I spend a lot of time on the New Orlean's Hornet site because I've become obsessed with the team.. and I have no life.. :tweeted:


The latest article from Sport's Illustrated nominated our city as the Sportsman of the Year (which I thought was sooo cool!) but of course, you have the fans of NO suggesting we will never be a world class city.

We've gone back and forth, and I don't want to turn this into a NO bash.... but I want to know, what makes a city world class?

The point I made earlier was that the city of NO concentrated on tourism so much that they neglected the citizens and city.. the public schools and the crime rates are atrocious. The money they made from tourism wasn't allocated properly to the people..

But, what made NO a world class city drawing tourists and a major tourist attraction?

What can make OKC more of a world class city... since we have no huge body of water, does that discount any hope of ever becoming a tourist attraction/destination ?

I know MAPS and Bricktown have been amazing in our efforts to attract people .. any thoughts?

I tend to think that the citizens define the city and I feel we are a First class city all the way! But the tourism.... what can be done? More conventions, festivals?? What are your thoughts?

We could have built that giant indian statue.

The term is so subjective that it's difficult to even discuss. What makes a city "world class"? Does that mean that OKC will have a spot on my Palm Pilot when I'm selecting my time zone?

We could have built that giant indian statue.

I'm putting you in charge of that project - LOL
Wait, nevermind... we already have a giant indian on top of our Capitol Dome.. :wink:


What makes a city "world class"?

That's exactly what I want to know... what do people think makes a world class city?

Culture, history, location, attractions. Not to mention New Orlenas has about 300 years of development on us.

I think fsusurfer hit one big part of the equation: time. Culture and history, along with world importance, are usually the factors associated with a world class city. New Orleans is important historically because of it's role in the shipping trade for a couple hundreds of years. Along with the money and world importance, this brought in a lot of cultural influences, creating a cosmopolitan experience. One top of that, you have the Creole culture that makes it a unique destination. You're not going to find that anywhere else.

A city usually ascends to world class status on the heels of some sort of key role in commerce. New York. Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, New Orleans, all established themselves as America's early world class cities because they played such an important role in world trade. Culture and attractions kind of build up around that as it attracts all kinds of people. The cities character was often shaped by some sort of visionary person or persons at the time of their rise. I think this has been true of all important world cities in history, first came commercial significance and then a leader organized public resources to shape a city of unique character.

I think the things they have in common are unrivaled services and attractions supported by a public infrastructure, like great restaurants, spectator parks, unique places of historical significance, innovative architecture, competent public transit, arts provided by the world's best talent, all packaged in unique way that characterizes and distinguishes life in that city.

I don't think OKC is a world class city, but it is beginning to take steps and do the things that world class cities do. It is a young city, really, and very few cities we consider "world class" cities can claim that they were such in their first 100 years or so. And, honestly, for OKC to become a world class city, at least in the traditional manner, it will probably take an economic boom that is disproportionate to competing markets. In the end it really is relative and as long as OKC is a slow growth city, it probably won't achieve such status in our lifetimes. But all it really takes is one large economic boost to nudge it into that playing field.

That doesn't mean that it can't be a first class city, with first class amenities and attractions. I think we will see it regarded as such in the near future. I think as along as OKC continues the trend of doing quality things on a manageable and reasonable scale, it will continue to grow in quality of life and public stature. Are people going to begin talking about it alongside London, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, et al? No, but it is rapidly shaking its dusty image of a hick town with nothing to do and replacing it with an image of surprising attarctions and services with a good quality of life.

Did that rambling make any sense?

Of course, we can find the definition in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_class_city

which reads reasonable enough.

People have too often confused this word to mean "top quality", when IMO it really means significance. Does the economy and culture affect other places? So I don't think OKC is world class -- but then again, 99.9% of American cities aren't. New Orleans is not world class, but Houston is. Indianapolis isn't but Chicago is.

Perfect sense..

...but I agree with Midtowner, it's very subjective.

New Orleans is not world class, but Houston is.

I can agree with that, but I think, becuase of history, the eperception is not always the same. New Orleans has a lot of equity in its history as the world class city it once was, while many would hesitate to call Houston world class. I think you're getting into opinions there. I mean, there are people that wouldn't call Los Angeles world class, not becuase they see little world improtance, but becuase they see little class.

I can agree with that, but I think, becuase of history, the eperception is not always the same. New Orleans has a lot of equity in its history as the world class city it once was, while many would hesitate to call Houston world class.

I agree with the culture and history with New Orleans. So unique. Culturally, it's important to the US; to the world, well....

Houston makes it IMO because of its centrality to oil. It's very diverse (there is a Philippine consulate there). It contributes not just oil, but western culture, aerospace (NASA), inland shipping, and medical innovation.


I think you're getting into opinions there. I mean, there are people that wouldn't call Los Angeles world class, not becuase they see little world improtance, but becuase they see little class.

haha.

I think world class also has to do with the type of people living in your city. The riff raff living in New Orleans brings the overall class of their city down to almost nothing.

Rednecks don't help our case out, but we have enough classy people around here to help our cause to some extent. Just stay away from the trailor parks.

Much more inland shipping moves through New Orleans than does Houston, come on. And while New Orleans is (was, but hopefully will recover) a pretty small world class city, it still is one. And you also seem to be confusing New Orleans being poor with it's not being a world class city. There are a lot of poor world class cities.

And, New Orleans culture certainly is recognizable around the world, Creole and Cajun food, Mardi Gras, New Orleans's unique architecture. It's unique blend of cultures from France, England and Africa make it one more thing that is absolutely required of a World Class City. Unique.

It has to be Unique.

Is Houston unique, or does it just have a nice skyline?

Is Tulsa unique, or does it just have a nice skyline?

There are a lot of poor world class cities.

That's very true. Rarely does a city of any real size not have poor people. A lot of small town and suburbs around large cities may be exclusively well to-do people, but you get over a million people in a community and they are not all going to be pulling down the big bucks.

And, I agree, New Orleans's cultural events definitely help it out. It's definitely smaller than most, but I think that helped it in a way. It's capability to maintain world attraction despite it's size says something about its strength of culture. However, I would still argue that it is largely living off its past. There's nothing wrong with that and it will always be cool to visit (if for nothing else, because of the food).

I'm not a big Houston fan, but it has grown into a very important world city and more and more cosmopolitan. New Orleans and Houston I think are a good contrast, showing the world class city of yesterday on one side, and the world class city of tomorrow on the other.

What makes a city "world class"? Does that mean that OKC will have a spot on my Palm Pilot when I'm selecting my time zone?

New Orleans doesnt anchor a time zone (Chicago does), so I guess NO arent World Class either.

In my opinion, I think there are only a hand full of World Class cities on this continent and (sorry) none of them are in the SE/SC United States.

my top 10 list would include:

New York
Chicago
San Francisco
Boston
Toronto
Washington
Vancouver
Los Angeles
Mexico City
Montreal

Honourable mentions:
Philly (I think Montreal edges out Philly, but really they might be a tie for 10)
Baltimore (but could be included into Washington to make Wash/Bal)
Miami (moving up fast but really does not offer substance other than the high fashion and tourism industry). Way above NO i might add.
Dallas (trying, but way too suburban and vanilla)
Aspen (its aspen)

I definitely think OKC is a great, First Class city. Not World Class yet but thats ok. First Class might be good enough.

I didn't think New Orleans was world class to begin with. Oklahoma City, as much as I want it to be, is not (yet :)) world class. When I think world class I think...

London, Paris, Rome, Moscow, Beijing, Sydney, Hong Kong, Tokyo, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Cairo, Rio de Janiero, Mexico City. Perhaps some others, but just off the top of my head this is what I came up with.

Is Tulsa unique, or does it just have a nice skyline?


The older parts of Tulsa are unique, Tulsa has a specific and unique history to it that few cities it's size and age can match. And a skyline that is far beyond it's size. Far beyond OKC's too. That's true in quality of historic buildings, sizes and height of buildings in downtown.

Tulsa's area has a lot of natural beauty too, which is rare for cities in this part of the country. Kansas City and Little Rock would be exceptions that I can think of.

But I was not talking about OKC, I said Houston. Houston's downtown is great looking, huge and new. Houston is a fast growing city in size and as a business center. To me the city really sucks, they have no zoning, traffic is awful and along with New Orleans, it's got to the hottest place on earth. I neither want to visit Houston if I can help it, much less ever want to live there. It's probably a world class city, but not to New Orleans level.

Tulsa is nowhere close to a world class city, nor is Oklahoma City.

And being a World Class City has nothing to do with having a NBA basketball team. Part of the reason that sports fare so poorly in New Orleans is that there is so much else there. that and the fact that it and it really is a poor city that was a very small market for pro-sports teams.

I really love New Orleans. It's a great place to visit and soak up the culture, the history. It's a hell of a lot of fun too. I hope it's back to something close to what it was before in a few years. I also, would never live there. Like Las Vegas, it's a great place to visit, but I would not want to live there.

I think Oklahoma City is one of the best cities in the U.S. now, sure there's plenty of improving to be done, but it definitely isn't the city it was 10-15 years ago. Actually, some people who came here during the Katrina evacuations liked it so much they're staying put.

OUman

And a skyline that is far beyond it's size.

It's okay. Maybe for the city's size, you're right. I don't see it's vertical skyline as all that striking. There are some great smaller buildings, though. But, that's generally where the detail shows up in most cities. I don't think the tall structures are all that impressive though.

swake, I actually agree with you all the way. I agree that Tulsa is unique as well, especially the many historic buildings you guys have. I'd actually have to say that Tulsa is closer to being a world class city because of its history and arts, but I agree with you that neither Tulsa nor OKC are world class. As many others have said, history makes a city world class. Oklahoma simply isn't old enough to have the history needed to create world class cities. That's nothing bad against Oklahoma, just stating the obvious.

I think OKC should be concerned with making the city a regional destination. When I say regional, I mean Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Arkansas (the "southwest region"). We need attractions to draw people from our region, and even more so from other regions such as the south, north east, west. I'm origionally from Florida, lived here over 3 years now. Would I have ever thought about visiting Oklahoma City on a vacation before I moved here? Heck no. New Orleans, yes, went there many times as it was only a 4 hour drive. If we can attract tourists within a 4 hour range, the city is doing pretty dang good.

The surfer speaks the truth.

Houston's downtown is great looking, huge and new. Houston is a fast growing city in size and as a business center. To me the city really sucks, they have no zoning, traffic is awful and along with New Orleans, it's got to the hottest place on earth. I neither want to visit Houston if I can help it, much less ever want to live there. It's probably a world class city, but not to New Orleans level.

And being a World Class City has nothing to do with having a NBA basketball team. Part of the reason that sports fare so poorly in New Orleans is that there is so much else there. that and the fact that it and it really is a poor city that was a very small market for pro-sports teams.



No, I'm not basing Houston's status on appearance. I think it's a monstrosity. It's a butt of jokes. But so is Mexico City. Again, it's based on its contributions. But there's no question it's not on the level of the obvious cities -- DC, NYC, LA, Chicago.

I couldn't agree more on the importance of sports. It has nothing to do with being a world class city.

I think if OKC just concentrates on doing everything first-class, then status and other positives will follow.

swake, I actually agree with you all the way. I agree that Tulsa is unique as well, especially the many historic buildings you guys have. I'd actually have to say that Tulsa is closer to being a world class city because of its history and arts, but I agree with you that neither Tulsa nor OKC are world class. As many others have said, history makes a city world class. Oklahoma simply isn't old enough to have the history needed to create world class cities. That's nothing bad against Oklahoma, just stating the obvious.

You are exactly right.

It's okay. Maybe for the city's size, you're right. I don't see it's vertical skyline as all that striking. There are some great smaller buildings, though. But, that's generally where the detail shows up in most cities. I don't think the tall structures are all that impressive though.

yeah becausae the midcon tower really sucks, and it's taller than any building in OKC.

No, I'm not basing Houston's status on appearance. I think it's a monstrosity. But there's no question it's not on the level of the obvious cities -- DC, NYC, LA, Chicago.


I have to disagree here. DC? Great city? I think Houston whips DC butt as a "city"....I thing greater Houston is actually underrated. LA? It's just another city made up of a collection of suburbs, nothing special about it - used to be, but not anymore. Ugh, what really gets me is to see DC on any list of "great cities."

Tulsa has a specific and unique history to it that few cities it's size and age can match. And a skyline that is far beyond it's size. Far beyond OKC's too. That's true in quality of historic buildings, sizes and height of buildings in downtown.

That's debatable! You know, Tulsa just doesn't have the rocks it once did. Better try picking on cities in your league, like Omaha, Little Rock, Wichita, etc.

Washington is an incredible city. Both DC, which is small and has maybe half a million people, and then the greater Washington/Baltimore area with well over seven million. To compare Washington to Houston is crazy.

Washington is an incredible city. Both DC, which is small and has maybe half a million people, and then the greater Washington/Baltimore area with well over seven million. To compare Washington to Houston is crazy.

Definitely agreed SWAKE. Houston can not hold a candle to DC, neither World Class(ness) nor population/significance/etc.

Houston is a great South Central city and is pretty First Class but by no means does Oil Capital translate into World Class!

It's not what a city looks like, it's what a city does. LA is the manufacturer of pop culture - that's why it's a world class city. And DC, well it should speak for itself, only the most powerful city in the world (at least politically) -- and as Hot Rod and swake said, a pretty dandy town.

I still think world class is based on significance. Just because you're older doesn't mean you're more important. It's like saying you have to start five guys on a team just because they're all seniors. Athens is older than NYC, and although its earlier generations have had a tremendous impact on the world, doesn't mean present-day Athens is more important.

I don't really see what makes Houston world class. I mean, I can't think of anything significant there. I know I'm not an expert about different cities, but seems like if Houston was so world class, I could name at least one world renown structure from that city.

DC has the White House, all of the monuments, Smithsonian, US Capitol, etc. How can you say it's not a world class city? It's the capital of the United States for crying out loud. Look at all of the history in that city.

New York: Empire State Building, Brooklyn Bridge, Subways, WTC, Statue of Liberty. Once the largest city in the world. Center of American economy. Wall Street. Stock exchange.

LA: Hollywood.....enough all by itself.

I don't know, Patrick. I couldn't tell you of any building about LA, but most of us think it's world class. As far as Houston, well I just followed Wikipedia. It's a butt ugly city, but I don't think you can deny dozens of Fortune 500 companies (second only to NYC). I don't know. Oil and NASA mean something to me. But if you ask a foreigner about some western city, they'd probably mention Dallas sooner, thanks to the power of TV.

we are not world class. we are not even a jewel of a city for the states, im saying this and i love it here. NO is not world class either. nyc, dc, beijing, tokyo, london. you get the pic.

I think that a "world class city" markets itself. I just bought a book about the Seattle Space Needle. Very few people before the Worlds Fair new anything about Seattle. It was important in that region of the states; but it was not world class. It was a hard political road to build it, but when they did, they had an icon that set their city apart. I hate the Indian idea. It's terrible. The Space Needle had nothing to do with Seattle or its history. It was just different. Do we always have to build things that reflect our heritage? Lets be progressive and set ourselves apart by building something that no one else has thought of. Our Arch, our Empire State Building--- We have enough oil money to do it right now anyway.

Seattle is not world class. Nor is Houston or Dallas. Or OKC.

Now, all of those cities have World Class amenities and are First Class cities.

But the ONLY world class cities in this country are New York, Chicago, San Fran, with LA bringing up the rear.

And Floater, I think Chicago would have something to say regarding the Fortune 500 2nd City claim as they are behind New York. Perhaps Houston moved up because of the inflated oil revenues but in reality, Chicago is and always will be America's 2nd Big City!

I think that a "world class city" markets itself. I just bought a book about the Seattle Space Needle. Very few people before the Worlds Fair new anything about Seattle. It was important in that region of the states; but it was not world class. It was a hard political road to build it, but when they did, they had an icon that set their city apart. I hate the Indian idea. It's terrible. The Space Needle had nothing to do with Seattle or its history. It was just different. Do we always have to build things that reflect our heritage? Lets be progressive and set ourselves apart by building something that no one else has thought of. Our Arch, our Empire State Building--- We have enough oil money to do it right now anyway.

Actually Seattle has a rich "indian" (or better terminology) aboriginal heritage, moreso than Okladoke! I mean, remember - the land bridge from Asia to Alaska then they settled in this region (as we are pretty close).

Space Needle is Seattle's icon. It does not make Seattle world class by any means, BUT it is a World Class icon! It is THE basis for many future such monuments in cities around the world and is one of the few recognized landmarks in this country.

I just thought I'd throw in my two cents, as Seattle has rich "indian" heritage and the Space Needle (teepee design) is totally appropriate for the region!

Have you ever been to Seattle? Believe me... it is now world class. Frank Gerhy's Music Experience building, one of the worlds largest ports/fish markets, Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, and pure beauty. People respect Seattle.

It is not a teepee design. Remember... I bought the book. It is based off of "space age" flying saucer imagery. Quite relevant in 60's. Not indians. Maybe people later realized it might look like a teepee on a stick. Lots of people thought Eero Saarinen's TWA airport terminal looked like a bird. Make since... But he never designed it with that inspiration.

And Floater, I think Chicago would have something to say regarding the Fortune 500 2nd City claim as they are behind New York. Perhaps Houston moved up because of the inflated oil revenues but in reality, Chicago is and always will be America's 2nd Big City!

Case closed. I guess that's what happens when you read Wikipedia. I really am not a fan of Houston. I've been to Chicago and loved it except for the traffic on the Dan Ryan; I agree one hundred percent that it is the Second City; and I am such a fan of Tina Fey...

Have you ever been to Seattle? Believe me... it is now world class. Frank Gerhy's Music Experience building, one of the worlds largest ports/fish markets, Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, and pure beauty. People respect Seattle.

I Live here (Seattle)!

Its not world class. Believe me!

It has world class amenities, and so does OKC. But Seattle aint at the same level as New York, Chicago, San Fran. And Seattle aint world class.

We dont even have Boeing anymore, not that companies make you world class. Not sure if people "respect" Seattle moreso than they think it is cool (like you).

It is not a teepee design. Remember... I bought the book. It is based off of "space age" flying saucer imagery. Quite relevant in 60's. Not indians. Maybe people later realized it might look like a teepee on a stick. Lots of people thought Eero Saarinen's TWA airport terminal looked like a bird. Make since... But he never designed it with that inspiration.

Actually, it is a space saucer on a teepee design. Honestly, I dont really care about the design of the space needle. Im not going to go into debate about such a worthless landmark, that it is.

But I am from Seattle so I thought I'd clarify that none of the cooky buildings or companies we have/had here make Seattle world class. It just is not at the same level and probably never will be.

A cool city, YES. But definitely not world class.

(and our port IS NOT the largest nor is it one of the largest. Heck, Tacoma's port is larger than Seattle's).

Oh well thats your opinion. I have traveled extensively and will concede that there are far more world class cities than Seattle. However, I think that most people think that Seattle is world class. Yes, it has its problems. But its "worthless" landmark as you put it. However it exemplifies "progressive" thinking that is the halmark of the city. Very few cities can compete with the incredible people there. I think that much of they're architecture exemplifies it. What makes a city world class? I contend that it is a city that knows how to market itself and has the people, the architecture, and the atmosphere to back it up. However, you are right about Houston and cities do evolve. Cities have been historically significant can die, and cities that are insiginificant can rise. Just look at American history. Seattle to me is a world class city. Perhaphs as a resident, you just happen to know all its flaws.

Oh well thats your opinion. I have traveled extensively and will concede that there are far more world class cities than Seattle. However, I think that most people think that Seattle is world class. Yes, it has its problems. But its "worthless" landmark as you put it. However it exemplifies "progressive" thinking that is the halmark of the city. Very few cities can compete with the incredible people there. I think that much of they're architecture exemplifies it. What makes a city world class? I contend that it is a city that knows how to market itself and has the people, the architecture, and the atmosphere to back it up. However, you are right about Houston and cities do evolve. Cities have been historically significant can die, and cities that are insiginificant can rise. Just look at American history. Seattle to me is a world class city. Perhaphs as a resident, you just happen to know all its flaws.

I agree to concede also. Many people up here like to pretend they are world class and such - and ride the bandwagon that you and others PLACE Seattle on top of. But this isnt reality. Can't hold a candle to Chicago - hence why our LARGEST employer moved there!

(and funny thing is, we dont pay income tax here in WA, IL does - but they still moved the top brass of Boeing to Chicago, that screams world class!)

Dont get me wrong, Seattle is a great city. I chose to live here. There are many cities better than Seattle, but I like the bohemian progressive spirit that IS the true Seattle.

I also understand and appreciate your opinion as well. To me, it sounds just like the tourism authority programmed your brain (ha ha ha) but hey, if it works - why not (now why can't OKC copy that strategy???)

I do agree wholeheartedly that Seattle is a progressive city. There is not much that one can't get away with in this place (US standards). Im not really sure I agree with the architectural observations (as I think they are one sided toward Post Modern and Futuristic, not enough balance at all) nor the companies (as SF bay area has way more progressive companies than we do, hence one of the reasons SF is world class).

Now that being said, I chose to live here - it aint world class. and that's ok. Honestly, that is the message that OKC needs to hear - its OK not to be world class - but have world class attractions/amenities and offer a First Class city for your residents and visitors. Now I definitely think Seattle does that (except with the transportation issues) and I think if OKC wanted to model from Seattle - take the positives that Urban Pioneer mentions and not the negatives!

Continue the Renaissance!

Nice list Hod Rod but very North American centric. I think a real list of World Class would be as follows

New York
Paris
London
Tokyo
Hong Kong
Singapore
Sydney
Rome
Berlin

Each of these cities drive the commerce, art and culture of not just their own country, but the whole world. These are true teir 1 cities. Places like Chicago, Houston, Moscow, Madrid, Rio,and San Francisco have influence at the country level but don't play on the world stage like the top ones. I would consider OKC and NO to be marginal tier 3 cities - important to the region but not much impact outside of that.

Nice list Hod Rod but very North American centric.

Very true Kerry. I did say "on this continent" and "NA world class cities".

I do agree with your worldwide list, and I could add more! :)

OKC is very much a regional power center, being the capital of Oklahoma and its largest city with a variety of industries and a metro population of 1.2 million. I don't see this changing in the near future just like I don't see cities like Omaha, Birmingham, Little Rock, Des Moines, Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, Louisville, etc. becoming nothing more than regional centers. National power centers include Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Denver, San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, St. Louis, Cleveland, Minneapolis, etc. with cities on the fringe being places like Austin, Nashville, Tampa, Indianapolis, and San Diego. OKC should aspire to be like one of these cities on the fringe in the next decade or so.

OKC should aspire to be like one of these cities on the fringe in the next decade or so.

Good points. Personally, as long as OKC continues to upgrade it's inner city and add quality attractions and services, I'm good. IMO, there's nothing wrong with operating on a smaller scale, as long as it's quality and attempts to be unique.

like Chicago, Houston, Moscow, Madrid, Rio,and San Francisco have influence at the country level but don't play on the world stage like the top ones.

I would hesitate to say these cities don't play a part in the world stage, economically or creatively. Maybe not as consistently, and maybe they that's the caveat you're trying to make.

All of these "World Class Cities", "First Class Cities", and even "Cities on the Fringe" seem to have one thing in common that drives their economies and generate tax revenues to pay for all of their attractions... huge, powerful companies.

Maybe we should talk more about how we can attract those type of companies. Maybe we already are talking about that in another thread and I just don't know.

It's ironic that these "progressive" cities are driven by huge corporations.

Not to mention New Orlenas has about 300 years of development on us.


Not anymore!!!! It's was all underwater for awhile.

Right-to-work does not make a city a world-class city.

Building that Native American History center would definitely help. It would be THE single major tourist destination in the state, when completed. People would come from all over to see that thing and in the process see the rest of OKC. Completing it would be the single biggest step OKC could take to improve tourism.

Expanded gaming and gaming downtown would help. Allen Iverson was at a casino when he was in town. People definitely visit casinos when they travel.

The river has so much potential, when it has water in it anyway.

Having professional sports teams helps to make a city.

Buck-naked strip clubs would help. Seriously, that is one question people ask when they get to a city and they are going to go to a club, "do they get naked". Buck-naked strip clubs would make OKC memorable.

Legalize marijuana. It sure helped amsterdam.

All of these "World Class Cities", "First Class Cities", and even "Cities on the Fringe" seem to have one thing in common that drives their economies and generate tax revenues to pay for all of their attractions... huge, powerful companies.

Which pretty much has always been the case. People go where they can make money. When they get there, they want something to do.

"World Class City" is an absolutely meaningless term. Loudly pointless.

At least terms like "cosmopolitan," "international" or "sophisticated" imply something a little more specific -like their airport has lots of direct international flights.

About New Orleans, like it or not, has the history of being a very important center of our culture. New Orleans is the birthplace of Jazz -the only art form invented in the United States. One can say Blues, Rock & Roll and even modern country music can all draw roots back to Jazz. International influence is very present in New Orleans. The city has also been very important in our history. Andrew Jackson and his rag tag group beat the mighty British Army in the Battle of New Orleans.

However, that history and culture doesn't mean New Orleans is a large enough market (anymore) to support an NBA franchise like the Hornets. I'm all for the team staying in Oklahoma City. That team has been on the move over the years anyway. Didn't it begin in Charlotte?

New Orleans has had, and lost, NBA teams previously. And that begs the question: why is the NBA team in Salt Lake City called "The Utah Jazz?"

Regarding other slams or raves on other American cities, they're all arguable pro/con. The United States is a relatively young country, but it has a good number of great, and fairly great cities.

One poster asked, "name an important building in Houston." The Astrodome immediately popped into mind. That's the original domed stadium, a concept copied many times by other cities. Though they can complain about the evil of domed stadii -they still copied it.

The population within the city limits of Houston quietly surpassed the 2 million mark a couple or so years back. I heard a lot more noise about cities like Phoenix and San Diego hitting the 1 million mark for actual city limits population.

And then there's Oklahoma City.

I think OKC has a lot of potential. The city is already a transporation hub, although I strongly believe OKC needs a diagonal Interstate built to Denver as part of a badly missing spoke in that highway system.

However, we doesn't need more gambling casinos. There's too many of them already and most have a half-baked, half-effort feel to them. If I liked gambling, I wouldn't go lose my next three house payments in a neon bordered corrugated metal shed. I'd fly out to Las Vegas and visit some real casinos instead.

We don't need any more strip bars either. They're counter-productive. Lots of men don't even have good times when they visit such places. They just look at what they're not getting. Pretty masochistic if you ask me.

OKC needs activities, culture, events, retailers and above all other things -employment opportunities- that will attract and retain young, college educated female workers. There's your angle right there for economic development: attract the women.

The best cities in America are typically those which are desired by women. And where the women go, the men will follow. Women like cities with glamour. And that's something sadly in short supply within all of Oklahoma.

What Oklahoma City needs is a more prominent voice in our popular culture. How many movies have used OKC as a backdrop? Or TV shows? Music videos? Sure, Garth Brooks and Toby Keith are from Oklahoma. But how many rockers are from the area?

Oklahoma City needs to find ways to visually amp up its cool factor.

How do you create that? It isn't easy, because it involves a lot of steps and demands participation by lots of people. The first step is making people give a hoot at all about their community. Your city is not cool at all if you don't care about it. Next step is working to clean up the place so it seems attractive to visitors. Then the place has to be built up visually. Every important city has some kind of visual identity punctuated with a few visual trademark places. New York has that in spades. LA, Chicago, Seattle, Miami, Washington and a few others do as well.

Bricktown is a pretty good start. It already rivals or even surpasses Dallas' West End in some ways. With a little more night life and live music venues it could be a better hangout place than Dallas' Deep Ellum.

But Bricktown alone is not enough. The city has a pretty good window of opportunity to reinvent downtown OKC with the new I-40 cross town project underway. There's lots of room there to give Oklahoma City the visual identity makeover it needs.

"OKC needs activities, culture, events, retailers and above all other things -employment opportunities- that will attract and retain young, college educated female workers. There's your angle right there for economic development: attract the women."

According to Maxim Magazine, Oklahoma City is the 10th best city in the nation for Single Males. I'd have to say I agree, Im from Florida, and I think that OKC has just as many, if not more, women than the major cities in Florida. I also don't really think that attracting young women is a cornerstone for economic development, but hey whatever brings more chicks to the area is fine by me!

"Then the place has to be built up visually. Every important city has some kind of visual identity punctuated with a few visual trademark places. New York has that in spades. LA, Chicago, Seattle, Miami, Washington and a few others do as well."

LA - SoCal beaches
New York - Close to the New England Coast, situated on a harbor.
Chicago - Only city not located near the ocean, but major Great Lake port.
Seattle - One of the biggest shipping ports
Miami - South Beach, Vacation spot, in Florida
Washington - Nations Capital

I really think that location plays a big part in these cities development, i.e. being by the coast. Yes Oklahoma City is at the big intersection of I40 and I35, but all that really attracts are truckers and travelers making pit stops. Not the kind of tourism we'd like, however better than nothing. What I'm saying is, one of the biggest factors that keep OKC from being up there on that list of cities, is location. However, who cares? I wouldn't want to live in a city that big. I think OKC is the perfect size city and we still have room for expansion. Serriously, if it got to much bigger, traffic would be worse, crime rates would be higher, air polution, and other things that many people dont like about the previous metropolitian areas mentioned before would become the norm. Thats not what brought me to live in the city, nor what many people who live in this city are interested in dealing with. However, living in this city right now is exciting as it is growing to be a regional power which is exactly where OKC should set its sights.

I personally hope OKC never ends up like Dallas. Small-city charm is part of the attraction for me. Too many are trying to turn OKC into NYC.

According to Maxim Magazine, Oklahoma City is the 10th best city in the nation for Single Males. I'd have to say I agree, Im from Florida, and I think that OKC has just as many, if not more, women than the major cities in Florida. I also don't really think that attracting young women is a cornerstone for economic development, but hey whatever brings more chicks to the area is fine by me!

I agree. I think OKC is on the + side for attractive women already.

What OKC needs is to become more progressive, in business, in culture, in everything! (Note Austin, TX - they are "cool" because they are PROGRESSIVE!!!).

Seattle - One of the biggest shipping ports


???

I'd say, Seattle is one of the most beautiful city in the nation.

According to Maxim Magazine, Oklahoma City is the 10th best city in the nation for Single Males. I'd have to say I agree, Im from Florida, and I think that OKC has just as many, if not more, women than the major cities in Florida. I also don't really think that attracting young women is a cornerstone for economic development, but hey whatever brings more chicks to the area is fine by me!

From what I've seen in Ohio and Arkansas, and from what I've heard about LA, we males in OK do have a great situation. Just walk the OU campus at the noon hour and you'll see...

As far as trying to be like NYC, I don't think anybody really wants that. Since when did paying attention to twentysomethings become synonomous with NYC? Adding downtown living, cultural events, bars, clubs, and other entertainment venues only makes the city more interesting. That doesn't mean people stop being friendly.

From what I've seen in Ohio and Arkansas, and from what I've heard about LA, we males in OK do have a great situation. Just walk the OU campus at the noon hour and you'll see...

Just come down to Lawton for single adult male hell. It's a regular sausage festival. There's gotta be 4 single guys for every 1 single lady. I'm sure the Army helps skew that imbalance. But it still really sucks.

Anyway, I digress...

A city does not have to be located next to an ocean to have a visual identity or at least thought of as pretty. London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Montreal, Rome, Kyoto and good number of other cosmopolitan cities are not located next to an ocean.

Many of the things that make a city attractive or glamourous are based on things that were built. The cities in Europe I mentioned have an advantage in boasting a lot of historical architecture. But cities like London also have modern appeal as well. When Paris is mentioned, most instantly think of the Eiffel Tower or Arch De Triumph.

Oklahoma City doesn't really have any landmarks like that. The closest thing to it is the Murrah Building OKC Bombing Memorial. The memorial is touching, but haunting and tragic as well. Normally you want to put something positive on postcards.

I think the OKC skyline needs some more important skyscrapers. And it needs more in the way of significant monuments and sculpture down on the street.

Even on a basic level, Oklahoma City is a bit lacking on commercial visual electricity. Tulsa has OKC beat on cool looking signs. The sign company where I'm employed built a pretty fancy neon sign for a Lady Americana store in Lawton. Lady Americana is based on OKC, yet is sending video crews down to Lawton to shoot video of that sign for use in their commercials in OKC. Maybe we'll get to built a similar sign in the city.

Some of the stuff in Bricktown is decent, but there isn't much to find there that qualifies as dazzling. Toby Keith's bar has a small-ish Barco video message center mounted bare on the awning. Such displays are cool, but Bricktown is important enough to warrant larger, custom displays. Times Square in NYC has lots of them, bending to shapes of buildings. Fashion Show Mall in Las Vegas has a huge multi-panel Cinerama style display that can actually break apart and move on rails. Visually speaking, OKC needs items that represent unique "thinking outside of the box" ideas.

[QUOTE=MadMonk]I personally hope OKC never ends up like Dallas.QUOTE]
Or Detroit, or New Orleans, or Chicago, etc.,etc.