the coasts visit OKC already having a negative bias based on stereotype and things like the Oil Mill, as well as the miles of scrapyards along I-40 in both directions from downtown help confirm that bias. I have long though that OKC needs to do more to compensate for not having great natural geography. Little things, often considered superficial, are important. It's not just about image either. A more visually appealing city will increase the quality of life for all residents.