I have read in the paper of different parties buying land/property there and the price range is anywhere from $300,000 to upwards of $500,000. The description reads like this: "(person's name) from The Centennial on the Canal LLC, property near the southeast corner of Reno and Santa Fe Ave." I have seen that more than once and was wondering what is at that location...

The Centennial on the Canal is a 5-story condominium complex set on the south side of Reno, just west of the Harkins theatre. Starbucks is in the North end of the Centennial building, and Red Pin Bowling is on its first floor.

Here is their web site.

The Centennial on the Canal (http://www.thecentennialonthecanal.com/index2.html)

thank you both...

That's the price range (if you can believe it) of their condos.

That's the price range (if you can believe it) of their condos.

I still think it's the worst design of the new residential developments downtown though. I walked by last night and noticed three glaring design issues:

1) EFIS exterior on the residential floors in BRICKtown
2) Small windows and the arches above the balconies make no sense-what is their purpose?
3) The building meets the canal well but its relationship to Reno is awful, should've come up closer to the street without those two small parking spaces.

JDM Place = good urban design in Bricktown
The Centennial = overpriced suburban design that doesn't belong in Bricktown

That being said I'm GLAD to see condos in Bricktown, I just wish this project could've been designed better but knowing how Hogan works I expect it. The Cotton Exchange will be much better IMO.

The Centennial looks like someone took a classy brick structure, ripped it off at the 2nd floor, and slapped some Orlando timeshares on top that don't match at all.

Maybe Kerry can shed some light on this, but the centennial really reminds me of a building in downtown Jax. Its downtown, but there's like a strip mall next door with a pizza joint which looks trendy, but is an overglorified Cici's. Hopefully time will prove me wrong.

A little under $300/sq.ft.

Who is buying these things???

I think there may be a lot of corporate buyers. That's what I heard.

Must be. I hope the market for those dries up quick so that regular folks like me can afford one of these things.

slapped some Orlando timeshares on top that don't match at all.

Gotta love the porthole windows. Ship's ahoy, matey!

I think there may be a lot of corporate buyers. That's what I heard.

As in buying for corporate use? To have a place for guests to stay?

If that's the case, it does nothing for downtown life. They are occupied by different people from out of town for weeks at a time and add nothing to the street life, neighborhood and what we're striving for.

FYI, this was 100% sold out. Owners are finally starting to move in. This stop was a part of our Downtown Living Tour today although no model unit was available today since it's 100% owner occupied and it's move-in day finally.

FYI, this was 100% sold out. Owners are finally starting to move in. This stop was a part of our Downtown Living Tour today although no model unit was available today since it's 100% owner occupied and it's move-in day finally.

Hi Metro....Thanks for helping out downtown today. Which property are you talking about in your post?

The Centennial (the one the post is on). I know at least 2 owners that live in the Centennial. I also know a few corporations bought a few units in here as well for execs, etc. I'm not sure the ratio, but I know some are full time owner occupied while the other are corporate. Either way, I think it's fine, corporate execs are usually from out of town and have serious money, they usually don't by groceries and cook in, so they end up going out to eat for every meal, and often are looking to shop/entertain themselves, so chances are, they are spending MORE money locally, not less as someone above had said. They also add to street life by walking to these venues, since they probably don't have their car in town.

The Centennial (the one the post is on). I know at least 2 owners that live in the Centennial. I also know a few corporations bought a few units in here as well for execs, etc. I'm not sure the ratio, but I know some are full time owner occupied while the other are corporate. Either way, I think it's fine, corporate execs are usually from out of town and have serious money, they usually don't by groceries and cook in, so they end up going out to eat for every meal, and often are looking to shop/entertain themselves, so chances are, they are spending MORE money locally, not less as someone above had said. They also add to street life by walking to these venues, since they probably don't have their car in town.

Sorry about asking what property. There seems to be a lot of discussion about different places in a lot of different threasds and I just wasn't paying attention.

I think we need to build neighborhoods downtown. To have so few availabilities for housing and then see a fair percentage bought up for luxury corporate suite use (which is probably a big part of driving the prices higher - who else can afford them?) is not what most of us have in mind when we think about urban living and a new thriving downtown life.

As you know, we've discussed this topic, it's a chicken and egg dilemma. The market has been so underserved, the developers want the cash cow, which is the upper end as we're seeing, we'll see more affordable options (there are already a limited few for sale and rent) continue as we gain critical mass downtown. Keep in mind we had almost nothing just a few short years ago and for decades past. Just getting bodies downtown will be a huge turning point and maintain the momentum needed for the average joe to be able to afford anything. The Maywood Lofts are well under construction and start at about $115K.

Keep in mind we had almost nothing just a few short years ago and for decades past. Just getting bodies downtown will be a huge turning point and maintain the momentum needed for the average joe to be able to afford anything. The Maywood Lofts are well under construction and start at about $115K.

I hear what you're saying. I understand the arguments. But the point is, for the vast number of people who might like to live downtown it's the same as there being nothing downtown. Making it a 'Nichols Hills South' (as in just another enclave of wealth), you won't have the diversity that makes an urban area thrive. There's an argument to be made the other way too - and that's building affordable living to drive as many people (rooftops) downtown and make the center city busy and alive which, in turn, makes the classier and more luxurious places even more valuable. Building what amounts to one big gated community for living downtown is not the answer, imo. The Maywood Lofts development sounds like a good start in the other direction - for condos anyway.

The Maywood Lofts are still around $225/sq.ft. They may have "started" at $115K, but now, the cheapest is around 750 sq.ft. and is around $175K.

I'd be nervous to get into one of those. I don't think these sorts of prices can be sustained.

I know it's several years away but once I-40 is relocated and the boulevard completed through downtown (probably 2014) we will start to see a boom in housing on the south end of downtown and a lot of it will be affordable. In the mean time hopefully more projects like Legacy and Maywood Park will spring up, maybe even some in less "desirable" parts of downtown like Film Row on Sheridan or points further west. Also look for more Banta historical conversions in and around Midtown which could have some more affordable apts. And then really the area north of Midtown along Robinson east of Heritage Hills has some older apt. buildings and townhomes. I have a friend that lives there and she loves it because it's more of a neighborhood but still very close to downtown.

The one thing the Centennial did was to set the comps for the downtown area. When we toured Block 42 a couple of weeks ago we asked if people were having problems getting loans on these properties and we were told by the manager that a lot of people had paid cash for their units at the Centennial. I think as long as you see people paying these prices we won't see the prices go down anytime soon.

The one thing the Centennial did was to set the comps for the downtown area. When we toured Block 42 a couple of weeks ago we asked if people were having problems getting loans on these properties and we were told by the manager that a lot of people had paid cash for their units at the Centennial. I think as long as you see people paying these prices we won't see the prices go down anytime soon.

Which just underlines my point. Downtown housing is becoming 'Nichols Hills South'. There are some progressive cities in this country that approve developments with ratio pricing (is that the right terminology? That doesn't sound right) in order to encourage -at least - semi-affordable housing in the urban core. Our "return to downtown" has quickly become an of, by and for the wealthy project with a wink and and a nod; and not so much as a raised eyebrow from OCURA. It's time they approve projects based not solely on developer's interests, but in the interest of the people by insisting on affordability to encourage a revitalization of downtown life by people of all means - and not just approve what amounts to gated communities in the form of luxurious condominiums at outrageous pricing.

Some would say this is typical of Oklahoma City with its history of mutual back scratching by the downtown crowd - and some things never change. But, did I say that? Why shouldn't we have realized from the get-go that this would quickly become a downtown populated by the city elite?

This city....no, this country....can look so backward when compared to European cities and urban life. Here - it's all about the dollar. Of course! It's just Suburbia In The Core! This way the Oklahoma City monied interests can "play city." How silly to have even thought it could have been otherwise.


"we asked if people were having problems getting loans on these properties and we were told by the manager that a lot of people had paid cash for their units at the Centennial"Yep. Why am I even surprised? It makes me wonder why I invest so much of my life hoping Oklahoma City will one day be what other cities already are! The same rightwing bunch still hold the cards in this town, just as they always have - only the names have changed.

EDIT: (I posted this in another thread with the same basic tirade.) I came back to remind everyone who thinks I'm a big lefty or whatever to consider who paid for the revitalization of downtown Oklahoma City. Who made it even possible for developers to have new valuable tracts of land to play with? Don't forget: WE DID. MAPS. MAPS. MAPS.....................

OKC isn't alone. I know for a fact Austin and Denver (I have lived in both cities) are having the same problem, and ordinary folks like us who want to live downtown can't because of high prices. It will never be cheap to live downtown but the city CAN step in and regulate things. I know in Denver they require downtown developers to include a certain percentage of units dedicated to affordable housing, basically units where the developer will lose money but because profit margins are so high on the other units it doesn't make that much of an impact. That would be a good place to start for OKC. Office-to-apt. conversions like Park Harvey and apts. like Legacy are still affordable, we just need more of them!

I don't understand what you are wanting solitude.

It costs a tremendous amount of money to develop these areas; the risk is enormous; and, the process is terribly complex and lengthy. There are many different constituencies that have to be included and satisfied, even if not always pleased. Really it is a wonder to me that some of these developments have happened at all given the nature and size of the obstacles.

New homes in suburban areas are in the $130 plus per square foot range now and that's on lots carved from land purchased years before and being built with relatively low priced materials.

There is significant profit potential in development but that potential is just that and many people think it is not sufficiently great to justify the risk.

Subsidies, which I gather is what you want, can come in various forms. But all such subsidies come with strings. Even the government eventually has to live in the real world.

From what I have heard... airline pilots, executives/business professionals, several retirees....

Exactly what flintysooner said. It costs more to build "up" and to make buildings last for decades and hopefully centuries. These aren't the wood frame (except The Hill) cookie cutter homes you're used to in OKC. These are on par or cheaper than homes on the coasts. As flinty said, developers will loose money on more affordable units. I want one as bad as anyone else and perhaps moreso. OKC is not unique in this problem. Look at Manhattan, it's filled with SUPER HIGH END real estate that often 3-4 normal people combined can't afford to share rent. The everyday joes live out in the other boroughs like Brooklyn, Queens, etc. and if it weren't for rent control, most of NYC would be "NICHOLS HILLS".

Exactly what flintysooner said. It costs more to build "up" and to make buildings last for decades and hopefully centuries. These aren't the wood frame (except The Hill) cookie cutter homes you're used to in OKC. These are on par or cheaper than homes on the coasts. As flinty said, developers will loose money on more affordable units. I want one as bad as anyone else and perhaps moreso. OKC is not unique in this problem. Look at Manhattan, it's filled with SUPER HIGH END real estate that often 3-4 normal people combined can't afford to share rent. The everyday joes live out in the other boroughs like Brooklyn, Queens, etc. and if it weren't for rent control, most of NYC would be "NICHOLS HILLS".

Apples. And. Oranges.

We can't compare OKC real estate to New York City! We have to compare it to Oklahoma City. Right now, living in downtown is 'Nichols Hills South'.

You are right in that other cities have this problem, I am right in that other cities also tackle this problem. Oklahoma City and its business leaders, the same bunch who've been running this town for years (only with different last names), will never allow downtown to become anything more than another enclave of wealth of, by and for the rich. They will want to keep out the "riff raff."

The elite of OKC get to "play city."

I'm ashamed I didn't see it coming.

sounds like you got some "david glover" type issues with the rich. i just don't get it.

Ask some of those 18 yr olds at the record scratching parties y'hang at, they'll explain it to you ed. Look for the one in the "Che Lives" shirt. LOL

Well, FYI, I am 48 year old man, I don't know David Glover and the only "issues" I have with the rich are the same ones that millions have - and that's politicians who pander to their every whim, approve developments for their pleasure (using taxpayer grants and taxpayer funded improvements that made their developments worth anything in the first place) and a downtown crowd where cronyism and back-scratching is the rule. By the way, they all tend to be rich and far to the right.

I'm not exactly broke myself; it's not a rich versus poor thing, it's a 'rich as special' versus everyone else thing.

If you were born, raised and educated in Oklahoma - you may not "get it."

that was a knock on ed for hanging out with teenie-boppers, not you!

Sol's right -- if I were to catalog some of the stuff I know about these guys, you'd think I should be wearing a tinfoil hat.

Solitude would know how I know what I know -- my father worked for Jan Eric Cartwright, possibly the last truly honest Attorney General for the state of Oklahoma. Had he continued in office, E.K. Gaylord and company likely would have gone to the pokey.

I'm not sure if things today are quite as bad as they were back in the 70's and 80's, but guys like Randy Hogan make me suspect the worst.

So are the stories of ol' whats his name breaking into chamber dudes office to see where Tinker would be, and then going out 'n buying all the property etc....true? LOL

'Ol what's his name probably wouldn't have had to break into anything because the Chamber is/was an organization which primarily advanced the interests of a select few under an air of legitimacy.

To be fair, I think that what's good for the elites in OKC or anywhere else is generally good for everyone else as well. While Bricktown might be Nichols Hills South, that's what we're going to want to have if we're going to have an upscale entertainment district to lure "creative class" types who will spur economic growth which helps everyone.

Could things be structured a little more fairly for the taxpayer? Sure. At this point, I understand that raging against the machine is basically an exercise in futility.

Apples. And. Oranges.

We can't compare OKC real estate to New York City! We have to compare it to Oklahoma City. Right now, living in downtown is 'Nichols Hills South'.

You are right in that other cities have this problem, I am right in that other cities also tackle this problem. Oklahoma City and its business leaders, the same bunch who've been running this town for years (only with different last names), will never allow downtown to become anything more than another enclave of wealth of, by and for the rich. They will want to keep out the "riff raff."

The elite of OKC get to "play city."

I'm ashamed I didn't see it coming.

I still disagree. Yes, unequivocally I know there is a HUGE NEED for more affordable housing downtown. I'm not rich by any means (well I take that back, but most Americans would disagree with me, if you make $35,000 or more a year, you're in the top 4% of wage earners in THE WORLD, if you make $47,000 a year or more, you're in the top 1% of wage earners in the WORLD, based upon this, we're all rich compared to most of the world), perhaps even make less money than you, but I OWN downtown. There are older, more affordable options downtown NOW. You just have to look for them because they aren't highly marketed. You can live downtown right now for less than 100K easily. Again, not a ton of this like we need, but they are out there for ownership. There are also TONS of affordable apartments that are comparable to suburban apartments in monthly lease rates. I'm tired of hearing this argument. I'm one of the BIGGEST downtown advocates I know, sit on the board of downtown residents association known as Urban Neighbors, and other organizations, I don't make a ton of money, and I own downtown, go to city council meetings and get involved. I think most citizens in this town just expect everything handed to them without doing much effort on their own. Bottom line, I wanted to live downtown big time, I found a condo dirt cheap and bought it. Those who want to live/rent/own downtown can do so for under 100K. The Maywood Lofts and Central Ave. Villas also have many units at affordable price points as well. Harvey Lofts sold fairly cheap as well, comparable to a small new construction home in the burbs.

Midtowner, the real creative class aren't the wealthy folk. The people you are referring to are the ones who leach off of the creative class for financial gain.

As much as I enjoy downtown, home in the burbs is looking better and better every day.

I'm not sure if things today are quite as bad as they were back in the 70's and 80's

I started working in the mid 1960's and I can say for certain that things are much more competitive and honest now.

I think most citizens in this town just expect everything handed to them without doing much effort on their own.

Good thing you're not running for office. That kind of statement can haunt a person forever if they have aspirations for public service. On the other hand, if you believe what you said - you probably shouldn't run again. (I read in an old thread where you ran for city council in Bethany or Warr Acres.) Contempt for "most" people in this city is not a good foundation to build good things on.

Do you really believe what you wrote? I know so many people who work very hard and get so very little in return. People that work 50+ hours a week and still can't afford health insurance. People who work so much to afford the basics of raising a family, that 'family time' is less and less as they face recalled mortgages, rising insurance premiums, rising food costs - and children in Iraq to boot. Worry and the costs of just making ends meet consume their days. For others, it's not bleak - but it's not easy, and they work hard and expect nothing handed to them.

Think about what "most" means in your comment. That is such an offensively broad statement about a majority of people in this city.

You can live downtown right now for less than 100K easily.

Where? I'm not begrudging the developers their prices. They should sell for whatever the market will bear. I'm just skeptical that they can continue to sell so high above the market. I believe that the market for this sort of housing is finite and I'm hoping that more competition will come in and start to bring down prices.

I think most citizens in this town just expect everything handed to them without doing much effort on their own.

Metro, while I generally agree with most of your comments, this one seems off base. I don't get the feeling talking with people around here that they expect everything to be handed to them. Quite the opposite. However, we should all expect that most of the residents of OKC should have a shot at decent affordable living in downtown OKC. And when I say downtown, I mean downtown, not something in Midtown. The economic and cultural diversity will make downtown OKC a more interesting place to live.

Living in other cities in the USA, OKC's problem is not unique. In most major US cities, it is very expensive to live in downtown, although there are some affordable options. In reality, the places that did it the right way are cities in Europe. If you want to see urban planning at is best, go visit places in England, Spain & France.

Most of it is out of my own range, but if there are folks buying, and the DT residential buildings are going at a rapid clip, how can the prices be above market prices?

As much as I enjoy downtown, home in the burbs is looking better and better every day.
I don't know why anyone would spend that much money to live downtown. The OKC public schools are horrible! Check out the API scores. At least in the burbs I don't have to worry about being robbed by a homeless bum, or having a homeless bum rape my wife. My family's safety is my top priority. And I want a decent education for my children.

Most of it is out of my own range, but if there are folks buying, and the DT residential buildings are going at a rapid clip, how can the prices be above market prices?

That depends on how you define "market." For the rest of the city, home prices are pretty far south of $100/sq. ft. I don't think there's much of a problem justifying paying a little bit of a premium for downtown, I'd say anywhere between $150 to $180 sq.ft. would be acceptable to me, but $225 sq. ft. is the average right now for downtown. $225 is also around what new construction in midtown costs (I just don't get that one). The price should be whatever the market will bear, but as with any product, the early adopters always pay a premium. I don't think $225 to $300 sq.ft. is sustainable -- especially when people start to resell.

Metro, you cite higher costs to build downtown, but how much of that is mitigated by TIF financing?

I don't know why anyone would spend that much money to live downtown. The OKC public schools are horrible! Check out the API scores. At least in the burbs I don't have to worry about being robbed by a homeless bum, or having a homeless bum rape my wife. My family's safety is my top priority. And I want a decent education for my children.

So do you propose we just keep things the way they are? There has to be people willing to take these risks and help out the community that has been neglected to turn things around. Yes OKC Public Schools need much improvement but they are getting better, and hopefully MAPS for Kids will help them become even better. FYI, they are working on building a new elementary school downtown, so that should help things out as well.

I've lived in west downtown (where most of the "homeless bum" or "homeless rapers" ) as you state for over two years, I haven't had one problem neither has my wife. We have felt safe the entire time, despite many homeless walking around in the area. Any big city has a problem with tackling the homeless population and trying to get them back on their feet. My church has a homeless ministry in which we help them on a regular basis, if this is something on your heart, I encourage you to help be a part of the solution.

Where? I'm not begrudging the developers their prices. They should sell for whatever the market will bear. I'm just skeptical that they can continue to sell so high above the market. I believe that the market for this sort of housing is finite and I'm hoping that more competition will come in and start to bring down prices.

I can name several older developments with prices from $45-85K. Classen Glen, and your own Sycamore Square. There are also several houses/duplexes/multi-plexes owned by private owners (that aren't highly marketed) that are less than $100K.

Newer developments: Harvey Lofts sold for about $140-$190sq. ft. depending on the floorplan purchased. Maywood Lofts are under construction and proposed to start at about $110-$120K on up.

Again folks, I understand just as much or more than everybody for more affordable housing downtown. I'd love to buy a newer unit at a realistic price. I can't afford a $200K+ unit just like most of you. I come from a lower middle class family and decided to get involved and be part of the solution, not a part of the problem. As they say, "if you want something bad enough, you'll find a way to make it happen." That's what I did, I wanted to live downtown hardcore, I searched (pretty easily actually, just get on MLS or look at online listings for sale) and found several properties within the downtown area that were under $80K to own. Bought one.

Again, as someone pointed out we have been told all along for several years now that the downtown housing revolution of OKC would start with the upper end and slowly work its way down to more affordable options. That's just the dynamics usually taken in ANY downtown, not just OKC. You think Lower Manhattan offers cheap living? Currently demand has outstripped supply in OKC for years, we're now playing catch-up. After these developers take their first risk and cash in on the upper end, they can use some of the profits to offer more affordable housing. Just look at Maywood Park vs. Maywood Lofts (same developer and $450K price difference). It will come, just be patient, Rome wasn't built in a day. I'm as anxious as anyone else.

So do you propose we just keep things the way they are? There has to be people willing to take these risks and help out the community that has been neglected to turn things around. Yes OKC Public Schools need much improvement but they are getting better, and hopefully MAPS for Kids will help them become even better. FYI, they are working on building a new elementary school downtown, so that should help things out as well.

I've lived in west downtown (where most of the "homeless bum" or "homeless rapers" ) as you state for over two years, I haven't had one problem neither has my wife. We have felt safe the entire time, despite many homeless walking around in the area. Any big city has a problem with tackling the homeless population and trying to get them back on their feet. My church has a homeless ministry in which we help them on a regular basis, if this is something on your heart, I encourage you to help be a part of the solution.

I don't think there's any saving the OKC public schools. And, I definitely don't want to "take a risk" with my children. That wouldn't be fair to them, just for the sake of my prideful hopes in the downtown area. metro, do you have kids? If so, don't you want the best for your children? Most good parents would.

Compare the API scores of the OKC public schools to those in Edmond and surrounding burbs. The OKC public schools are absolutely horrible, with a few exceptions, e.g., Classesn SAS, Belle Isle, Quail Creek Elementary, Nichols Hills Elementary, etc. . Most of the wealthier residents in the OKC public schools area send their kids to private schools. That's not going to change.

MAPS for Kids may help building newer and nicer buildings, but new buings won't change the quality of education these children are receiving. That's evidenced by the API scores. A new downtown elementary school won't help the poor quality of education in the OKC public schools. I don't care how many new buildings you build, it's not going to change the obvious.

You're lucky you haven't had any problems in the downtown area. But, if I love my family, and want the best for them, why should I locate in the slums of our city, with the absolute worst schools, when I can offer them the best in better areas in the metro? I want to live around people that have pride in their property and pride in raising their families. I don't see that in inner city Oklahoma City. All I see is decay and broken families. I wouldn't feel comfortable having my children play outside when there are bums high on drugs walking the street. Who knows what they could do to my children and my wife. It only makes sense to offer my family the safest place possible, and that's not in the downtown area. I should be able to feel comfortable in my neighborhood, comfortable leaving my wife at home with the kids, and letting my children play outside.

Like you say, there will always be a homeless population. I can provide a safe haven for my family away from all that, while still ministering to that population at the same time.

So, metro, where do you live now?

jsenter, I think that both of us (or both types of lifestyle) can be right. It's not a "right" or "wrong" situation. It's what works best for you. Your situation and beliefs work best for you, mine work best for me. I'm not the type that wants a sheltered life, I'm the type that wants to make a difference. Not saying you're not making a difference in your world, but I want to make a difference in the neglected part of our world, the inner city and downtown. Thankfully, both downtown and the inner city have made a huge comeback the last decade or so. We still have a long ways to go as you noticed. This change didn't come back by everyone running from the problem but tackling it head on, I'm a tackler. I think that's fine and unique and a healthy dynamic for a city to have it's differences. FYI, suburban schools such as Edmond and PC North are starting to have their fair share of drug problems by the way. Often suburban white schools have the worst drug problems because they have access to easy cash. I'm not going to elaborate anymore on this issue. Back to topic of the Centennial on the Canal.

You can make a difference in your world without lowering your standards, and ruining your children by making poor choices concerning their education.

I have no problems with downtown, and enjoy Bricktown frequently, but that doesn't mean I want to live there. I want to live in a nice neighborhood with good schools, one where parents are actually involved, and where they're actually concerned about the well-being of their children. That's not the case in most of the inner city OKC public schools. And only a select few inner city neighborhoods are actualyl well-maintained, and "nice neighborhoods."

And, choosing better schools, and a better neuighborhood for your children is called "making wide decisions" not "living a sheltered life". There's nothing sheltered about living in the PC North area, or living in the Edmond area.

I live in Edmond, but attend an inner city church, so my work is being done there. I can work in the inner city, while choosing the best neighborhood for my family, one where I can feel they're safe, and offer them a decent education.

Concerning schools, I think the API scores speak for themselves. When you have Deer Creek Elementary scoring a perfect 1500 (and the Edmond Schools scoring well above 1400, with a few scoring a perfect 1500), and Douglass scoring a 400 or something like that, I think the difference in education offered is obvious. The drug problem is a a side issue. It doesn't change the education that the schools are offering. And if you bring up your children right, you usually don't have to worry about it. I want my children to be around other students that actually care about their future and care about their well-being. I went to Northwest Classen, and was often taunted by the lower class students there because I wanted the best for myself, and wanted to succeed academically. I don't want my children to have to go through that. I want them to be challenged to succeed, not discouraged from succeeding.

Here's the link to API scores for the various schools in the state of Oklahoma:

http://sde.state.ok.us/NCLB/pdf/api2007.pdf

I think most citizens in this town just expect everything handed to them without doing much effort on their own.

Metro, I guess you were just going to ignore the responses to your outrageous comment? Is just ignoring the responses more of your "PR 101?"

In case you missed my response to your comment ---

Good thing you're not running for office. That kind of statement can haunt a person forever if they have aspirations for public service. On the other hand, if you believe what you said - you probably shouldn't run again. (I read in an old thread where you ran for city council in Bethany or Warr Acres.) Contempt for "most" people in this city is not a good foundation to build good things on.

Do you really believe what you wrote? I know so many people who work very hard and get so very little in return. People that work 50+ hours a week and still can't afford health insurance. People who work so much to afford the basics of raising a family, that 'family time' is less and less as they face recalled mortgages, rising insurance premiums, rising food costs - and children in Iraq to boot. Worry and the costs of just making ends meet consume their days. For others, it's not bleak - but it's not easy, and they work hard and expect nothing handed to them.

Think about what "most" means in your comment. That is such an offensively broad statement about a majority of people in this city.

Will you defend your statement, Metro, and tell us why you think most people in this city expect everything handed to them without much effort? What gives you that idea? Because we're not all ready to shell out upwards of half a million dollars to live in Downtown Oklahoma City? Are we not working hard enough? Your comparisions with Manhattan are laughable as well. If anybody has their hands out it's developers who want the taxpayers (at every level) to hand them grants, put a new face on downtown through MAPS so they can then take monetary advantage of the "new" downtown....on and on it goes. Maybe these are the citizens you were referring to.

Regarding the posts above, I think they refer to this as different strokes for different folks. And Im willing to bet most downtwon dwellers arent raising kids at the moment.

But back to the prices. I have the money and desire to live downtown, but it boils down to being a poor investment imo. I just dont think they are worth the prices being asked. I probably will just stick to a nice neighborhood close to downtown where I feel there is more bang for my buck.

You can make a difference in your world without lowering your standards, and ruining your children by making poor choices concerning their education.

I have no problems with downtown, and enjoy Bricktown frequently, but that doesn't mean I want to live there. I want to live in a nice neighborhood with good schools, one where parents are actually involved, and where they're actually concerned about the well-being of their children. That's not the case in most of the inner city OKC public schools. And only a select few inner city neighborhoods are actualyl well-maintained, and "nice neighborhoods."

And, choosing better schools, and a better neuighborhood for your children is called "making wide decisions" not "living a sheltered life". There's nothing sheltered about living in the PC North area, or living in the Edmond area.

I live in Edmond, but attend an inner city church, so my work is being done there. I can work in the inner city, while choosing the best neighborhood for my family, one where I can feel they're safe, and offer them a decent education.

Concerning schools, I think the API scores speak for themselves. When you have Deer Creek Elementary scoring a perfect 1500 (and the Edmond Schools scoring well above 1400, with a few scoring a perfect 1500), and Douglass scoring a 400 or something like that, I think the difference in education offered is obvious. The drug problem is a a side issue. It doesn't change the education that the schools are offering. And if you bring up your children right, you usually don't have to worry about it. I want my children to be around other students that actually care about their future and care about their well-being. I went to Northwest Classen, and was often taunted by the lower class students there because I wanted the best for myself, and wanted to succeed academically. I don't want my children to have to go through that. I want them to be challenged to succeed, not discouraged from succeeding.

Metro likes to live downtown, you like to live in the suburbs, so what's the problem? Why dig on metro because of where he chooses to live? He doesn't have to live in the suburbs just because you deem them superior to downtown.

BTW, are you related to mranderson?

So do you propose we just keep things the way they are? There has to be people willing to take these risks and help out the community that has been neglected to turn things around. Yes OKC Public Schools need much improvement but they are getting better, and hopefully MAPS for Kids will help them become even better. FYI, they are working on building a new elementary school downtown, so that should help things out as well.

I agree with jsenter in that nobody should subject their child to experiments and "take risks" to help turnaround a school district. The school district should turnaround and then ask parents to entrust them with their kids. It's obvious you have no children, Metro.

Metro, you have chose to respond to posts after a couple of us asked for explanations for your "most people in this city want everything handed to them," comment. Could you please tell us why you have such a low opinion of your fellow Oklahoma Citians?

Bump as Metro is online and I'm waiting to hear how he can possibly defend his statement.

i cant find my step ladder, can i borrow your soap box to change a light bulb?

i cant find my step ladder, can i borrow your soap box to change a light bulb?

You definitely need to change the light bulb as that was not a very 'bright' comment. :)

What's wrong with trying to hold somebody accountable for their words on a forum? Especially when it is somebody who makes almost daily proclamations that make it seem like he is Mr. Downtown himself. I don't think anybody should be able to get away with saying "I think most citizens in this town just expect everything handed to them without doing much effort on their own," - without explaing what the hell they meant! Especially when it's somebody who corrects every single poster here on the most minor of details.

But it looks like Metro is not interested in explaining his inflamatory remark that was a slap at "most" people in our city.

You definitely need to change the light bulb as that was not a very 'bright' comment. :)

What's wrong with trying to hold somebody accountable for their words on a forum? Especially when it is somebody who makes almost daily proclamations that make it seem like he is Mr. Downtown himself. I don't think anybody should be able to get away with saying "I think most citizens in this town just expect everything handed to them without doing much effort on their own," - without explaing what the hell they meant! Especially when it's somebody who corrects every single poster here on the most minor of details.

But it looks like Metro is not interested in explaining his inflamatory remark that was a slap at "most" people in our city.

:bow: :congrats:

people complain too much. especially on the internet. it's annoying. i dont think the huddled masses of okctalk need our own cesar chavez fighting against the injustices of internet discussion boards.