I was wondering, who is the richest family in Oklahoma City, that has had a positive influence on Oklahoma City's renaissance over the years?

The Kirkpatrick's?
The Gaylord's?

I would think the Nichols might be up there.

On the Renaissance, I'd say neither, now influential overall I'd say those two, but Nichols and Steve Mason have done more ro the renaissance than those two.

Ron Norick.

McClendon's are certainly a possibility

My vote is for Public; John Q. Public.

Do the Gaylord's even live here?

Do the Gaylord's even live here?

Nichols Hills.

I'd vote for the public. We the public, who funded the MAPS projects.

Yeah. OKC doesn't really have wealthy families honestly...

Go to Tulsa for that kind of hierarchy. They have it big-time.

Yeah. OKC doesn't really have wealthy families honestly...

Go to Tulsa for that kind of hierarchy. They have it big-time.

one of your worst coments on the board ever ..... you have no idea

Yeah. OKC doesn't really have wealthy families honestly...

Go to Tulsa for that kind of hierarchy. They have it big-time. Source?

Yeah totally wrong Spartan.

I'm wondering if this statement is based on the "wealthiest zip code" thing. So Tulsa might be in the #1 slot, but that's only because in OKC, the wealthy aren't concentrated in one area...they are VERY distributed. Yeah there are some pockets of higher income in places like Nichols Hills or Gallardia, but most of the high high income folks aren't in one area. Take a look at where McClendon built his new villa....it's not even IN a subdivision.

Ever drive around up near the Turner Turpike in far NE OKC? You'll find yourself some AMAZING land out there. Everywhere you go in any suburb or any quadrant of the city, you'll see massively amazing homes. You don't get those by askin "would you like fried with that".

Back to Tulsa, they simply chose long ago that class distinction was incredibly important and that an address meant more than anything. So you saw the city segregate itself into "classes". Tulsa's history is full of that kind of crap....and not just by growth patterns. In OKC, the exact opposite happened. There were SHORT lived times when the wealthy here liked to be near each other, but again, that didn't last. Outside of Gallardia, you aren't going to find a concentration of multi-million dollar homes.....people choose to live outside of those controlled communities when they have money in OKC.

Nichols Hills is full of wealthy OKC families. That is probably where the highest concentration of wealth is located. The eastern edge is very distinct though, as you leave Nichols Hills across Western it changes dramatically.

I think Spartan meant old-world, multi-generational, blue-blood, aristocrat money. Not "I started with $10 and made a billion" types. Think more Kennedy and less Ted Turner.

..

Nichols Hills is full of wealthy OKC families. OKC families ?

Don't forget Gaillardia.

My vote is for Public; John Q. Public.

I would second that.

one of your worst coments on the board ever ..... you have no idea

Wow, seriously? When was the last time the Kirkpatrick's dominated city issues?

That extremely wealthy people live in Nichols Hills (which by the way gets unimpressive BEFORE Western) and in other pockets throughout the metro is completely irrelevant to this. That a few extremely wealthy men dominate OKC politics behind the scenes is also completely irrelevant to this.

You guys completely misunderstood this topic. BoulderSooner, you're in left field. Bomber, you're rambling about something that's irrelevant to this thread.

G.Walker suggested the Kirkpatricks and Gaylords, neither of whom are really important any more. Hell, Christie (sp?) Everest-Gaylord isn't even the top local power broker that happens to office in the Dark Tower. Kirkpatricks? Go to Tulsa and you'll see a city that is still dominated by incredibly wealthy families that have stored up their money over generations. Like the Skellys, Chapmans, Bartletts, Kaisers, Stevensons, Helmerichs, and other big-time names in Tulsa..

Wealthy families are old money. Old money runs Tulsa. Individuals that hit it big are new money. New money runs OKC.

Wow, seriously? When was the last time the Kirkpatrick's dominated city issues?

That extremely wealthy people live in Nichols Hills (which by the way gets unimpressive BEFORE Western) and in other pockets throughout the metro is completely irrelevant to this. That a few extremely wealthy men dominate OKC politics behind the scenes is also completely irrelevant to this.

You guys completely misunderstood this topic. BoulderSooner, you're in left field. Bomber, you're rambling about something that's irrelevant to this thread.

G.Walker suggested the Kirkpatricks and Gaylords, neither of whom are really important any more. Hell, Christie (sp?) Everest-Gaylord isn't even the top local power broker that happens to office in the Dark Tower. Kirkpatricks? Go to Tulsa and you'll see a city that is still dominated by incredibly wealthy families that have stored up their money over generations. Like the Skellys, Chapmans, Bartletts, Kaisers, Stevensons, Helmerichs, and other big-time names in Tulsa..

Wealthy families are old money. Old money runs Tulsa. Individuals that hit it big are new money. New money runs OKC.

I agree with you, Spartan. The "new money" thing is intriguing here in OKC. Who do you think they are? I hear McClendon mentioned in this group and that's far from truth. It escapes many people that McClendon is part of the Kerr family - as "old money" as one can get in Oklahoma City.

I'm curious who you'd name - just 4 or 5. No particular order.

New Money - Love and Green.

OKC has never struck me as having a lot of "old money" either, at least not as much as other cities this size. By most historical standards this city is fairly new. Western and Central Oklahoma for the longest and even now has been dominated by oil and cattle. Most of the oil fields around OKC were administered by companies and people in Dallas, Tulsa, Houston, etc. And most of the big time cattlemen in this state tend to stick near their ranches, not move into the city.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most wealthy households in the metro areas made their money after 1970, about when the first energy boom kicked off.

So to answer the OP, its probably hard to pin down who is excatly the wealthiest family in town, simply because most wealthy people around here not named Gaylord lack the "blue blood" type mentality or are pretty low key altogether. And bomber has a point. The fact that most monied households are NOT in Nichols Hills kind of proves this.

Also, I could be completely off but is it something of a stretch to label the Kerrs as an OKC family? Sure Robert S. Kerr was a big player in OKC but wasn't that family largely from the Little Dixie area?

New Money - Love and Green.

That's 2 good "new money" families for sure.

That's 2 good "new money" families for sure.

Let me also add Hamm to the 'new money' list. Growing up Hamm's family didn't have two nickles to rub together.

so that makes Love Green Hamm.

I think McClendon is new money...the way he acts "new money" is about as flagrant as it gets. I don't think it matters if people were born with the proverbial silver spoon in their month, what's obvious is that Aubrey wasn't born anywhere NEAR as rich as he is now, not even the same hemisphere.

The only true old money family, true to OKC, I can think of off the top of my head is the Jones-Hall family.

Fred Jones family?

Fred Jones family?

Oops, Spartan just beat me to it. Simultaneous posts.

I think McClendon is new money...the way he acts "new money" is about as flagrant as it gets. I don't think it matters if people were born with the proverbial silver spoon in their month, what's obvious is that Aubrey wasn't born anywhere NEAR as rich as he is now, not even the same hemisphere.

The only true old money family, true to OKC, I can think of off the top of my head is the Jones-Hall family.

No. I don't accept that one. You can't discount all the connections and networking that doesn't have a dollar figure on it. Would Aubrey have the money he has today if he had not had those intangibles? Not to mention the enormous capital base? I mean, sure, someone who has a million dollars makes it easier to make 10 million. Extrapolate that and yes, Aubrey clearly has more money than he started with. But I don't classify Aubrey as "new money."

Just look at the ownership of the Thunder for a combination of wealth and influence. Aubrey McClendon, Tom Ward, Clay Bennet (Connected to the Gaylord Family), the Record Family, Bill Cameron. Some from old money for Oklahoma City and some new. Tom Love and David Green are definitley two wealthy people in OKC . David Green's influence seems to be more in the religious world. The Humphries family (Kirk, Craig, Kent, and their children) made their fortune selling Afro-Sheen and have significant political and business influence in the city. The Norick family was mentioned and has definitley left its mark.

The Nichols family of Devon Energy is definitley making its mark in downtown Oklahoma City these days. There are numerous medical doctors and attorneys with wealth and influence. Law firms such as Crowe & Dunlevy and McAfee & Taft have national influence among others. I know there are a lot of other families in OKC with wealth and influence. By the way, what is E.K. Gaylord II doing these days? He used to be involved with lots of business ventures such as Lazy E Arena, rodeo stock, movie production, and was publisher of the Oklahoman for awhile after his father died then handed it over to Christie if I am not mistaken. He seems to have disappeared from the Oklahoma City scene somewhat. I have not seen anything in the Oklahoman about him in a few years.

On a smaller scale, there are car dealers like Vic Diffee in Bethany that has a lot of money and influence there, and the Mathis Brothers seem to be doing pretty well. Remember when they owned the Redhawks baseball team? Bob Funk was one of the more wealthy people in the city area and was building a local minor league sports empire and had rodeo influence before his fortunes changed a little in recent years. I do not know how wealthy Hal Smith is, but his restaurant group seems to be doing well. One person that may get overlooked is Toby Keith. He is still making big bucks and has some political and business influence in the Oklahoma City area.

I am sure I have left out dozens of people and families, but these are some names I thought of.

Bigray in Ok

New money or old money, it spends the same way. It's the "riche" that counts.

I heard it said once, and there's a lot of truth to it, that if a person started kindergarten at (pick your elite school) they - by definition - can't be from "new money" if they go on to be successful. Here, that would be Cassidy. Forget his bloodline a minute - Aubrey started kindergarten at Cassidy. That was said at a dinner I attended and it got a lot of laughs (different family, different school, different city), but the guy said, "That's actually pretty true." And it really is.

New money or old money, it spends the same way. It's the "riche" that counts.

I think the 'old money' people would disagree with you.

I think the 'old money' people would disagree with you.

I never write this, but.....LOL! That's so true! "Just children trading marbles."

I think the 'old money' people would disagree with you.

They should always remember that there was a family member who started it all and was his/her generation's "new money".

Well according to Forbes, these are the people with money in the state.

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires/list?state=Oklahoma&industry=-1&country=225

I am intrigued by the old money that might not go accounted for by Forbes. Such as, the Manhattan Construction folks.

Well according to Forbes, these are the people with money in the state.

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires/list?state=Oklahoma&industry=-1&country=225

I am intrigued by the old money that might not go accounted for by Forbes. Such as, the Manhattan Construction folks.

Old money can get spreed thin fast.

Well according to Forbes, these are the people with money in the state.

http://www.forbes.com/wealth/billionaires/list?state=Oklahoma&industry=-1&country=225

I am intrigued by the old money that might not go accounted for by Forbes. Such as, the Manhattan Construction folks.

Yes, the Snyder-Italia name I forget family...

MikeOKC-As someone who is most definitely not from old money and yet attended Casady from Kindergarten through 12th grade, I have to roll my eyes at your stereotype. The vast majority of Casady students' families are from what I would call the Rising middle and upper-middle class. Lots of lawyers, doctors, and small business owners. Most Casady parents went to public school. And a much higher percentage then you probably realize of immigrant families. I knew kids from NE OKC and South OKC who went to Casady because their parents sacrificed like hell and lived frugally. There was an old money contingent, but as Spartan has rightly put it, that's a small group in OKC. I bet if you went down the Nichols Hills phone book, you wouldn't find 1 in 20 from a family whose name you would recognize. Maybe not 1 in 50. And by the way, I think that's a good thing about OKC. Much more potential for upward mobility here.

..And a much higher percentage then you probably realize of immigrant families.

My kids attended one of the top private schools here in Jax and I would guesstamate that 30% to 40% of the parents were not born in the US.

At Casady, it's not 30-40% but I bet 10-15% is reasonable. Thank you for proving my point.

You know, stereotypes are so fun.

All black people are gang members. All Muslims are terrorists. Everyone from south of I-40 is a redneck. All Casady kids are rich.

There are 1000 kids at Casady at any one time. Factor in brothers and sisters and that's probably 500 families. There are, at most, 50 old money families in OKC. Never mind that some families don't have kids, some kids go to Heritage, or McGuiness, or boarding school, or - perish the thought - Edmond or Deer Creek. But hey, why bother with reality when stereotypes are so much more fun?

Sorry if this topic chaps my ass, but it really does.

At Casady, it's not 30-40% but I bet 10-15% is reasonable. Thank you for proving my point.

You know, stereotypes are so fun.

All black people are gang members. All Muslims are terrorists. Everyone from south of I-40 is a redneck. All Casady kids are rich.

There are 1000 kids at Casady at any one time. Factor in brothers and sisters and that's probably 500 families. There are, at most, 50 old money families in OKC. Never mind that some families don't have kids, some kids go to Heritage, or McGuiness, or boarding school, or - perish the thought - Edmond or Deer Creek. But hey, why bother with reality when stereotypes are so much more fun?

Sorry if this topic chaps my ass, but it really does.

I was not passing along unreasonable stereotypes. I related a story told told at a dinner. It's not the end of the world for someone to think that most kids at Casady (or any other "College Preparatory Day School") are from wealthy families. First of all, that's not a stereotype - it's a fact. Yes, there are exceptions. Of course, we have to define wealthy and...seriously...you're getting worked up over a statement that is generally true. You don't just "scrimp by" and send your children to Casady. $32,000+ per year for 2 kids in high school? I think Casady is a great school, but let's not kid ourselves. It's mostly kids from wealthy families. And I'm not poor by any means. And I'm not complaining. But that's just the way it is.

FYI: Per Student

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/1449/casady.jpg

MikeOKC- We could go round and round about this all night and you're never going to convince me and I'm never going to convince you. I do know what I'm talking about.

Is Casady expensive? Yes, it is. No argument. I think we have to define wealthy. It's not unreasonable in this day and age for a family to have two college-educated providers. It's not unreasonable that by the age of 35 or 40, they could have a combined income between $100,000 and $150,000. With that income they could live in a decent house and put a couple of kids through Casady. Is that upper-middle class? Yes. It's barely wealthy, even by Oklahoma standards.

It's also true that somewhere around 15-20% of Casady kids are on full scholarships. The McClendons, Nichols, etc. Make this possible.

Of course this gets to the crux of the thread. What is old money? How do you define that? How many generations back? If one of my friends had a Dad who was a lawyer and made Casady happen, his kid went back east to college and came home to be a doctor, is that old money? If we're trying to define this and get an idea of how prevalent it is in OKC, we ought to have a metric. Is someone who is a fifth cousin of a minor oilie "old money?" I don't know.

But I am right about Casady. You wouldn't believe the family and financial circumstances of some of my Casady friends. But I'm never going to convince you.

Old money is when you are a distant second cousin through marriage and you still find a way to work someone elses last name into your own (see Kennedy or Rockefeller).

This thread is pretty ridiculous for a number of reasons. There are some obvious rich folks in this city but there are also numerous folks/families that have a ton of money that no one thinks about. You know, the people that have a large, unglamorous company and dont have to be in the limelight or newspaper.

And IMO, the way McClendon spends money and has to stroke his ego...Im going to say new money.

McClendon is Kerr money, as well as self-made.

EK II moved to Kentucky, and last I heard, was raising thoroughbred horses there, and maybe still dabbling in making crap movies.

BTW, there is no 'old money,' as the term is generally used, in Oklahoma. The state isn't old enough. 'Old money' would be fortunes that began to accumulate in 18th and 19th centuries - DuPonts and Astors and Lodges, for example.

BTW, there is no 'old money,' as the term is generally used, in Oklahoma. The state isn't old enough. 'Old money' would be fortunes that began to accumulate in 18th and 19th centuries - DuPonts and Astors and Lodges, for example.

I think oil allowed for the jump-start creation of all sorts of things that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

OK so hang on, are we saying that old money is worth more than the neuvo riche? last time I checked, when someone spent $50, it didn't matter where it came from. The only people that ever say it's "not the same" are the ones with the old money.

In fact, the New Money folks often spend it a LOT faster and pump more into the economy. They are the kind of self-made folks that spend spend spend to gather as much stuff in their lifetime as they can. The star burns bright and it burns fast. They often don't leave money to anyone until they die, and it's not going to be millions of dollars either. Point in case, check out lawyers and doctors. Big house, fancy cars, nice clothes, expensive trips....die, the kids get a little bit but by no means trust funds.

The old money folks are "long-termers". They invest more heavily and their goal is for the family to continue to live comfortably. They are usually more sustainable, but you know what...old money started as new money at one point as well. Rockefeller himself had a "no money" childhood. His father sold elixers. He was a self made man....he was new money....he was a businessman.

But you know what, if he went to Penn Square along side Dunlevy, I bet the food court wouldn't discriminate between their debit cards....they swipe the same....gold-plated or not.

bombermwc - "old money" is just as much about attitude as the actual wealth is. That is the difference. The Koch brothers have more money than John Kerry, but John Kerry still considers them hayseeds and not worthy of his social circle.

Point in case...only the old money people think they are more important. They missed the memo where no one cares.

Point in case...only the old money people think they are more important. They missed the memo where no one cares.

That is just it though - 'old money' does care that no one cares. They are self-absorbed. They care and this is all the matters to them.