How is Austin not relevant? It's globally known as a cultural and music center. It's one of America's most important music cities?

SXSW is the most important music conference in the world.

You're reaching now, and argumentative.

Whatever you define as cosmopolitan can only apply to handful of major world cities. Therefore, continued discussion on this matter with you is pointless.

This is conjecture on your part. Pure and simple. You actually have no idea what will happen in the future.

And by the way, many people would consider OKC cosmopolitan. We have international visitors. We are attracting immigrants from around the world.

No, we're not Rome, but we're not Wichita and Amarillo, either.

And in many ways, OKC is more cosmopolitan than San Antonio, having spent time there on business.

You actually have no idea what will happen in the future. Wow. OK, let's forget all messageboard discussions regarding anything that is not past nor present. Genius.

You need to get some perspective. I'd love for you to take your opinion and say it in front of a roomful of New York Citians, Romans, Parisians. LOVE to watch their reaction to you. Get a grip.

None of that is to say we shouldn't be as badass a possible. But if you think people are going to be talking about Oklahoma City like they talk about London anytime soon...well, I just feel bad for you.

Having unreasonable and unattainable goals is not productive.

How is Austin not relevant? It's globally known as a cultural and music center. It's one of America's most important music cities?

SXSW is the most important music conference in the world.

You're reaching now, and argumentative.

Whatever you define as cosmopolitan can only apply to handful of major world cities. Therefore, continued discussion on this matter with you is pointless.

I'm not well-versed in all the important music conferences the world over, but something tells me that Europe would like to have a word with you about the above-bolded, bold statement.

Austin is not "globally known." You can't go to a teenager in Estonia and say: hey, talk to me about Austin. SXSW is awesome and incredible, no doubt about it. But to say because it has one music conference it is an overall, generally globally relevant city is ridiculous.

Cosmopolitan *IS* supposed to only be applied to a handful of major world cities. That's the idea of what the word means. You're pretty small-minded indeed if you believe that reaching Austin status puts you on the world's stage as a relevant player.

I'd love for you to put your money where your mouth is. I'd love a poll conducted of not only a diverse range of people from different countries all over the world, but also OKCians. I'd love to bet you $100k on the results of whether OKC IS, or is PERCEIVED as (either one), a cosmopolitan city. I'd even give OKC 20 years to grow and still sustain that bet.

I love OKC. I promote OKC. But New Delhi, we ain't. Cairo, we ain't. Berlin- no. OKC is not, and likely will never be, culturally, financially, fashionably, technologically generally relevant to the world.

Can we do a thing or two that might be relevant? Sure. If the cure for cancer were discovered at our medical technology and research campus, that would be amazing. OKC still would not be relevant to the world. That would be one spike, one amazing gift to the world discovered in OKC. But that wouldn't make our fair city generally relevant to citizens of the world.

I'd have to agree with OKCMallen.

San Antonio is probably more 'globally known' than Austin.

None of that is to say we shouldn't be as badass a possible. But if you think people are going to be talking about Oklahoma City like they talk about London anytime soon...well, I just feel bad for you.

You either have a listening or reading comprehension problem. NO ONE, least of all me, is suggesting OKC will become a NYC, London, or Paris.

Apparently, you have a very narrow definition of "cosmopolitan" that only applies to a handful of world cities. Perhaps my definition of the word is a bit more broad than yours. On that, we'll have to either consult a linguist or agree to disagree.

But please stop inferring that anyone on this message board, and particularly me, would be delusional enough to think OKC could become another Paris, Milan or Tokyo.

That is not what I meant by the word "cosmopolitan" when I took issue with your negative-sounding, self-defeating post.

Perhaps you would agree that we would like to see OKC become "more cosmopolitan" in nature, i.e., a little more worldly and a little less like, say, Wichita.

And regarding SXSW, the US is the center of the global entertainment industry, and Austin's annual festival is the biggest in the music business.

And regarding SXSW, the US is the center of the global entertainment industry, and Austin's annual festival is the biggest in the music business.

False.

You guys need to define what you are calling cosmopolitan because it means very different things to many different people.

Urbane?

Urbane?

Absolutely. Thank you.

OKCMallen's definition of cosmopolitan doesn't allow OKC to ever be cosmopolitan. Mine does. A better term, however, would be urbane.

Words have consequences.

Back on the article; I would not ever do anything but say Hi to a player and believe me I would recognize most of them in their street clothes. Incidentally, I was in the Village(NYC not OK) a few years back with my daughter and saw Steve Nash, one of our very favorite athletes on the planet. We were 3 feet away form him as he was eating dinner with friends at an outdoor table and we did not go up to him and ask for his autograph or anything. Looking back I wish I had said something. But you know what? Nobody else was hounding him either. I guess no one recognized the then reigning MVP of the league in NYC either. Or maybe they were just polite and left him to eat his dinner in peace.

Wow...this got pretty heated for a while. I kind of like OKC being "our little secret". I moved here about 7 years ago and had every intention of leaving as soon as I found a job somewhere else. But a funny thing happened....... the place grew on me.

It is a great place to raise kids, relatively inexpensive, and has its own uniqueness. Not too bad if you ask me. And maybe here is the best part - while there are PLENTY of things to do here - if I can't do it here, I can afford to go wherever "it" is because I am not going broke buying overpriced houses or trying to feed my kids.

I am fairly well travelled, and there are several cities mentioned in this thread I have visited. All great places without question - but for what I want for a lifestyle for my kids and I, OKC is pretty darn good.

Back on the article; I would not ever do anything but say Hi to a player and believe me I would recognize most of them in their street clothes. Incidentally, I was in the Village(NYC not OK) a few years back with my daughter and saw Steve Nash, one of our very favorite athletes on the planet. We were 3 feet away form him as he was eating dinner with friends at an outdoor table and we did not go up to him and ask for his autograph or anything. Looking back I wish I had said something. But you know what? Nobody else was hounding him either. I guess no one recognized the then reigning MVP of the league in NYC either. Or maybe they were just polite and left him to eat his dinner in peace.

My kids live in Soho and they see celebrities from time to time. I think they would be believe it was utterly rude to interrupt people while they were eating or lame to ask for their autograph. I was up with them, once, and passed what's her name (Sex in the City while it was still on) out walking her dog. We just nodded and walked past. Truth be told, I didn't know who she was but thought the dog was cute. I lit up to see the pup and it wasn't until after we passed that they told me who she was. Looking back, I'm glad I just mentioned "What a cutie," or something about the dog as I walked past and treated her like any other person.

I think it was a pretty bad article. Looking down the nose at Oklahoma City in several ways. Let HIM know what you think! Jonathan Abrams of the NYT is active on Twitter: Jonathan Abrams (Jpdabrams) on Twitter (http://twitter.com/JpdAbrams)

What? How in the world was that a negative article about OKC? The only message was that OKC is still getting use to having an NBA team, which we are.

The people I know in OKC that seem the most worldly, educated, and 'cosmopolitan' lived in other places before moving here.

Really??? Perhaps you and I should get together for a beer or two. I was educated before I moved to Houston. And now I am more educated... that OKC is not as insular as people think, and that I appreciate OKC a lot more than when I left. Don't insult the native population. Ever.

Today's New York Times has an interesting story on the Thunder's Kevin Durant and his life around OKC. Surprisingly it's pretty positive... read it here (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/sports/basketball/23durant.html?_r=1&th&emc=th).

What part of this article was remotely positive for OKC other than selling out the Ford Center 18 times?

I think to see that article as negative you'd have to bring your own negatively about OKC to the table. Seeing that sort of self hatred positively makes me cringe.

Again, what was portrayed positively about OKC in that article other than selling out the Ford Center. There were lots of things they could have portrayed positively about the city and they chose not to... empty airport, fields, cows, nobody recognizes him, etc.

Again, what was portrayed positively about OKC in that article other than selling out the Ford Center. There were lots of things they could have portrayed positively about the city and they chose not to... empty airport, fields, cows, nobody recognizes him, etc.

I've read the article 3 times now and fail to see anything negative about Oklahoma or OKC in it.

There was plenty of positive in the article about the city *and* the state:

that we temporarily adopted the Hornets after Katrina

"a place where solitude and stability are rolled into one"

the gorgeous landscape

I agree with ECO.. it seems that you are just trying to read your own negativity about OKC into the article.

I read it once and felt like it was definitely more about KD than OKC, but it seems like there were more subtle jabs than glowing remarks.

I love OKC. I just didn't like the article. I don't see how you can mistake my negativity toward the article as negativity towards OKC.

The smallest market in the NBA??? I thought SLC,NO,MEM were all smaller!!and about not knowing who KD is PLEASE,this article is BS! empty airport and cows,OMG! I think the people around the country that read crap like this thinks OKC is a small city with no tall bldngs. and nothing to do and it makes it seem like we arent sports savy!wich is false this city is sports crazy!

SLC and New Orleans are definitely smaller. Memphis is very similar in size to OKC. Yeah, there are some misassumptions in this article that aren't terribly flattering. It's like being damned by faint praise, IMO.

Again, what was portrayed positively about OKC in that article other than selling out the Ford Center. There were lots of things they could have portrayed positively about the city and they chose not to... empty airport, fields, cows, nobody recognizes him, etc.

The guy doesnt work for the OKC Chamber of Commerce, he writes for the NY Times.

Just be happy that OKC has a budding superstar of a basketball player that is even deserving of an article in the NY Times.

The guy doesnt work for the OKC Chamber of Commerce, he writes for the NY Times.

Just be happy that OKC has a budding superstar of a basketball player that is even deserving of an article in the NY Times.

OMG. I was just replying to the OP saying that the article was positive about OKC. It wasn't.

The most interesting part of the article was that Kevin Durant drives a GMC Savana Van.

:closed:

Someone writing about NYC could just as easily describe the abundant dog piss as Time Square. All this amounts to is people not wanting OKC described the way it is - they want it described like it is a frickin' travel pamplet. It is like it has to be packaged in a way that really isn't OKC to be acceptable to some. This was an article about a talented young man in a midwestern city and how strange is that? We are used to seeing them glitzy and with babes on their arm with people falling all over themselves for a chance to kiss up. OKC isn't like that. This "superstar" can wander around and be himself. For some of the readers of this board, this is awful. For others, we read it as real world meets celebrity and thank god the boot lickers don't overpower in our little neck of real world. Don't mean to be harsh, but come on.

Someone writing about NYC could just as easily describe the abundant dog piss as Time Square. All this amounts to is people not wanting OKC described the way it is - they want it described like it is a frickin' travel pamplet. It is like it has to be packaged in a way that really isn't OKC to be acceptable to some. This was an article about a talented young man in a midwestern city and how strange is that? We are used to seeing them glitzy and with babes on their arm with people falling all over themselves for a chance to kiss up. OKC isn't like that. This "superstar" can wander around and be himself. For some of the readers of this board, this is awful. For others, we read it as real world meets celebrity and thank god the boot lickers don't overpower in our little neck of real world. Don't mean to be harsh, but come on.

I agree, East Coast Okie, and I certainly wouldn't ask him to describe the article as a travel pamphlet. And you're right, OKC doesn't drool over stars like many coastal cities.

My apologies.

None needed, whatsoever.

All this amounts to is people not wanting OKC described the way it is - they want it described like it is a frickin' travel pamplet. It is like it has to be packaged in a way that really isn't OKC to be acceptable to some.

This is the last time I will type it. I was simply disagreeing with the OP about the article speaking positively of OKC. It was neutral/unbiased at best. I don't care what the NYT says about OKC. I definitely don't expect them to go out of their way to describe the city like it is described in a "frickin' travel pamplet".

This is the last time I will type it. I was simply disagreeing with the OP about the article speaking positively of OKC. It was neutral/unbiased at best. I don't care what the NYT says about OKC. I definitely don't expect them to go out of their way to describe the city like it is described in a "frickin' travel pamplet".

Okay then.