This has apparently been renamed to the First Americans Museum.

https://twitter.com/benfelder_okc/status/1205216642701185024
https://twitter.com/benfelder_okc/status/1205217952099979265

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELnLVmEWsAgHFeY?format=jpg&name=medium

Great name, fam. Let's go!

The clean design, black text and three triangles of red, yellow & blue pointing in different directions. Pete, do you have a press release that explains the symbolism behind these elements?

The clean, primary color design reminds me of the new Convention Center and Scissortail Park logos.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/conventionlogo1.jpg

https://www.okc.gov/Home/ShowPublishedImage/10310/637037240198100000

I am no expert on Indigenous topics, but I have had the privilege of learning a lot from Indigenous scholars in recent years and this naming seems highly problematic. First, it's largely ahistorical. Labeling Indigenous Nations that precede the United States by centuries erases tribal history and identity and consumes them within the settler identity of those who forcibly removed them from their lands and sought to commit genocide against their peoples through forced removal, tribal re-education boarding schools, and breaking political treaties that deny political sovereignty and land. This basically reinforces the settler colonialism of which Indigenous nations and peoples have been targeted for centuries. I know a lot of people won't know the difference, but a large number of Indigenous Peoples and Nations will frame their understandings of this museum through a label that they see as harmful. This museum is starting with a mark against it. Seems both insulting and just bad marketing. Again, I am interested to see other perspectives, but I don't understand this decision.

Yeah, fam. After thinking about this, it probably would've been better just to scrap altogether the whole idea of building a Smithsonian quality museum meant to honor these people and tell their stories so that all of us terrible folk who stole their land wouldn't have a venue to gain a greater appreciation for them. God forbid the Native American Tribe funding this decide on a name that references Native Americans as the first people who inhabited America, the name the world has used to refer to our continent for the last 500+ years. Should've just built the Boomer Sooner Museum of Manifest Destiny instead to complement the Cowboy Hall of Fame.

I'm being a sarcastic a** but in seriousness, I don't think many people are going to feel that way about it, especially since the Chickasaw's most likely came up with the name or at minimum signed off on it. Though given the public's propensity to get offended and bent out of shape by the smallest of things lately, I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see a scathing article about it on the front page of the Washington Post.

I am no expert on Indigenous topics, but I have had the privilege of learning a lot from Indigenous scholars in recent years and this naming seems highly problematic. First, it's largely ahistorical. Labeling Indigenous Nations that precede the United States by centuries erases tribal history and identity and consumes them within the settler identity of those who forcibly removed them from their lands and sought to commit genocide against their peoples through forced removal, tribal re-education boarding schools, and breaking political treaties that deny political sovereignty and land. This basically reinforces the settler colonialism of which Indigenous nations and peoples have been targeted for centuries. I know a lot of people won't know the difference, but a large number of Indigenous Peoples and Nations will frame their understandings of this museum through a label that they see as harmful. This museum is starting with a mark against it. Seems both insulting and just bad marketing. Again, I am interested to see other perspectives, but I don't understand this decision.

Dan, your argument doesn't make sense to me, but perhaps I'm missing something and you can help me understand it. I am Native American and have been heavily involved in tribal issues for many years. In my experience, I've seen nothing to indicate this name is harmful, insulting, or would be considered ahistorical; in fact, it's just the opposite. Many tribes, including mine, have been using--indeed, advocating the use of-- the "First Americans" label for a very long time in an effort to better establish in the minds of the American people (and others) the fact that they were the first to arrive on the American continent nearly 16,000 years ago. It is an infinitely better and accurate name than "American Indian," which is truly ahistorical.

I assume what Dan is keying into is the use of Americans which is still colonial in origin by way of Amerigo Vespucci. I think you sometimes see First Peoples used as different alternative? Regardless though, I feel like the Chickasaws are the source of this and I would trust them to navigate those waters.

I assume what Dan is keying into is the use of Americans which is still colonial in origin by way of Amerigo Vespucci. I think you sometimes see First Peoples used as different alternative? Regardless though, I feel like the Chickasaws are the source of this and I would trust them to navigate those waters.

Yeah that's how I took it, but what are we supposed to do? If you just call it the First People Museum, that wouldn't really be accurate either as most evidence points to the first humans appearing in Asia and Africa. I guess we could call it the "First People of the Continent Eventually Known as America That Certainly Was Not Known as America Back Then Museum" but that's a mouthful.

Canada uses the term First Nations, I believe. Though, I don't see how First Americans would have been signed off on with the Chickasaw nation approving considering all of the work they are doing.

There’s a lot to respond to, but I’ll do so in the short time as I walk through an airport (forgive any errors). :) First, I appreciate those engaging in the discussion honestly. There’s no need for over the top sarcasm or a debate on whether you should give up your property and move to Europe or we whether we should abandon the museum. A lot of strawmen and close-mindedness.

Political sovereignty is still a huge issue for Indigenous Nations. It doesn’t just mean getting land back or seceding from the US. It is complex and pertains to a variety of legal issues I can’t lay out here. I’ll find some good readings and post them.

Indigenous nations precede the word “America” and even when the U.S. formed, they negotiated treaties as independent nations. Of course, Indigenous nations have had their own names for the land that became “America,” most notably the Lenape (Delaware Nation) called it Turtle Island. So, most nations were violently forced to be American over and over again. Boarding schools were about “killing the Indian” to make them “American.” I am not here to tell the Chickasaw Nation what to do. It’s not my place. Each nation and its citizens can make that choice. My point is that they are alienating large numbers of Indigenous peoples at a museum “for” them. There are plenty of names that would have been better and less divisive in Indigenous communities. This museum could recruit Indigenous scholars to visit OKC, but this name is bad branding IMHO... beside the FAM part. ;)

Many American Indians, including myself take pride in being American. I can’t take anything Dan says seriously anymore after the past few overly political correction posts he’s made regarding Indians.

Canada uses the term First Nations, I believe. Though, I don't see how First Americans would have been signed off on with the Chickasaw nation approving considering all of the work they are doing.

I am sure the Chickasaw Nation chose the name. However, this is not a Chickasaw museum. It’s supposed to be for all nations and peoples so I don’t know why they would pick such a divisive term within indigenous communities.

Many American Indians, including myself take pride in being American. I can’t take anything Dan says seriously anymore after the past few overly political correction posts he’s made regarding Indians.

I never said you shouldn’t take pride in being American anywhere in my post. I would never say that to anyone. You might want to re-read my post. But, more than that, I'm happy to engage in discussion. I want to learn different perspectives on these issues. I lived the first 29 years of my life in Oklahoma and didn't learn near enough about the Indigenous nations in the state. It's embarrassing. So, I've been doing what I can to learn as an adult. In fact, everything I posted I learned from Indigenous scholars (not to say I represent everything perfectly!). But to just call my post PC and dismiss me is disappointing. I'd be happy to learn from you and share your perspective (if you want) too.

While I'm sure I can find better sources, the Wikipedia page on Indigenous sovereignty has a lot on how the issue has evolved and a number of court cases being fought on the issue today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States

Here's a good post by Debbie Reese (Nambé Pueblo) on why "First Americans" is problematic.. she explains the issue far better than I do as she discusses children's books that use the term: https://americanindiansinchildrensliterature.blogspot.com/search/label/%22First%20Americans%22

Good God, people will get pissed off over any stupid thing.

Good God, people will get pissed off over any stupid thing.

Yes. It’s beyond annoying.

Yes. It’s beyond annoying.

No one who has had a negative response has actually responded to a single thing I have written. I’m fine moving on. I should have known better than to try to bring up these issues here.

I never said you shouldn’t take pride in being American anywhere in my post. I would never say that to anyone. You might want to re-read my post. But, more than that, I'm happy to engage in discussion. I want to learn different perspectives on these issues. I lived the first 29 years of my life in Oklahoma and didn't learn near enough about the Indigenous nations in the state. It's embarrassing. So, I've been doing what I can to learn as an adult. In fact, everything I posted I learned from Indigenous scholars (not to say I represent everything perfectly!). But to just call my post PC and dismiss me is disappointing. I'd be happy to learn from you and share your perspective (if you want) too.
You seem to imply a couple things and maybe I’m wrong as I need to know my history better on all fronts.

It sounds like you’re insinuating that native Americans shouldn’t support this name change?

I don't particular care for the name, but i'm also just "meh" about it either way. Not because of some political statement, i just think the name is boring. It is, however, descriptive.

I actually like this name more than Native Americans because they weren't native here either. They migrated over the land bridge and were the first settlers of the land, but they didn't just pop into existence here. So First Americans (with the term America covering North/Central/South American and not just the U.S.) seems to be a more accurate representation to me. Similarly, First Nation is a pretty good accurate description. But that's just me.

What i would like to see, is the place freaking open already!!!!!!!

No one who has had a negative response has actually responded to a single thing I have written. I’m fine moving on. I should have known better than to try to bring up these issues here.

Because you’ve seemingly become part of the subset of the population that has found a way to be offended by far more issues than the average person and engaging/acknowledging everything that part of the population takes an issue with has become incredibly tiring. Have to high grade the grievances that are worth taking seriously and dismiss over the top complaints like this and being offended by our flagship university’s mascot. Stay woke my friend.

I don't particular care for the name, but i'm also just "meh" about it either way. Not because of some political statement, i just think the name is boring. It is, however, descriptive.

I actually like this name more than Native Americans because they weren't native here either. They migrated over the land bridge and were the first settlers of the land, but they didn't just pop into existence here. So First Americans (with the term America covering North/Central/South American and not just the U.S.) seems to be a more accurate representation to me. Similarly, First Nation is a pretty good accurate description. But that's just me.

What i would like to see, is the place freaking open already!!!!!!!

This...100%!!!

I like the name and logo... Big improvement

I like the name and logo... Big improvement

I like the name, but I'm not thrilled with the logo and abbreviation... "FAM". Hopefully folks refer to it by it's full name, and it doesn't become "in" to refer to it as the FAM.

I like the name and logo... Big improvement

+!

I like the name, but I'm not thrilled with the logo and abbreviation... "FAM". Hopefully folks refer to it by it's full name, and it doesn't become "in" to refer to it as the FAM.
This mirrors my thoughts.

It's an unfortunate name all things considered.

The outrage about Dan's supposed outrage far exceeds his, it seems. All he did was mention some historical context from Indigineous scholars about why some may feel it isn't a great name, and he's met with sarcasm, mockery, and hysteria about needing to leave the United States, political correctness, allegedly being forced to take responsibility for past grievances one had nothing to do with, and other really over-the-top responses. RIP interest in nuanced discussions, I guess.

On that note, I do wonder how much of the difference in interpretation comes down to thinking of the "United States" when hearing "Americans" vs. "people who reside in the American continents (south + north)".

The outrage about Dan's supposed outrage far exceeds his, it seems. All he did was mention some historical context from Indigineous scholars about why some may feel it isn't a great name, and he's met with sarcasm, mockery, and hysteria about needing to leave the United States, political correctness, allegedly being forced to take responsibility for past grievances one had nothing to do with, and other really over-the-top responses. RIP interest in nuanced discussions, I guess.

On that note, I do wonder how much of the difference in interpretation comes down to thinking of the "United States" when hearing "Americans" vs. "people who reside in the American continents (south + north)".

Dan is outraged by everything and it is an OUTRAGE!!!!

Branding is the game these days and like it or not the FAM thing is super marketable and you just know we're about to have an onslaught of marketing about this place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=-wEjmtRfnNQ&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR0vLJawgKZlY5VD323De4uTQWjZHwLCBN7B_hnq1 1RndL4nFMt7mBnCn6g

Branding is the game these days and like it or not the FAM thing is super marketable and you just know we're about to have an onslaught of marketing about this place.

^^^^^

This museum has the potential to be a truly major attraction if done correctly and funded properly. I hope there is room for most all tribes to be included in some way and not just those in this area.

Good God, people will get pissed off over any stupid thing.

I hear ya there. The term "Okies" will set off a lot of older citizens of this state.

... sarcasm, mockery, and hysteria ... and other really over-the-top responses.

Just a few of the many reasons I love OKCTalk. The speed these threads go off-topic never ceases to amuse.

It is what it is. Someone or group of people signed off on this signature. There does appear to be a central color theme that blends in with the Scissortail Park and the new convention center.

https://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/large960_blur-448634f19b0f4f65ecfbb10f6bef105d.jpg

https://localtvkfor.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/promo394759251.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&w=1200

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELnLVmEWsAgHFeY?format=jpg&name=medium

Really like the coordination and complementary color blend. It's short and precise.

If they want to tie in with the other properties, then they need a different logo. Like a circular design that mimics the layout of their building.

The "Oklahoma" instead of "Oklahoma City" bit of the branding is surprising

Does anyone find it ironic that a bunch of white people on this message board are outraged that Dan might bring up the idea to be sensitive to Native feelings in the name of a museum that purports to be "for" Natives. This is white privilege at its finest.

Just who is this place for and why does it exist?

Does anyone find it ironic that a bunch of white people on this message board are outraged that Dan might bring up the idea to be sensitive to Native feelings in the name of a museum that purports to be "for" Natives. This is white privilege at its finest.

Just who is this place for and why does it exist?
So, only native Americans, Indians, Indigenous peoples, first Americans, or whatever you choose are supposed to utilize this facility?

There does appear to be a central color theme that blends in with the Scissortail Park and the new convention center.

Really like the coordination and complementary color blend. It's short and precise.

I hadn't caught that... don't know if it's intentional or not, but it's cool. Hopefully we'll see this trend continue.

I hadn't caught that... don't know if it's intentional or not, but it's cool. Hopefully we'll see this trend continue.

Kind of reminds me of branding cities use when they host the Olympics.

I assume it is intentional. I've got some friends in the design industry that have been working with the state in a program to completely rebrand all aspects of the state in terms of image, marketing, etc. I would guess this might be part of that effort.

Does anyone find it ironic that a bunch of white people on this message board are outraged that Dan might bring up the idea to be sensitive to Native feelings in the name of a museum that purports to be "for" Natives. This is white privilege at its finest.

Just who is this place for and why does it exist?

Also ironic is that Dan, a white man, is suggesting that the Native American tribe that named the museum should be offended by the name they decided on for it.

Oddly enough some of the people that the museum is for and are part of the reason it exists, actually came up with the name.

Also, Swake, go back to Tulsa.

I think the name 'First Americans Museum' is very catchy.

I know a bit about archaeology, and the term First Americans for the last 20 years has meant the Clovis culture dating to around 10,800 to 12,000 BP. In the last few years it is now recognized scientifically that there is a Pre-Clovis culture dating back to 15,000 BP.

Today's tribes are descendants, but the First American term pre-dates these tribes a good 10,000 years.

Does anyone find it ironic that a bunch of white people on this message board are outraged that Dan might bring up the idea to be sensitive to Native feelings in the name of a museum that purports to be "for" Natives. This is white privilege at its finest.

Just who is this place for and why does it exist?

Respectfully, at least two of the posters who were participating in the discussion with Dan identified themselves as part American Indian. Just as respectfully, your "white privilidge" is really out of line.

as someone who is partially native american by two tribes, I like the name and think it is appropriate. This is probably one of the very few times where I disagree with Dan but I do respect his very intelligent argument and appreciate his and Swake's contribution to this forum and this thread (and I don't want him to go back to Tulsa). ..

I think it is fine for people to discuss their feelings and for others to agree and disagree. That is what a web forum is for not so much the personal jabs or politics that seem to seep into every thread. ...

Also ironic is that Dan, a white man, is suggesting that the Native American tribe that named the museum should be offended by the name they decided on for it.

I never said that anyone should be offended. In fact, I literally said multiple times that I would never tell Indigenous peoples how to feel about the term. What I did was share how some Indigenous People feel about the term "First Americans" and shared their writing on the topic. It's hard to have a discussion when people distort your words. I am very careful not to do that to others and I'd appreciate the same.


as someone who is partially native american by two tribes, I like the name and think it is appropriate. This is probably one of the very few times where I disagree with Dan but I do respect his very intelligent argument and appreciate his and Swake's contribution to this forum and this thread (and I don't want him to go back to Tulsa). ..

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. And, just to be clear, I completely respect your opinion and would never tell you, or any Indigenous person, how to feel about the name.

On a separate note, the FAM video is interesting and obviously well produced. The Chickasaw Nation always produces quality materials. You can certainly see why they made the change from a marketing perspective. The video actually speaks to some of the issues I was trying to discuss, but it also leaves me with some questions. In the video, they specifically stated they wanted to change the previous name because it was "ahistorical" as they don't want to use the term "Indian"... The point I was trying to make earlier in this thread is that I also see the term "First Americans" as "ahistorical" because (a) most Indigenous nations pre-date "America" and (b) even the U.S. Constitution specifically identified Indigenous nations as separate, sovereign nations who made treaties with the United States. I guess it depends on how/when nations identify their histories and what they mean by "American." I really am interested in understanding this issue better if we can have a respectful conversation here. I might start by reading the histories on different nation's websites...

It is what it is. Someone or group of people signed off on this signature. There does appear to be a central color theme that blends in with the Scissortail Park and the new convention center.

https://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/large960_blur-448634f19b0f4f65ecfbb10f6bef105d.jpg

https://localtvkfor.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/promo394759251.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&w=1200

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELnLVmEWsAgHFeY?format=jpg&name=medium

Really like the coordination and complementary color blend. It's short and precise.
You should've included Embark.

And while we're debating the name, the place still isn't open......and won't be any time soon. OMG it's going to have to have those 15 year appliances replaced by the time the freaking thing finally opens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What do you do when your "new" museum is 20 years old before it opens the doors for the first time?

And while we're debating the name, the place still isn't open......and won't be any time soon. OMG it's going to have to have those 15 year appliances replaced by the time the freaking thing finally opens!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What do you do when your "new" museum is 20 years old before it opens the doors for the first time?
I believe this is just like the Western Heritage Museum (Cowboy HOF). Funding and completion took years.

You should've included Embark.

http://sdesigninc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/EMBARK-Logo-H-RGB.png
Good observation: Embark set the template for future branding design influenced the others. Wouldn't be surprised to see Embark add the color scheme to any future tweaks in their design once MAPS 4 goes into collections & implementation. Especially FAM which has elements of the color in Scissortail, angles in Convention Center & Embark.
https://cdn2.newsok.biz/cache/large960_blur-448634f19b0f4f65ecfbb10f6bef105d.jpg

https://localtvkfor.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/promo394759251.jpg?quality=85&strip=all&w=1200

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELnLVmEWsAgHFeY?format=jpg&name=medium

City has gotten ahead on how they want to brand all future related designs.

I like the name and think it's probably good marketing. I've always preferred Canada's "First Nations" terminology for their indigenous peoples. I think this is sort of a compromise between that and a name that non-natives might also find some ownership in. In a way it divides us less. The important thing is that hopefully this center will allow us to learn about and celebrate the wonderful and many cultures of early North America. It's long overdue for Oklahoma.

Now that the state is doing so well financially; kick some reimbursement funds OKC's way for the First Americans Museum (FAM). The Chickasaw Tribe has stepped up to finish the museum while Governor Stitt seems focused on the Tribes kicking in more to the state coffers.

The proposal includes up to $14 million from the tribe over seven years to cover anticipated operating deficits.

The Tribe will receive 100 acres of land to develop near FAM for finishing the museum. Could a large bank, hospital or 800 - 1,000 room hotel be on the horizon; think about the attractions you could bring to Oklahoma City like the NBA All Star Week activities & game if 1,000 more hotel rooms were added to the core.

What are your thoughts?


William Crum
by William Crum
Published: Mon, October 29, 2018 11:33 AM Updated: Mon, October 29, 2018 12:27 PM

Construction is expected to resume in January at the American Indian Cultural Center and Museum.

Blake Wade, chief executive officer of the Native American Cultural and Educational Authority (NACEA), says $50 million has been deposited in the museum completion fund.

There is $9 million from the city of Oklahoma City, $16 million in private donations and $25 million in state-issued bonds.

The authority board met last week, reviewing the status of fund-raising and plans for exhibits.

Indian Cultural Center construction to resume in Oklahoma City: https://oklahoman.com/article/5613264/board-looks-ahead-to-resumption-of-construction-at-the-american-indian-cultural-center-and-museum



https://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/aiccmhallofpeople.jpg



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49t1GwPdTXo

Now that the state is doing so well financially; kick some reimbursement funds OKC's way for the First Americans Museum (FAM). The Chickasaw Tribe has stepped up to finish the museum while Governor Stitt seems focused on the Tribes kicking in more to the state coffers.

The proposal includes up to $14 million from the tribe over seven years to cover anticipated operating deficits.

The Tribe will receive 100 acres of land to develop near FAM for finishing the museum. Could a large bank, hospital or 800 - 1,000 room hotel be on the horizon; think about the attractions you could bring to Oklahoma City like the NBA All Star Week activities & game if 1,000 more hotel rooms were added to the core.

What are your thoughts?



Indian Cultural Center construction to resume in Oklahoma City: https://oklahoman.com/article/5613264/board-looks-ahead-to-resumption-of-construction-at-the-american-indian-cultural-center-and-museum



https://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/aiccmhallofpeople.jpg



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49t1GwPdTXo

I think a large resort-type hotel would be great here. It would be right on the river, and could ferry up to the Riversport area. However, I think OKC needs 3,000 or more hotel rooms in the core to be even close to an NBA All-star game. But I agree with you about the hotel.

Walking distance is where this gets sticky... How about letting the Chickasaw Tribe develop the Cox site in exchange for those 100 acres?

6,000 hotel rooms are needed downtown within walking distance of the host arena. According to OKCTalk's site:

3,081 Built
1,069 Under construction (4,150)
356 Proposed

6,000 - 4,150 = 1,850 - 356 proposed = 1,494 needed; OKC will be in good shape to reach this goal by 2025

Downtown Hotel Summary: https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=34292

The demand for the Omni to add possibly 300-500 more rooms (expansion) could come it to play with the opening of the convention center. A large mega hotel in the core (Cox site) with Omni having 1st rights to bid if a hotel development is needed, plus OKC won't need to subsidize an additional hotel if Omni wants to execute those rights. The 4 block Cox site (Old Myriad) could be parceled back to 4 blocks and sold.

Omni would be forced to come up with a development plan if they want to exercise that clause they put into the hotel agreement with The City.

Hot Rod my friend, are you listening . . .

I would also add that the future streetcar expansion could cross the river to serve the FAM development by the Chickasaw Tribe. There are many scenarios that could come into play for this area.

I dont think a hotel at the site would make it. There are so many options around in the area already (which is a terrible area). There's absolutely nothing else to do over there either. The place suffers from being built in an awful location.

I dont think a hotel at the site would make it. There are so many options around in the area already (which is a terrible area). There's absolutely nothing else to do over there either. The place suffers from being built in an awful location.

They should absolutely play the lakeside location with water and golf cart type taxi's (to use the lakeside trails and even some sort of iconic pedestrian bridge across the lake. As was said earlier, access is the key thing and it should be made cheap, easy and fun.

Awful location?

What's at stake:


The $175 million, 175,000-square-foot museum is designed to Smithsonian Institution standards.

https://oklahoman.com/article/5649705/the-first-americans-museum-highlighting-oklahomas-39-tribal-nations-is-to-open-within-18-months.

The way I see it; OKC will develop this area b/c of its prime location, the apex of I-35/I-40 interchange.



https://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okshores.jpg

Infrastructure access to the site will be undertaken by OKC, possibly a new bridge; especially FAM where S.E. 15th entrance off Eastern Avenue will need to be upgraded to allow this area to interact thru lower Bricktown.

Good site for the MAPS 4 Multipurpose Stadium since the city owns the land; $37.5 million could build you a good 10,000 seat venue which will be more than adequate for the USL. You also have potential 2017 bond money for infrastructure which includes Eastern Avenue.

The OKC-Chickasaw Tribe partnership of 100 acres given them for finishing the museum will complement the museum. Anxious to see the area's future; I-35/I-40 Dallas junction of which ODOT funding will be needed.

Yeah, awful location. South of the river has NOTHING....NOTHING! It's not exactly a great part of town either from really any perspective. WIth C2S across the river, there's absolutely no draw over here near Eastern to build. We've got Old Paris and some trucking companies....that's really great neighbors to build from. I'm being blunt here, but the Crooked Oak area is rough....very rough.

From Saturday:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/aiccm012520a.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/aiccm012520b.jpg

Yeah, awful location. South of the river has NOTHING....NOTHING! It's not exactly a great part of town either from really any perspective. WIth C2S across the river, there's absolutely no draw over here near Eastern to build. We've got Old Paris and some trucking companies....that's really great neighbors to build from. I'm being blunt here, but the Crooked Oak area is rough....very rough.

So how does this area ever get better if it never receives investment?

I mean, cowboy hall of fame has been in its spot for how many decades and still we see no hotels, no restaurants to speak of (just Gabriella's really), etc. I'm not sure we should expect much of a different outcome here.