# OKCpedia > General Real Estate Topics >  The Urban Renewal thread (the movement, not OCURA)

## Teo9969

Pete if there is another thread on this or if there is another place this should go, feel free to merge/move.

So I'm a young pup (24) and have only learned about city/civic planning, urban development, etc. since I started following this forum. I've become more involved in the past year or so after reading occasionally for years. I don't know much of the history of OKC as neither of my parents substantively lived here until the 1980s (my dad's parents are from the midwest, he moved down here in the early 80s. My mom's parents are from El Reno/Calumet, lived here when until Mom was in HS, then moved to Colorado. Mom moved back in the early 80s as well). 

So everything I've really learned about OKC has been on this site. I know not much about Urban Renewal but it constantly comes up and I have a couple questions about the movement that will hopefully clear some things up for me:

1. When did UR emerge as a movement?
2. Who were the major people/players, National and Local, that pushed for the movement to take root?
3. When did UR die off and why?
4. In terms of OKC UR, I understand that I.M. Pei put together a grand project...what caused that vision to not come about?
5. What have been the responses to UR in other cities?

Feel free to correct any misconceptions I have about UR if they have presented themselves in this thread. I is unedumacated bout thiz stuff.

----------


## Just the facts

Nationally, funding started with the 1949 Fair Housing Act.  Add to that the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.  The ideas for rebuilding cities in this method go back a long time but the modern movement we are afflicted with in OKC came directly from Charles-douard Jeanneret (aka Le Corbusier) and his Radiant Cities ideas.  Pei was a Le Corbusier follower. It also spun off from the City Beautiful movement.

Le Corbusier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

City Beautiful movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you get the chance watch the documentary The Pruitt-Igoe Myth.  It is the culmination of all these ideas ending in total disaster.

----------


## HangryHippo

> Nationally, funding started with the 1949 Fair Housing Act.  Add to that the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.  The ideas for rebuilding cities in this method go back a long time but the modern movement we are afflicted with in OKC came directly from Charles-douard Jeanneret (aka Le Corbusier) and his Radiant Cities ideas.  Pei was a Le Corbusier follower. It also spun off from the City Beautiful movement.
> 
> Le Corbusier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> City Beautiful movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> If you get the chance watch the documentary The Pruitt-Igoe Myth.  It is the culmination of all these ideas ending in total disaster.


Do you think the City Beautiful Movement ended in total disaster?

----------


## Just the facts

> Do you think the City Beautiful Movement ended in total disaster?


I'm not all that upto date on the City Beautiful movement as a whole.  They made some great public spaces but I know replacing housing with parks didn't work out so well for those living in the houses.  However, it was Pruitt-Igoe that ended in disaster - much like every other public housing project that was built by the same mind-set, and not the City Beautiful movement.

Here is a history of the City Beauthiful Movement in OKC.

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/e...s/C/CI007.html

----------


## Spartan

People were living in cold water tenements before City Beautiful.

----------


## Just the facts

I understand that.  I'm not knocking City Beautiful. I'm just saying Urban Renewal was the modernism version that grew out of it.

----------


## ThePlainsman

+1 on watching The Pruitt-Igoe Myth. Worth your time.

----------


## Praedura

Came across an amazing old film posted online by the Oklahoma Historical Society




Shot in the early seventies (it would appear), it gives quite a lengthy overview of what Urban Renewal was trying to accomplish. Lots of footage of downtown (and surrounding areas) of the time.

Absolutely fascinating to watch. Guaranteed to stir some emotions (and not all good ones either).

----------


## catch22

The Valir 10th and Hudson page is broken, but a lot of land on the block immediately west of the Valir site recently sold. Is MidtownR behind Midtown Hill LLC? Midtown 11th and Park Place LLC was the buyer of the Valir Health land a few weeks ago.

Midtown Hill LLC from Corsair Estate LLC, 409, 411 and 417 W Park Place, 420 NW 11 Street and 1135 N Hudson Ave., $1,087,000.

Oklahoma County land sales | NewsOK.com

Oops, wrong thread. Meant to post in Midtown thread.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Density



Original

----------


## Doug Loudenback

> ...
> So everything I've really learned about OKC has been on this site. I know not much about Urban Renewal but it constantly comes up and I have a couple questions about the movement that will hopefully clear some things up for me:
> 
> 1. When did UR emerge as a movement?
> 2. Who were the major people/players, National and Local, that pushed for the movement to take root?
> 3. When did UR die off and why?
> 4. In terms of OKC UR, I understand that I.M. Pei put together a grand project...what caused that vision to not come about?
> 5. What have been the responses to UR in other cities?


For excellent tracing and analysis of Okc's experience, I heartily recommend Steve Lackmeyer's & Jack Money's 2006 book, OKC: 2nd Time Around. My book review is here: Doug Dawgz Blog: OKC 2nd Time Around

----------


## Steve

Thanks Doug!

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Density
> 
> 
> 
> Original


Where is this? NYC?

----------


## Teo9969

> Where is this? NYC?


Would think so..."NY Jewelry Center"

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Would think so..."NY Jewelry Center"


Yeap. I posted that comment prematurely. :/ .... Was unable to edit any further. idk why.

----------


## UnFrSaKn



----------


## Rover

So, Moscow is our model now?

----------


## hoya

> Pete if there is another thread on this or if there is another place this should go, feel free to merge/move.
> 
> So I'm a young pup (24) and have only learned about city/civic planning, urban development, etc. since I started following this forum. I've become more involved in the past year or so after reading occasionally for years. I don't know much of the history of OKC as neither of my parents substantively lived here until the 1980s (my dad's parents are from the midwest, he moved down here in the early 80s. My mom's parents are from El Reno/Calumet, lived here when until Mom was in HS, then moved to Colorado. Mom moved back in the early 80s as well). 
> 
> So everything I've really learned about OKC has been on this site. I know not much about Urban Renewal but it constantly comes up and I have a couple questions about the movement that will hopefully clear some things up for me:
> 
> 1. When did UR emerge as a movement?
> 2. Who were the major people/players, National and Local, that pushed for the movement to take root?
> 3. When did UR die off and why?
> ...


You could spend years reading about this and studying it.  Like you, I didn't know a whole lot about our history with urban renewal until I came here.  But for a short answer to some of your questions:

The I.M. Pei plan was designed to tear down a lot of older abandoned buildings and replace them wth modern structures.  The fact that we tore down a bunch of cool old buildings from the turn of the century through the 1930s, and were going to replace them with the finest in early 1970s architecture (uglytecture?) makes this plan look questionable today.  At the time they thought they were going to be replacing ugly old stuff with cool new stuff.  But what happened is that we tore down all the buildings and then the oil bust hit, and First National Bank failed, and all the money went away before we got around to repacing much of it.

So today, instead of us having an abundance of older buildings that could either be renovated or rented out inexpensively like most cities, we have empty lots where those buildings once stood.

----------


## Teo9969

> You could spend years reading about this and studying it.  Like you, I didn't know a whole lot about our history with urban renewal until I came here.  But for a short answer to some of your questions:
> 
> The I.M. Pei plan was designed to tear down a lot of older abandoned buildings and replace them wth modern structures.  The fact that we tore down a bunch of cool old buildings from the turn of the century through the 1930s, and were going to replace them with the finest in early 1970s architecture (uglytecture?) makes this plan look questionable today.  At the time they thought they were going to be replacing ugly old stuff with cool new stuff.  But what happened is that we tore down all the buildings and then the oil bust hit, and First National Bank failed, and all the money went away before we got around to repacing much of it.
> 
> So today, instead of us having an abundance of older buildings that could either be renovated or rented out inexpensively like most cities, we have empty lots where those buildings once stood.


Did OKC undergo UR far more severely than every where else, or are there other cities that did the same thing as OKC?

----------


## hoya

I'm sure there are other cities who did similar things, but we were pretty severe as far as the percentage of downtown properties that we destroyed that were not later rebuilt.  Basically OKC destroyed a large number of buildings and then went into a 20 year recession.  It wasn't until a lot of the MAPS projects started being built around '99 or 2000 that we really started replacing much of what was lost.  Several of the lost buildings just had parking lots in their place until the Devon Tower replaced them.

I'm certainly not an expert, but I'd guess that OKC had some of the worst timing of any city when it came to urban renewal.

----------


## Anonymous.

> I'm sure there are other cities who did similar things, but we were pretty severe as far as the percentage of downtown properties that we destroyed that were not later rebuilt.  Basically OKC destroyed a large number of buildings and then went into a 20 year recession.  It wasn't until a lot of the MAPS projects started being built around '99 or 2000 that we really started replacing much of what was lost.  Several of the lost buildings just had parking lots in their place until the Devon Tower replaced them.
> 
> *I'm certainly not an expert, but I'd guess that OKC had some of the worst timing of any city when it came to urban renewal.*




I would say that is a fair statement, which makes it all the more amazing that OKC _is_ pulling this off.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Double post

----------


## UnFrSaKn

MICHAEL WOLF PHOTOGRAPHY

Hong Kong

----------


## Teo9969

> MICHAEL WOLF PHOTOGRAPHY
> 
> Hong Kong


How unbelievably depressing.

----------


## HangryHippo

My god, that's depressing.

----------


## Rover

But hey, that is some people's utopia of urbanism....buildings to the street....total height density....lots of rentals... 

Who wants the suburbs when you can have that.

;-)  LOL

----------


## ljbab728

I guess all of our advocates for dense urban living must love it though.  LOL

----------


## boitoirich

That's what happens when you put 2 million people on barely 18 square miles, as is the case in the Kowloon area of Hong Kong. To anyone who has ever visited HK, however, you see a city with world-class shopping, non-stop nightlife, excellent transportation, renowned schools, public parks everywhere, plazas, piazzas, and amazing street food as far as the eye can see. I think it's safe to say that the built form of OKC won't ever have the need to sprawl vertically as much as HK's has, but yes this city could use some increased density. There's plenty to do here, but it's all so spread out, making it difficult to have those moments of serendipity where you stumble upon some place new simply by ambling about.

----------


## ljbab728

> There's plenty to do here, but it's all so spread out, making it difficult to have those moments of serendipity where you stumble upon some place new simply by ambling about.


I happened to find a new 7-11 recently while I was out ambling.

----------


## boitoirich

> I happened to find a new 7-11 recently while I was out ambling.


Serendipitous, I tell you!

----------


## UnFrSaKn



----------


## Rover

Is that picture suppose to represent the urban area we want?

----------


## catch22

I sure hope not.

----------


## Just the facts

No, that picture is what happens when you have a car dependent culture coupled with people who like tall buildings (i.e. - the typical suburbanite).  Alas, I thought you liked Dubai Rover.  I think I speak for most OKCTalk urbanist in expressing a favoritsm for walkability and low rise density.

----------


## Rover

Lol.  I've never expressed a love of Dubai.  What I have said is that it is not someplace people go strolling around like Paris.  

I love it...now you say suburbanites are the ones who love tall buildings.  Your hatred of other lifestyles just gets more and more weird.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Boston

----------


## Rover

nm

----------


## Plutonic Panda

nm?

----------


## UnFrSaKn



----------


## UnFrSaKn



----------


## hoya

This should be renamed "UnFrSaKn's Freaky-Ass Picture Thread"

----------


## Dubya61

Will, where is that?

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Hangzhou Congress Center

Map

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Monaco Penthouse 'World's Most Expensive'

----------


## catch22

You know I really hate it when people take pictures of my summer house without permission.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Now that blue edge along the right could be a slide all the way to the bottom. lol  :Wink:

----------


## UnFrSaKn



----------


## UnFrSaKn



----------


## Plutonic Panda

Are these all your photos?

----------


## UnFrSaKn

No, ones that I come across.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Well, they're amazing pictures I must say.

----------


## tillyato

I'm looking for a few books to learn more about the urban renewal movement, specifically some that will help me learn what are considered to be the "best practices" in urban design and development today, as well as explanations for why certain urban designs work better than others to acheive walkable, livable communities. Anybody have any suggestions?

----------


## traxx

> You could spend years reading about this and studying it.  Like you, I didn't know a whole lot about our history with urban renewal until I came here.  But for a short answer to some of your questions:
> 
> The I.M. Pei plan was designed to tear down a lot of older abandoned buildings and replace them wth modern structures.  The fact that we tore down a bunch of cool old buildings from the turn of the century through the 1930s, and were going to replace them with the finest in early 1970s architecture (uglytecture?) makes this plan look questionable today.  At the time they thought they were going to be replacing ugly old stuff with cool new stuff.  But what happened is that we tore down all the buildings and then the oil bust hit, and First National Bank failed, and all the money went away before we got around to repacing much of it.
> 
> So today, instead of us having an abundance of older buildings that could either be renovated or rented out inexpensively like most cities, we have empty lots where those buildings once stood.


As much as it sucks that we lost some cool buildings, I guess we can be thankful we didn't build any of that uglytecture. We'd be having to deal with that now. From the drawings I've seen, it looks like Pei was using Logan's Run as his basis for design. Or some other '70s futuristic movie. How would that look for us to have a large portion of our downtown look like a bad 1970s sci fi movie?

----------


## warreng88

> 


This reminds me of the deepest level of Inception...

----------


## traxx

> Came across an amazing old film posted online by the Oklahoma Historical Society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shot in the early seventies (it would appear), it gives quite a lengthy overview of what Urban Renewal was trying to accomplish. Lots of footage of downtown (and surrounding areas) of the time.
> 
> Absolutely fascinating to watch. Guaranteed to stir some emotions (and not all good ones either).


What an interesting film. I had almost forgotten that Hefner Pkwy didn't always pass by Baptist Hospital. 

Knowing what we know now, it's kind of sickening to see those buildings torn down and imploded. But they thought they were doing great things. And they made it sound great in that film. Talking about a galleria shopping mall and the museums that would inhabit the Myriad Gardens etc. Many of these things didn't quite live up to the hype. I don't know that the shopping area attached to the Sheraton was ever the retail hub they thought it would be. I could be wrong but that's how I remember it.

----------


## Rover

Those in the past were not stupid or ill-intentioned. Everything evolves and things like recessions change things dramatically.  Just like today's generation thinks that we have everything finally figured out, they thought they had if figured out then.  And in 30-50 years, our grandkids and great grandkids will be astounded how stupid we were to think we have it all figured out now.

----------


## Rover

Hey Sid, I forgot to tell you how much I enjoyed your segment at last weeks Placemaking conference.

----------


## Rover

> Thanks. I felt way out of place and honestly, pretty far out of my league. But boy was I glad to be there. 
> 
> I'm still brimming with excitement from hearing all those talks in the same day.   Which talk did you like the most? [besides mine, of course ]


I really liked the Better Block presentation and the evening presentation (Hank Dittmar).  But, they were all excellent.  I also liked the pragmatic tone of most of them...they didn't come off as Urbanista Nazis that sometimes happens.  I enjoyed the discussion on re-purposing the suburbs - something we need to think about and not just condemn and ignore them.

I must say, OU's assembling of this slate of speakers and the forum format was great.  I attended the constitutional forum there a couple of weeks ago and it was outstanding as well.  They do a great job of bringing in the best of the best for these things.

----------


## Rover

When Dr. Boren calls to invite you, you just say "when do I show up", you don't say "no" or "I'll think about it".  Like when he calls for a donation - you just ask "how much should I make the check out for?".

----------


## Rover

By the way, he was head of the Senate Intelligence Committee and maintains strong ties to the intelligence community...so, he already knows how much you can afford to give.

----------


## traxx

> Those in the past were not stupid or ill-intentioned. Everything evolves and things like recessions change things dramatically.  Just like today's generation thinks that we have everything finally figured out, they thought they had if figured out then.  And in 30-50 years, our grandkids and great grandkids will be astounded how stupid we were to think we have it all figured out now.


If this is in response to my post directly above yours, then I think you misunderstood. I never said they were stupid or ill-intentioned. I even stated that they thought they were doing great things. I just found the film very interesting to look at from our perspective in 2013. They made it sound great in the film but not all of it lived up to what they thought it would be. I'm sure there things that we are doing with downtown today that in 40 years they'll wish we hadn't done. I just found the film extremely interesting.

----------


## Rover

It wasn't in response to your post.  It was just a comment after living through that era of the film that I was reminded by the film that the leaders then truly believed they were using state of the art planning and one of the world's most revered planners.  Every generation thinks they absolutely have the answers.  I was just pointing out that as sure as we are today that we have all the answers (evidenced by dogmatic posters on this site) we will have still different thoughts in the coming decades.  Ideas promoted and decisions made today WILL be widely criticized after the fact, just as I have heard those of our past referred to as stupid, ignorant, greedy, etc.  It is always easier to second guess after the fact than to lead and implement great ideas.

----------


## AP

> It wasn't in response to your post.  It was just a comment after living through that era of the film that I was reminded by the film that the leaders then truly believed they were using state of the art planning and one of the world's most revered planners.  Every generation thinks they absolutely have the answers.  I was just pointing out that as sure as we are today that we have all the answers (evidenced by dogmatic posters on this site) we will have still different thoughts in the coming decades.  Ideas promoted and decisions made today WILL be widely criticized after the fact, just as I have heard those of our past referred to as stupid, ignorant, greedy, etc.  It is always easier to second guess after the fact than to lead and implement great ideas.


This.

----------


## Plutonic Panda



----------


## OKCisOK4me

No.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

No what? lol. . . There was a lot lot of posting about Dubai in this thread and I got this funny email and thought I'd share the video and see what people thought. It's a city with massive beautiful buildings and it doesn't have a sewage system. It's interesting and I'm curious how many people know that. :P

----------


## BDP

> It wasn't in response to your post.  It was just a comment after living through that era of the film that I was reminded by the film that the leaders then truly believed they were using state of the art planning and one of the world's most revered planners.  Every generation thinks they absolutely have the answers.  I was just pointing out that as sure as we are today that we have all the answers (evidenced by dogmatic posters on this site) we will have still different thoughts in the coming decades.  Ideas promoted and decisions made today WILL be widely criticized after the fact, just as I have heard those of our past referred to as stupid, ignorant, greedy, etc.  It is always easier to second guess after the fact than to lead and implement great ideas.


I think the difference so far is that there has been measurable positive results and, most importantly, things are getting done. At the end of the day, the biggest problem with the first urban renewal and the Pei plan was that it didn't even get finished. The plan never was fully realized and is now known simply for its destruction. If anything, the lesson there is that destruction should always be used as a last result or the product of a true need (as in no other readily available resources such as available land or redevelopment opportunities, both of which we still have in abundance downtown), because there is never a guarantee that any project will be completed. When assets aren't recklessly destroyed, the city mitigates the risk of ending up with nothing, or very little, as it did in the early 80s.

This time around redevelopment and restoration has occurred and, collectively, those projects now represent the biggest successes of this urban renewal and are what have given downtown, and Oklahoma City in general, a new relevant identity. When OKC's two largest urban renewal efforts are compared, it becomes clear that support of renovation over destruction is not just dogmatic rhetoric, it's the approach that has actually worked in very quantifiable and tangible ways. The fragility of our undiversified economy and the fickle nature of its biggest players should always be considered in development decisions. When the city grants permission for demolition, the only assurance we have is that the given structure will be lost forever. Unfortunately, we know all to well that there is a very real possibility that nothing will replace it for decades.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

This is what FNC needs.

----------


## Romulack

Here's an example of what urban renewal did for Lawton, Oklahoma in the 1970s:

Downtown Lawton, OK circa 1964 looking west (Hotel Lawtonian visible on left side of photo)


Downtown Lawton, OK during destruction of downtown (1978)


Downtown Lawton, OK after Central Mall replaced downtown, looking south/southwest. (Hotel Lawtonian in center of photo)

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Middle of the day in Beijing. Pollution, not fog.

----------


## HangryHippo

Jesus, what an awful place.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

http://vimeo.com/51137834

----------


## UnFrSaKn

blursurfing photoblog ~ The Crystal Ballroom

----------


## Teo9969

What city is that? Amazing how built out it is.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Same as the above video.

----------


## dankrutka

> Here's an example of what urban renewal did for Lawton, Oklahoma in the 1970s:
> 
> Downtown Lawton, OK circa 1964 looking west (Hotel Lawtonian visible on left side of photo)
> Attachment 3654
> 
> Downtown Lawton, OK during destruction of downtown (1978)
> Attachment 3655
> 
> Downtown Lawton, OK after Central Mall replaced downtown, looking south/southwest. (Hotel Lawtonian in center of photo)
> Attachment 3656


Goodness... that is depressing. How could anyone think that was a good idea?

----------


## Mississippi Blues

> Goodness... that is depressing. How could anyone think that was a good idea?


I honestly don't think there is a legit answer to that question.

----------


## UnFrSaKn



----------


## UnFrSaKn



----------


## Praedura

^ Belo Horizonte?

----------


## ljbab728

Interesting pictures but I'm not quite sure I get the connection to the thread topic.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

I've been wondering the same thing. How does any of this relate to urban renewal? They are very cool pics, most of them I have already seen, but they're awesome anyways.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Check some of these pictures out!!!!!!  Hong Kong Vertical Horizon - Hong Kong photo book

----------


## UnFrSaKn



----------


## hoya

My ex-girlfriend is fatter than that building.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Lunch time in Hong Kong

----------


## UnFrSaKn



----------


## ljbab728

Again, those are interesting pics, but I don't understand the connection to this thead.

----------


## Rover

There isn't any connection.

----------


## bchris02

I wonder if its very good foresight to encourage greater density in Oklahoma City.  It's not if, but when an F4/F5 tornado plows right through downtown, Bricktown, Deep Deuce, etc.  The more warm bodies in a smaller area means more fatalities.  Maybe OKC's sprawl is a good thing.

----------


## dankrutka

You can't really look at it like that.

----------


## Teo9969

> I wonder if its very good foresight to encourage greater density in Oklahoma City.  It's not if, but when an F4/F5 tornado plows right through downtown, Bricktown, Deep Deuce, etc.  The more warm bodies in a smaller area means more fatalities.  Maybe OKC's sprawl is a good thing.


As detailed in the Severe Weather thread, Moore has had 4 major tornadoes (2 devastating) truck through it in the last 15 years...That's a pattern.

I don't have the records on this, but I do not remember downtown OKC even really approached by a tornado in my lifetime (b. 1988), nor have I heard of one approaching DT in any other era (and you think it would be at least localized knowledge). In fact, I've never really heard of one approaching the Urban Core, and every tornado seems to take a path that distinctly curves around the most dense portions of the metro area, while still being true to the general directions storms take (i.e. they rarely curve to the south or west). 

I'm sure there's still much science to be done, and I'm far from a meteorologist, but I would not be surprised if heavily developed areas in some way influence both the direction storms take and their general strength. I certainly don't believe that it's impossible for one to truck through a CBD, and these storms are far too complex for us to fully understand, but anecdotal evidence at least suggests that tornadoes struggle in vast urban areas, particularly where density is at it's highest.

I could certainly be wrong about all that, but it's buyable enough for me to think that OKC should continue on the path to more dense development, and that even if it's not true, a rare event such as an EF4/5 tornado going through more urban areas is not really a reason to avoid developing the city in such a way that makes better use of resources and creates higher value and use.

----------


## betts

I was just thinking that all these stick built apartments in Deep Deuce and The Hill would be reduced to toothpicks.  The Brownstones, with their 8 inch concrete and rebar walls would likely do alright, although the roofs would be gone.  We went on a walk last night and noticed that the new townhouses being built at The Hill definitely don't have above ground tornado shelters.  I didn't notice a below ground shelter in the slab either.  If I were spending that much on a townhouse I think I'd want one.

----------


## Just the facts

I notice after I mow my lawn I can easily blow the grass off the sidewalk with my leaf blower putting out a 100 mph wind.  But if I sweep all the grass into a pile first the leaf blower can't move it.  If I let that pile sit there for awhile until it becomes a cohesive blob my garden hose can't even wash it away.  if I leave it there for a month I notice that it only gets bigger by trapping material that blows or washes by.  We can learn a lot from a pile of lawn clippings.  As for sprawl, if this hit pre-1945 it would have only taken out some barns.

----------


## hoya

> I wonder if its very good foresight to encourage greater density in Oklahoma City.  It's not if, but when an F4/F5 tornado plows right through downtown, Bricktown, Deep Deuce, etc.  The more warm bodies in a smaller area means more fatalities.  Maybe OKC's sprawl is a good thing.


I think it tells us not to have greater density in _Moore_.

----------


## Dubya61

> I wonder if its very good foresight to encourage greater density in Oklahoma City.  It's not if, but when an F4/F5 tornado plows right through downtown, Bricktown, Deep Deuce, etc.  The more warm bodies in a smaller area means more fatalities.  Maybe OKC's sprawl is a good thing.





> I think it tells us not to have greater density in _Moore_.


It's smart to have greater density ANYWHERE taxes are collected.  A wealthier municipality (a direct result of greater density) could invest better in the public -- maybe afford more/better storm shelters.

----------


## Rover

I believe that the difference of damage would not be high density urban core vs. suburban (with all due respect to the misguided comparison of grass on a sidewalk), but rather the TYPE of structures one might find in an urban core vs. suburban.  Steel structured buildings, or reinforced concrete buildings of all heights would generally survive as a structure, but would likely sustain comparable damage to the outer shell.  Whereas suburban homes create their structural integrity with the walls, high rises (steel and concrete) are not supported by their exterior walls but with their spine or structure.  The shell/windows would still be severely damaged and contents destroyed, the structure would remain.  The tall thin buildings as promoted by some on here would likely see the shell blown away and the floor contents swept out of the building.  One with girth and lots of steel/concrete internal obstruction would catch more of the debris, like a filter would. A good example of the effect is the tornado that hit Ft. Worth and destroyed the Cash America building, among others.  

I read yesterday that the storm that hit Moore was estimated to be between 6 and 600 times the power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.  Bricktown would be no safer than Moore.  Devon tower would be devastated with such a direct hit.  And, with increased density would come and increased density of flying debris, including panes of glass capable of great damage to humans.  

Face it, tornadoes like this one is insensitive to these petty urban vs. suburban arguments.  It is equally evil to both. To use its destruction to make a case for one over the other is just wrong.

----------


## Just the facts

That nuclear bomb comment was beyond stupid (I know that was not Rover's comparison).   No person in their right mind would pick nuclear bomb over tornado.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> I read yesterday that the storm that hit Moore was estimated to be between 6 and 600 times the power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.


That is complete bs. That bomb vaporized people and killed 100,000+ in mere seconds and that's not including the people that died from radiation poisoning. If you detonated that bomb near an F5 tornado, the tornado would be blown away by the initial blast, so yeah. Wherever you heard that from, I'd think about never listening to that source again. 

There is no way ANY tornado on earth is more powerful than Atomic Bomb and especially today where we have made them 100x more powerful than they were back then.

----------


## HangryHippo

> That is complete bs. That bomb vaporized people and killed 100,000+ in mere seconds and that's not including the people that died from radiation poisoning. If you detonated that bomb near an F5 tornado, the tornado would be blown away by the initial blast, so yeah. Wherever you heard that from, I'd think about never listening to that source again. 
> 
> There is no way ANY tornado on earth is more powerful than Atomic Bomb and especially today where we have made them 100x more powerful than they were back then.


I'll dig up the article but that is indeed what they were saying. The sustained energy over the course of that tornado surpassed that of the Hiroshima bomb.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> I'll dig up the article but that is indeed what they were saying. The sustained energy over the course of that tornado surpassed that of the Hiroshima bomb.


I think I saw the headline somewhere and just skimmed passed it, because I was busy.

----------


## Just the facts

Wind speed in the Hiroshima blast was 620 mph.

----------


## hoya

Probably for a few seconds.  This lasted what, an hour?

----------


## Teo9969

It was far more energy than the bomb, but over the period of an hour rather than an instantaneous release.

----------


## Rover

> It was far more energy than the bomb, but over the period of an hour rather than an instantaneous release.


Yes, and over a much more concentrated area (radius of approximately 1.6 kM, or about 2 mile diameter, approximately the width of the tornado but far short of the total area).  You cannot make a direct comparison...the bomb was one area one blast, the tornado swept an area and moved through it with great mass over a period of time affecting the same area over a longer period of time) However, the point is that we are dealing with a devastating amount of energy which is not merely disrupted by the resistance of a building structure whether 1 story or 6 stories.  The violent energy is constantly redistributed and redirected, but not diffused and killed.  The mass and weight of the air at that velocity is astoundingly powerful.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Probably for a few seconds.  This lasted what, an hour?


The tornado lasted about 30-40 mins and killed 24 people and destroyed and/or damaged 12,000 homes. 

The Bomb dropped on Hiroshima lasted initially for a few seconds, killed 100,000+, and destroyed(vaporized!!!) 4.7 square miles, and caused even more devastation further out than that. That is not including the people who are still suffering from the effects and birth defects that the radiation caused.

You can spin it however you want, the bomb was far more powerful, killed more people, and caused more destruction. Comparing a tornado on earth to an atomic bomb is silly.

Correction, 60,000-70,000 were killed almost instantly and up to 140,000 were injured.

Some website are saying 150,000 perished and others are saying 60,000. I know for a fact, it was in between 60,000-100,000 people that almost instantly died.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> It was far more energy than the bomb, but over the period of an hour rather than an instantaneous release.


How would you measure the energy between an atomic bomb and a tornado? I would really like to know. I can understand making that comparison when you're dealing with something like an meteor impact, but a tornado???? What unit of measurement would you use to compare these two???? Calories. . . Joules??? If this tornado did put out more energy than atomic bomb did, fine, it is still an invalid comparison, imo.

----------


## ljbab728

> I don't have the records on this, but I do not remember downtown OKC even really approached by a tornado in my lifetime (b. 1988), nor have I heard of one approaching DT in any other era (and you think it would be at least localized knowledge).


I think it's more just a matter of luck, just as Moore getting hit so often is a lack of luck.  There is nothing which would draw a tornado to Moore.

As another poster mentioned:

----------


## dankrutka

> It was far more energy than the bomb, but over the period of an hour rather than an instantaneous release.


This is kind of like pointing out that Reggie Jackson scored more points than Durant over a month when KD only played one game. 

Clearly the bomb was more destructive without getting into the effects on people. No point in comparing tragedy. They were both unfortunate events.

----------


## Rover

> How would you measure the energy between an atomic bomb and a tornado? I would really like to know. I can understand making that comparison when you're dealing with something like an meteor impact, but a tornado???? What unit of measurement would you use to compare these two???? Calories. . . Joules??? If this tornado did put out more energy than atomic bomb did, fine, it is still an invalid comparison, imo.


It is actually not that hard.  Mass x velocity, etc.  to calculate the energy in wind.  The air in the tornado is heavily moisture laden and dense, and at plus 200 mph has unbelievable force.  It is easy to quantify.

----------


## ljbab728

Urban renewal? Big US cities showing strong growth | News OK

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> It is actually not that hard.  Mass x velocity, etc.  to calculate the energy in wind.  The air in the tornado is heavily moisture laden and dense, and at plus 200 mph has unbelievable force.  It is easy to quantify.


I still don't think it'd be fair, seeing as the twister had a much longer lifespan than an atomic blast

----------


## ljbab728

> I still don't think it'd be fair, seeing as the twister had a much longer lifespan than an atomic blast


plupan, this isn't about what is fair. It's about facts.  LOL

But this is straying considerably from the topic.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> plupan, this isn't about what is fair. It's about facts.  LOL
> 
> But this is straying considerably from the topic.


Facts don't support comparing a bomb to a tornado, right????

----------


## hoya

> Facts don't support comparing a bomb to a tornado, right????


Why are you so hung up on this?  Give it a rest.  The tornado put out more energy than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.  The example was used to give a sense of scale, so people go "wow that was a powerful tornado".  But it didn't cause the same level of destruction that the bomb caused, for a number of reasons.  1) Moore is more spread out than Hiroshima, giving the tornado lots of empty space to run over. 2) We have significantly better building codes than a city made up of mostly pre-war construction.  3) People had warning from the tornado and knew how to take cover.  4) The bomb blew a bunch of toxic crap all over the place, and the tornado didn't.

But _who cares?_  The tornado put out more energy because that's what weather systems do.

----------


## Just the facts

I don't understand how the tornado generated energy - period.  I fully understand how a nuclear reaction can generate energy.

----------


## HangryHippo

> I don't understand how the tornado generated energy - period.  I fully understand how a nuclear reaction can generate energy.


It didn't generate energy per se, it transformed what was already present.

----------


## Rover

That is exactly right.  

Think of wind mills and wind generators.  They take the kinetic energy present in the mass and movement of the wind and convert it to mechanical movement which converts it to electrical power.  The wind didn't "create" the electricity, but the kinetic power was transformed through a mechanical process.  In the case of the tornado, like straight winds, the energy present is measurable.

----------


## Rover

> The tornado lasted about 30-40 mins and killed 24 people and destroyed and/or damaged 12,000 homes. 
> 
> The Bomb dropped on Hiroshima lasted initially for a few seconds, killed 100,000+, and destroyed(vaporized!!!) 4.7 square miles, and caused even more devastation further out than that. That is not including the people who are still suffering from the effects and birth defects that the radiation caused.
> 
> You can spin it however you want, the bomb was far more powerful, killed more people, and caused more destruction. Comparing a tornado on earth to an atomic bomb is silly.
> 
> Correction, 60,000-70,000 were killed almost instantly and up to 140,000 were injured.
> 
> Some website are saying 150,000 perished and others are saying 60,000. I know for a fact, it was in between 60,000-100,000 people that almost instantly died.


I can tell you completely do not understand power.  You are confusing total power and the effect of concentration of power.  You might want to take some physics and engineering classes.

----------


## Rover

> Facts don't support comparing a bomb to a tornado, right????


Wrong

----------


## Rover

> I don't understand how the tornado generated energy - period.  I fully understand how a nuclear reaction can generate energy.


The tornado didn't "create" the energy but contains energy.  The energy transformation occurs with the clash and change of temperatures and the power contained in the moisture in the air.  Warm damp air meets cold air releasing massive amounts of energy.  The tornado is a result and a carrier of the energy.

----------


## Just the facts

So we can now all agree the comparison is totally bogus.  However, if not then let me say that the month of April generated more energy than all nuclear detonations combined.  The energy in 90 minutes of sunlight is greater than the combined energy production of entire human race in a year.

----------


## Rover

Sometimes I think people keep doubling up on their lack of understanding just so they never admit they are wrong or that they just don't get it.  Just because they don't get it themselves they don't think it is a viable statement.  That is the definition of arrogance.

The point is that this was a gigantic display of destructive energy and the point that many, many media and scientific sites were making was to put things in perspective.  But some on here want to argue just to win a point.

The point I was originally making was that there was such force in this tornado that it wouldn't have mattered whether it was in Moore or Bricktown, it still would have destroyed property and taken lives.  To turn it into an urban vs suburban argument was asinine.

----------


## Just the facts

But what if we do happen to think that density would save lives.  Just because you say it doesn't, doesn't make it so.  Housing at 10 units per acre has 2x the energy absorption as housing at 5 units per acre.  Do you ever wonder why interior walls usually survive?

----------


## Rover

Higher human density without the proper construction can mean higher casualties too.  Some of the cheap stick build structures in Bricktown and DD would be decimated and suffer high casualties.  Better built houses in suburbs could also conceivably suffer less.

I do agree that more mass absorbs more energy.  However I can make the argument that once that structure is disrupted and collapses, flying debris, etc. could be more devastating to humans..  I hope and pray we never have to find out.  But, as long as we keep building stick built structures all over downtown we are susceptible to these high energy natural events.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Wrong


ok

----------


## UnFrSaKn



----------


## BigD Misey

Great! If theres anything worse than a mystery tower, its a mystery photo.
The where's. the why's. what does it all mean?
Ugh!

Cool pic!

----------


## OKCisOK4me

Is that a view from the TARDIS??

----------


## Urbanized

Well that's just straight-up depressing.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

This reminded me of the old tree where the scrapped hotel was going to go. You see this ever happening in this town?

----------


## OKCisOK4me

No, but that is impressive to say the least!

----------

