Producers Coop

[Jake]

A soccer stadium would be cool.

[bchris02]

An NFL stadium doesn't have to be surrounding by surface parking. The Bank of America stadium in Charlotte is serviced by a huge parking garage and integrates very well into the urban fabric of uptown Charlotte.

[shawnw]

An NFL stadium doesn't have to be surrounding by surface parking. The Bank of America stadium in Charlotte is serviced by a huge parking garage and integrates very well into the urban fabric of uptown Charlotte.

Agreed, that's why I said "don't always" instead of never. But I'm not sure how much faith I'd have in us "doing it right" in this case. Plus, NFL for OKC is somewhere between NBA All-Star game and Olympics, so we've got plenty to do before we worry about that anyway...

[bchris02]

Agreed, that's why I said "don't always" instead of never. But I'm not sure how much faith I'd have in us "doing it right" in this case. Plus, NFL for OKC is somewhere between NBA All-Star game and Olympics, so we've got plenty to do before we worry about that anyway...

I would say the NFL is more likely than an NBA All-Star game. Both are far more achievable than the Olympics.

[David]

That's not a poll, it's an unsourced map with dots.

[bchris02]

Ok, when was the poll taken and by whom?

That's not a poll, it's an unsourced map with dots.

Do Rankings Affect Our Opinions of Cities? - Samuel Arbesman - The Atlantic Cities

[PhiAlpha]

Do Rankings Affect Our Opinions of Cities? - Samuel Arbesman - The Atlantic Cities

Basically all that map proves is that if your city isn't near the east or west coast, the mountains, or has a population under 2 million people, it will be negatively perceived.

[PWitty]

Basically all that map proves is that if your city isn't near the east or west coast, the mountains, or has a population under 2 million people, it will be negatively perceived.

Yeah pretty much. Heck, even Minneapolis and SLC have negative ratings on that map.

[BDP]

Basically all that map proves is that if your city isn't near the east or west coast, the mountains, or has a population under 2 million people, it will be negatively perceived.

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

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

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

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

[bchris02]

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

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

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

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

Excellent post!

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

[Bellaboo]

Do Rankings Affect Our Opinions of Cities? - Samuel Arbesman - The Atlantic Cities

Read the story, the people used were from an Amazon mechanism. Amazon is Headquartered in Seattle. They don't like OKC in Seattle....... Also, Seattle was voted # 1.... that'll tell you were the majority of their responders were from....not saying anything bad about Seattle, but you can tell it's weighted.

[OKCRT]

Pretty obvious that this data is biased and shouldn't be used in this discussion.

[OKVision4U]

Read the story, the people used were from an Amazon mechanism. Amazon is Headquartered in Seattle. They don't like OKC in Seattle....... Also, Seattle was voted # 1.... that'll tell you were the majority of their responders were from....not saying anything bad about Seattle, but you can tell it's weighted.

If Norman ran a "poll" on favorite cities, would Austin be in the bottom 5? This poll of 310 votes, in one location...."TILT".

[BDP]

If Norman ran a "poll" on favorite cities, would Austin be in the bottom 5? This poll of 310 votes, in one location...."TILT".

The reality is that this kind of poll is taken constantly. A simple look at where people migrate and visit will give a pretty clear indication of what cities are favored.

[KayneMo]

I think I would rather have this area developed into a dense, mixed neighborhood of some sort rather than a sports arena, with residential, retail, some offices and entertainment. It has great access to the river and trails [perhaps via a pedestrian bridge(s) over I-40?] and Bricktown, providing that the new boulevard is pedestrian friendly. Just throwing ideas out there because I think this land could be better used as another downtown neighborhood to contribute to the core's growing urban fabric while also offering another option for urban residential living.

[OKVision4U]

I think I would rather have this area developed into a dense, mixed neighborhood of some sort rather than a sports arena, with residential, retail, some offices and entertainment. It has great access to the river and trails [perhaps via a pedestrian bridge(s) over I-40?] and Bricktown, providing that the new boulevard is pedestrian friendly. Just throwing ideas out there because I think this land could be better used as another downtown neighborhood to contribute to the core's growing urban fabric while also offering another option for urban residential living.

Dense is the key. High-end Residential would work well too. As long as it is done correctly w/ ( either Corporate "Energy Plaza" or High End Residential ) would look great!

I agree, a stadium could fit, but this is not the best use for this location.

[PWitty]

BChris, if you think that this site is such an overwhelming eyesore to the downtown area, then I don't know why you speak so highly of KC's DT in other threads. KC's DT core is completely surrounded to the N and to the W by industrial facilities on the other side of the river. And a lot of those are a lot gritter looking than this.

But I do agree that this is a prime area for development, and hopefully within the next 5-10 years. A poster above mentioned Aubrey's new company building a complex on this site, and I couldn't help but think about what it would look like if he had built the entire CHK campus on this location!

[bchris02]

BChris, if you think that this site is such an overwhelming eyesore to the downtown area, then I don't know why you speak so highly of KC's DT in other threads. KC's DT core is completely surrounded to the N and to the W by industrial facilities on the other side of the river. And a lot of those are a lot gritter looking than this.

But I do agree that this is a prime area for development, and hopefully within the next 5-10 years. A poster above mentioned Aubrey's new company building a complex on this site, and I couldn't help but think about what it would look like if he had built the entire CHK campus on this location!

In Kansas City dirty industry is not in such a prime and visible location. There is nothing that I am aware of in the immediate core. What we have in OKC would be equivalent to having it right across from the Sprint Center for all to see. It's also not like it's an entire industrial district either. It's one plant surrounded by some of the most prime development land in the state of Oklahoma. It's very visible from I-40 and the Peake.

[PWitty]

In Kansas City dirty industry is not in such a prime and visible location. There is nothing that I am aware of in the immediate core. What we have in OKC would be equivalent to having it right across from the Sprint Center for all to see. It's also not like it's an entire industrial district either. It's one plant surrounded by some of the most prime development land in the state of Oklahoma. It's very visible from I-40 and the Peake.

Then I guess you've never driven into downtown KC from either I-670 or Highway 169 from the west. I don't see how one industrial facility near DT is as bad as a huge "industrial district", as you described, adjacent to DT. I don't think either is bad, I'm just comparing it to this situation. And I wouldn't say this site is in the immediate core, it is on the far SE part of the DT area.

[BDP]

I'm sure this is very colored by the recession and only goes up to 2010, but kind of fun to play with:

American Migration [Interactive Map] - Forbes

Based on these patterns Detroit, Cleveland, and Philly had some nasty negative migrations numbers between 2005 and 2010. Austin's flipped from net inbound to outbound in that time. And Oklahoma City's flipped from net outbound, to net inbound. However, given the resurgence in the last four years of the traditionally popular cities, this data seems kind of dated already.

EDIT:

Yep, more recent data shows a lot of cities hit worst in migration during the recession are making a comeback:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotk...ns-are-moving/

[OKVision4U]

I'm sure this is very colored by the recession and only goes up to 2010, but kind of fun to play with:

American Migration [Interactive Map] - Forbes

Based on these patterns Detroit, Cleveland, and Philly had some nasty negative migrations numbers between 2005 and 2010. Austin's flipped from net inbound to outbound in that time. And Oklahoma City's flipped from net outbound, to net inbound. However, given the resurgence in the last four years of the traditionally popular cities, this data seems kind of dated already.

EDIT:

Yep, more recent data shows a lot of cities hit worst in migration during the recession are making a comeback:

Where Americans Are Moving - Forbes

Ok, this one makes sense. If you are single, Dallas & Austin might be your place, but if you are married w/ children, OKC is the place to be.

[bchris02]

I too wonder how in-migration to OKC will hold up as cities that are perceived as more desirable begin to recover from the recession. I probably wouldn't be in OKC right now if it wasn't for my own unique circumstances and the fact the job market here was virtually unscathed compared to most of the country. From articles I've seen it seems to be holding up. Does anybody have any more recent data? The single vs married thing is a sore spot for me about OKC so I won't go there. I'll say I think there is progress being made.

[pickles]

The single vs married thing is a sore spot for me about OKC

One among many.

[catch22]

Oklahoma (Central -> West) doesn't have many trees for a reason. We don't get enough rain for them. Artificially building forests would dry up our water table and disrupt ecosystems and wildlife. Nothing is wrong with some trees in landscaping and streetscaping, but I'd vote no on planting forests in Central and Western Oklahoma. We have some excellent forests just to the east of us. (In fact, OKC is right on the dividing line between Green Forests and Mountains, and the rolling plains and desert. Maybe we should capitalize on that. Not many places have such a night and day difference in topography.

[OKVision4U]

Oklahoma (Central -> West) doesn't have many trees for a reason. We don't get enough rain for them. Artificially building forests would dry up our water table and disrupt ecosystems and wildlife. Nothing is wrong with some trees in landscaping and streetscaping, but I'd vote no on planting forests in Central and Western Oklahoma. We have some excellent forests just to the east of us. (In fact, OKC is right on the dividing line between Green Forests and Mountains, and the rolling plains and desert. Maybe we should capitalize on that. Not many places have such a night and day difference in topography.

Well, then let's meet in the middle on this and plant more trees along the major corridors in the OKC Metro.