No, I don't live in DT, but I do work in downtown, and go downtown on a daily basis, so I see what you are talking about. I live in Norman, and have MPA, nor does my urban planning experience match to yours. But I do my research, and I am not comparing OKC to Houston, I just stated we should model their design package that they implemented in the early 80's. I mean honestly what good will those old building do for downtown? I would rather have a green corporate plaza building downtown that will bring pedestrian traffic downtown to support retail business, and the downtown housing market, rather then a old vacant building just standing there with no use. Its common sense, its not that hard, basic economics.

Thanks for sharing. However, that's the point, Houston IS NOT a very walkable urban/downtown. Mimic Discovery Green, yes, their corporate plazas, no. Houston is the oil capital and has the mindset of Sandridge, not a Devon who actually cares about urban fabric. This corporate plaza will not help support downtown retail or vibrancy as they think. Sure it will be shinier, no one is questioning that, it's just not the best use of space and the DDC clearly did not do their job and basically admitted to caving into external pressure. If it worked, you'd see retail over by the new federal building, oh wait, that spec retail/office building that was built years ago is still VACANT and as others stated, the native tall grass that they planted that is similar to what Sandridge is wanting to do, is now being mowed. Another example, the BOK plaza that was redone last year, any new retail there? Anyone actually use that plaza? Go look there, occasionally I see one person out there, and it is usually someone on a cell phone. Leadership Plaza? Not much unless people are on smoke break. Same goes for Chase Plaza (although not green space), heck people aren't even using Kerr Park at Sandridges doorstep.

What's missing from this debate by those who oppose SandRidge's plan is this: what is your better idea? How do you solve the problem of these decaying structures that everyone agrees have no useful purpose now or in the near future?

Parks, plazas, green space, whatever you want to call it, will raise property values in that area, hence we will be able to attract valuable development in those areas. Having old vacant buildings with no use is only lowering property values.

Just where would this new development go? This area already has a lot of open space, why aren't the property values already high?

Just where would this new development go? This area already has a lot of open space, why aren't the property values already high?

Because no company has made an attempt to go left field, and actually invest a lot of money in corporate plaza downtown. Project 180 will also raise property values itself, and even more with the Sandridge development in that area. We have not seen a green space development of this scale in a long time, once this is done and Project 180, property values will skyrocket.

What's missing from this debate by those who oppose SandRidge's plan is this: what is your better idea? How do you solve the problem of these decaying structures that everyone agrees have no useful purpose now or in the near future?

I have posted this several times in the thread; we have proposed other uses and ideas.

Sandridge's plan was to make their building more visable from the street. They could follow a plan like Peachtree Center (Atlanta), Rockafellar Center (NYC), or Emarcadaro Center (San Fran). It would preserve the existing density and make a statement on the downtown OKC street scape that is better than what even Devon is doing (except for height of course).

The hard part is trying to get the parties involved to admit they made a mistake and go with the ideas of some people on a message board.

Green space in an urban setting does not automatically mean it's bad. There are plenty of examples where it works. Sure, we'd prefer to see a new highrise DT, but a landscaped area is the next best thing, and better than surface parking (gasp!). Here's One Atlantic Center in midtown Atlanta - note the tall green things with leaves:

What's missing from this debate by those who oppose SandRidge's plan is this: what is your better idea? How do you solve the problem of these decaying structures that everyone agrees have no useful purpose now or in the near future?

I have been told the a&e documents were completed for both the Ker-Mac and The Braniff building for residential housing. It is my understanding Sandridge has use plans for the Braniff. Sandridge could do the rehab on the Kerr-Mac, or they could have someone else do the rehab for Sandridge.
The fact is they just DON"T WANT TO. They were asked by the City repeatedly to come up with a use and they ignored the City's request.

Let me rephrase...any economically viable ideas? Our DT housing market is ice cold at the moment.

Green space in an urban setting does not automatically mean it's bad. There are plenty of examples where it works. Sure, we'd prefer to see a new highrise DT, but a landscaped area is the next best thing, and better than surface parking (gasp!). Here's One Atlantic Center in midtown Atlanta - note the tall green things with leaves:

I have been at the base of that building many times and guess what - no one is ever in that green space. It is nothing more than a space that HAS to be crossed to get where you want to go. The Federal Reserve build a few blaocks away also has a lot of green space around it and plaza - once again - no one there.

I have been at the base of that building many times and guess what - no one is ever in that green space. It is nothing more than a space that HAS to be crossed to get where you want to go. The Federal Reserve build a few blaocks away also has a lot of green space around it and plaza - once again - no one there.

No matter how many trees or shrubs they plant ... in the end, this is what will be:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Boston_City_Hall.JPG/800px-Boston_City_Hall.JPG

Green space in an urban setting does not automatically mean it's bad. There are plenty of examples where it works. Sure, we'd prefer to see a new highrise DT, but a landscaped area is the next best thing, and better than surface parking (gasp!). Here's One Atlantic Center in midtown Atlanta - note the tall green things with leaves:

Exactly, I am with you on this one, green space in a downtown setting isn't bad, it increases property value, brings pedestrian traffic, and makes for better air quality. I would rather want to live next to a park plaza rather than a old vacant building. this would be ideal place for new mid-rise condos.

Let me rephrase...any economically viable ideas? Our DT housing market is ice cold at the moment.

DT luxury rental is at 100% occupancy. There is 40% historic tax credits (State 20% and Fed 20%) available. And Yes these buildings are eligible for historic tax credits.

Still making the point that landscaped areas around highrises are not, by definition, the worst possible thing, aesthetically speaking.

BOK Tower in Tulsa:

Found a really excellent presentation on this topic from DT Austin redevelopment website: ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/DowntownAustinPlan/dap_parks_planning_7-24-09.pdf

From the intro slide (replace Austin with OKC as the concepts are the same):

WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT DOWNTOWN PARKS AND OPEN SPACE?
They:
• Create a sense of community, a place for public life;
• Connect us to nature and to one another;
• Provide affordable entertainment, leisure, recreation;
• Improve the quality of life for workers and residents;
• Enhance Austin’s image and identity;
• Make Austin more competitive (attract residents, employees, businesses, conventions, visitors, etc.);
• Increase adjacent property values/tax base; and
• Support our vision of a dense, mixed‐use Downtown.

Interesting photo from Tulsa. Every time I drive by that tower, I never see people outside in the plaza area... it looks ... just as it does in that photo.

Green space in an urban setting does not automatically mean it's bad. There are plenty of examples where it works. Sure, we'd prefer to see a new highrise DT, but a landscaped area is the next best thing, and better than surface parking (gasp!). Here's One Atlantic Center in midtown Atlanta - note the tall green things with leaves:

Yeah, and look how uninviting it looks and the lack of any people present. You do realize Kerry works in DT/Midtown Atlanta?


I have been at the base of that building many times and guess what - no one is ever in that green space. It is nothing more than a space that HAS to be crossed to get where you want to go. The Federal Reserve build a few blaocks away also has a lot of green space around it and plaza - once again - no one there.

Exactly. Totally uninviting and rarely anyone that uses it.



DT luxury rental is at 100% occupancy. There is 40% historic tax credits (State 20% and Fed 20%) available. And Yes these buildings are eligible for historic tax credits.

Not 100%, unless you mean inventory wise, not occupancy. But I TOTALLY agree with you about the tax credits, and that's the point Sandridge and their supporters are missing, not to mention the fact that they didn't propose any other alternative uses nor seem to be open to it or even selling the property's that they "deem worthless" to developers who would be willing to convert the buildings.


Still making the point that landscaped areas around highrises are not, by definition, the worst possible thing, aesthetically speaking.

BOK Tower in Tulsa:

That's your argument? Look how cold and uninviting it looks, not to mention the lack of people. You're arguing us opponents case for us. As Steve mentions below, it looks dead when you go by in person, even during busy times.


Interesting photo from Tulsa. Every time I drive by that tower, I never see people outside in the plaza area... it looks ... just as it does in that photo.

A question for the urbanists. Several of you have mentioned you do not see anyone standing around in the plazas. I want to know how many you see people standing around the old buildings. Please do not tell me if Sandridge will do this or Sandridge would do that as Sandridge is not going to do anything if their plans are stopped. I would like to see at least one urbanist in my life time step up to the plate and say here is the money to do what we want done. Probably will never happen in OKC as our urbanists and preservationists have plenty of words and wants, but no disposable funds. I think it would be great if Sandrige would tell the preservationists to go ahead and take the facade off of the India Shine building, then we will take another look at it.

Metro, you are missing the point which I have belabored to make that a landscaped plaza is a better option than any other we have at the moment, and that if done well can be an asset in an urban environment. The tone of this thread is that any plaza in an urban setting is bad, and that's just not true.

I lived in Atlanta metro (Dunwoody) for 10 years and spent many a Saturday night in Buckhead. Have you?

Can I simplify?

In order of best sustainable practice/best benefit to streetlife of downtown

Reused historic building with street level retail > new construction building with street level retail > fully programmed landscaped space > boring corporate plaza > surface parking lot

If you want to see how urban design theories predict that Sandridge's plaza will affect downtown, go to the other side of the building and check out Kerr Park.

Load Sandridge's plaza with food vendors or other activities, however, and it could become a thriving urban space.

Since everyone's doing it, here's another great tower surrounded by green space! Valliance Bank!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/47/142846083_f5122de67d.jpg

See all the trees? Do they make this tower look warm, inviting, and accessible to pedestrians?

Metro, you are missing the point which I have belabored to make that a landscaped plaza is a better option than any other we have at the moment, and that if done well can be an asset in an urban environment. The tone of this thread is that any plaza in an urban setting is bad, and that's just not true.

I lived in Atlanta metro (Dunwoody) for 10 years and spent many a Saturday night in Buckhead. Have you?

Perfect - Buckhead - a suburban downtown. Try moving a few miles south on Peachtree into downtown Atlanta. That is what we are trying to accomplish.

BTW - a lot of that green space you see in Midtown Atlanta are actually tree planted along the sidewalks and not actual parks and open space.

update on okccentral

I'll bet the "keep the dilapidated building" crowd just loves Newark. It is dense, lots of "canyons" and little to no green around any of the buildings. It certainly is urban and dense.

I think what some people keep missing is that we have vast empty green spaces out the a** in this town. To tear down what could potentially be a city icon to create more open space in a town full of empty space is just asinine. Diversify. Plain and simple.

Basically, look at it this way: The amount of green space added by this project will be an extremely insignificant amount in terms of percentage of green space we have in the city. It will hardly be noticed. However, it's negative affect on density will be much greater in terms of percentage, basically because we have so little.

It's a simple evaluation of opportunity cost. We gain very little in terms of additional green space by tearing down these buildings, meanwhile we lose a significant percentage of our core density with little chance of ever getting it back. What do we need more: more opportunities for increased density in one small section of the city or more opportunities for empty space?

Furthermore, the standard by which people are using to say they are unusable and should be torn down is the same standard that said that the Skrivin, most of Bricktown, and the First Interstate buildings should have been razed. I am not sure we would be better off with those spaces filled with plazas today. It's the exact same thing.

A question for the urbanists. Several of you have mentioned you do not see anyone standing around in the plazas. I want to know how many you see people standing around the old buildings. Please do not tell me if Sandridge will do this or Sandridge would do that as Sandridge is not going to do anything if their plans are stopped. I would like to see at least one urbanist in my life time step up to the plate and say here is the money to do what we want done. Probably will never happen in OKC as our urbanists and preservationists have plenty of words and wants, but no disposable funds. I think it would be great if Sandrige would tell the preservationists to go ahead and take the facade off of the India Shine building, then we will take another look at it.

You mean like the Skirvin? It would also help if Sandridge would put the building on the table to be sold to see if us "urbanists" would be willing to purchase it. Did you forget Triangle Group tried and plans were in the works before Kerr McGee was sold? Another example Bricktown.

Metro, you are missing the point which I have belabored to make that a landscaped plaza is a better option than any other we have at the moment, and that if done well can be an asset in an urban environment. The tone of this thread is that any plaza in an urban setting is bad, and that's just not true.

I lived in Atlanta metro (Dunwoody) for 10 years and spent many a Saturday night in Buckhead. Have you?

Agree to disagree. Sounds like you're all about making short-term decisions and not focusing on the long-term (something OKC hasn't been good with since the 60's).

Yes, I used to live outside ATL metro, out by Commerce off I-85. Spent lots of time in ATL, including living in DT OKC during the 96 Summer Olympics and spent lots of time in Gwinnet County and Buckhead. Either way photographic evidence shows that corporate park plaza is a poor example, no one was in that photo. It's uninviting. As Kerry states, why are they so great, are we going to have a bunch of philosphers just hanging out in them all day, Bob playing frisbee with his dog, and hot girls jogging with their ipods in Sandridge plaza? Why is empty plaza space better versus a historic building that might be preserved if they'd put it on the market.

Can I simplify?

In order of best sustainable practice/best benefit to streetlife of downtown

Reused historic building with street level retail > new construction building with street level retail > fully programmed landscaped space > boring corporate plaza > surface parking lot

If you want to see how urban design theories predict that Sandridge's plaza will affect downtown, go to the other side of the building and check out Kerr Park.

Load Sandridge's plaza with food vendors or other activities, however, and it could become a thriving urban space.

Since everyone's doing it, here's another great tower surrounded by green space! Valliance Bank!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/47/142846083_f5122de67d.jpg

See all the trees? Do they make this tower look warm, inviting, and accessible to pedestrians?


Finally someone who gets it.

You mean like the Skirvin? It would also help if Sandridge would put the building on the table to be sold to see if us "urbanists" would be willing to purchase it. Did you forget Triangle Group tried and plans were in the works before Kerr McGee was sold? Another example Bricktown.

Obviously Sandridge has their own plans for that property so what is their incentive to please a few urbanists? I have seen nothing to indicate that Triangle Group tried. As for plans in the works before Kerr McGee was sold, my understanding was that KM was to provide the buildings and the money.
Can you provide any documentation to disprove my understanding of the situation. Also, no I did not mean like the Skirven, as the Skirven already had a plaza in front of it's property.

Here's a question for the preservation crowd: go back in time to 2007. Kerr-McGee Tower is dark and empty. An energy company from another state with 600 employees is preparing to buy the property and move into it, but with a caveat: Downtown Design Review must first approve an application to tear down all the older structures around the tower except for the Braniff Building.
Would the same fight be waged?
(This question is not intended to indicate I'm for or against preservation. I believe in asking questions and provoking good discussion. I know most of you know this. But some people, including one person in this thread, have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I do and get quite hostile when I ask questions they don't like)

Doesn't Sandridge have Kerr Park?

It is shocking to me how clueless a lot of people on this site are.

Here's a question for the preservation crowd: go back in time to 2007. Kerr-McGee Tower is dark and empty. An energy company from another state with 600 employees is preparing to buy the property and move into it, but with a caveat: Downtown Design Review must first approve an application to tear down all the older structures around the tower except for the Braniff Building.
Would the same fight be waged?


Better yet - some one wants to move into the Braniff Building but doesn't like the concrete 30 story building on the site (I guess they just prefer the historic look). Would the downtown suburbanist on this site be OK with the tower being torn down?

As for your question Steve - the Kerr McGee building would have to be vacant for a long time before I saw that as a good deal for the city. How long? I don't know, how long have the building slated for destruction been empty?

I say demolish the old OGE building to, and build a new mid-rise.

ARE YOU INSANE?? Do you realize how many empty lots already exist?! :omg::omg::omg::omg::omg:


What's missing from this debate by those who oppose SandRidge's plan is this: what is your better idea? How do you solve the problem of these decaying structures that everyone agrees have no useful purpose now or in the near future?

That's not missing at all. Numerous people have suggested from the beginning that if the existing buildings are not salvageable, they should be replaced with BUILDINGS, not flower beds.


Sure, we'd prefer to see a new highrise DT, but a landscaped area is the next best thing,

NO, the next best thing is midrise development.



The fact is they just DON"T WANT TO. They were asked by the City repeatedly to come up with a use and they ignored the City's request.

Exactly. If they were really just concerned about sightlines, then why can't they demolish the ugly parking structure on the north and east sides of their block? They just have it out for these buildings, plain and simple.


Let me rephrase...any economically viable ideas? Our DT housing market is ice cold at the moment.

WRONG. For sale, high end housing is ice cold. Rental and lower end condos are in demand but no one will build them.


Still making the point that landscaped areas around highrises are not, by definition, the worst possible thing, aesthetically speaking.

Aesthetics only get you so far. It's not FUNCTIONAL.


I'll bet the "keep the dilapidated building" crowd just loves Newark. It is dense, lots of "canyons" and little to no green around any of the buildings. It certainly is urban and dense.

Again putting words in our mouths. No one is against "green". Project 180 is putting street trees everywhere downtown. That's more than enough added green.


It is shocking to me how clueless a lot of people on this site are.

A lot of it seems to be a product of anti-"socialist" sentiments that are everywhere right now. "Don't tell me what to do with my money!" ...etc.

I can not speak for anyone else, but I will guarantee you JBrown that I have had anti socialist feelings since I was fourteen years old. I find socialists to be totally disgusting.

Can I simplify?

In order of best sustainable practice/best benefit to streetlife of downtown

Reused historic building with street level retail > new construction building with street level retail > fully programmed landscaped space > boring corporate plaza > surface parking lot

If you want to see how urban design theories predict that Sandridge's plaza will affect downtown, go to the other side of the building and check out Kerr Park.

Load Sandridge's plaza with food vendors or other activities, however, and it could become a thriving urban space.

Since everyone's doing it, here's another great tower surrounded by green space! Valliance Bank!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/47/142846083_f5122de67d.jpg

See all the trees? Do they make this tower look warm, inviting, and accessible to pedestrians?

May not be the best pic to use as most of the landscaping in the photo is on the McDonald's lot! By the way, that McDonald's and all of the landscaping is gone...bulldozed...they are rebuilding. Was by there today, Thursday.

LOL...here we go again: "we don't have an abundant need for park space downtown"

Yet we are adding a string of parks from Downtown to the River and beyond (MAPS 3/Core to Shore/70 acres+)...we are heavily renovating the Myriad Gardens park space (and according to one of the earlier Devon articles, they are adding a 2+ acre park to their area...this may be what caused some confusion during the MAPS vote, thinking this was the same park as the one in MAPS 3).

Now IF you are saying that because of all of the above we don't need any MORE park space downtown, then we are in agreement.String of pearls, thats a good one. Hows that project coming along?

...Houston is the oil capital and has the mindset of Sandridge, not a Devon who actually cares about urban fabric. ...

Which leads to the question, why would Devon SUPPORT SandRidge's plans? (Steve has a letter from them and Clay Bennett over in his Oklahoman blog).

Larry. It's really nothing more than good PR to the ordinary of OKC. It's good publicity for one of the city's corporate leaders being warm and showing friendship with other corporate leaders. I think only do us and the more concerned find it odd.

I'll bet the "keep the dilapidated building" crowd just loves Newark. It is dense, lots of "canyons" and little to no green around any of the buildings. It certainly is urban and dense.

I just took a quick Google Earth field trip thru Newark. Before you make comments like this you might want to take a look at Newark. It didn't look to bad to me. If it wasn't NJ, I could live with it. There are more people walking in front of the "dilapidated" buildings in Newark than there are people sunning themselves in the corporate plazas of downtown Houston. That should put to rest the corporate plaza > abandoned building myth.

String of pearls, thats a good one. Hows that project coming along?

String of Pearls? That was an ancient failed idea (or is that your point)?

As for the Valiance tower....horrible perspective on the place.

#1 - it's not downtown...it's not a CBD.
#2 - it's actually surrounded by parking garage conrete. Take a look at a satellite view from whatever map site you want. It's not a green space. I-44 - McDonald's - Hotel - NW Exway. The only trees there are the ones right in front that you see from the NW Exway. 50 Penn Place has more greenery, and that's not saying much since all of it's greenery is lining the perimeter of the site to the houses behind it or the NW Exway.

I'm not arguing on the points of tearing down the crap buildings for Sandridge, I'm just pointing out a flawed arguement about other towers in town.

I just took a quick Google Earth field trip thru Newark. Before you make comments like this you might want to take a look at Newark. It didn't look to bad to me. If it wasn't NJ, I could live with it. There are more people walking in front of the "dilapidated" buildings in Newark than there are people sunning themselves in the corporate plazas of downtown Houston. That should put to rest the corporate plaza > abandoned building myth.

I've been to DT Newark, scary. Using it for comparison is laughable though, as they have virtually no green space, it's a very old, dirty industrial city. THey also have lots of port operations. If we're comparing to Newark, should we too build a port?

I've been to DT Newark, scary. Using it for comparison is laughable though, as they have virtually no green space, it's a very old, dirty industrial city. THey also have lots of port operations. If we're comparing to Newark, should we too build a port?

Metro - not saying Newark isn't a dump or that I want my wife a kids there after dark, but when were you last there? I think Rovers comment might have been more about the people, and not the physical downtown because it looked pretty darn nice to me. Even their boarded up buildings still had functional retail on the ground floor.

2 years ago

I'll tell you this, if some had the magical option of trading for downtown Newark (minus the people), I might be willing to do that.

Larry. It's really nothing more than good PR to the ordinary of OKC. It's good publicity for one of the city's corporate leaders being warm and showing friendship with other corporate leaders. I think only do us and the more concerned find it odd.

"good PR to the ordinary". "only do us and the more concerned find it odd".

You guys have been here so long doing the urbanist circle jerk that you have become legends in your own mind. This seems to be prevelant with the younger group that must have real insecurity problems that need to be addressed as soon as possible to enable them to achieve some degree of maturity.

Oh dear wise one, thank you so much for making all a bit smarter by gracing us with your wisdom.

Oh dear wise one, thank you so much for making all a bit smarter by gracing us with your wisdom.

ROFLMAO - I can feel myself getting smarter right now. I need to get back over to the politics board and edit all of my postings while I am still in this heightened state of enlightenment.

As for the Valiance tower....horrible perspective on the place.

#1 - it's not downtown...it's not a CBD.
#2 - it's actually surrounded by parking garage conrete. Take a look at a satellite view from whatever map site you want. It's not a green space. I-44 - McDonald's - Hotel - NW Exway. The only trees there are the ones right in front that you see from the NW Exway. 50 Penn Place has more greenery, and that's not saying much since all of it's greenery is lining the perimeter of the site to the houses behind it or the NW Exway.

I'm not arguing on the points of tearing down the crap buildings for Sandridge, I'm just pointing out a flawed arguement about other towers in town.

(I was being sarcastic when I posted the Valliance image.)

"good PR to the ordinary". "only do us and the more concerned find it odd".

You guys have been here so long doing the urbanist circle jerk that you have become legends in your own mind. This seems to be prevelant with the younger group that must have real insecurity problems that need to be addressed as soon as possible to enable them to achieve some degree of maturity.

The only reason I say that is because people on this board, yes you Popsy, are more informed than the ordinary resident of OKC. It has nothing to with this made-up "urbanist circle jerk" and "legend" **** you just spewed. And insecurity problems? WTF are you? A physcologist? Your post irritates me beyond words, especially since you think you're just so right when really, I didn't expect some know-it-all to come along and twist it to make it sound so egotistical; stop reading into something that's not there.

And you know. Maybe I should have used 'average' in place of 'ordinary' in relevance to less-informed citizens. I can see where you might have taken that as ego-talking, but it wasn't meant that way. I merely saw it as a synonym.

The only reason I say that is because people on this board, yes you Popsy, are more informed than the ordinary resident of OKC. It has nothing to with this made-up "urbanist circle jerk" and "legend" **** you just spewed. And insecurity problems? WTF are you? A physcologist? Your post irritates me beyond words, especially since you think you're just so right when really, I didn't expect some know-it-all to come along and twist it to make it sound so egotistical; stop reading into something that's not there.

And you know. Maybe I should have used 'average' in place of 'ordinary' in relevance to less-informed citizens. I can see where you might have taken that as ego-talking, but it wasn't meant that way. I merely saw it as a synonym.

This is going in my new book called Beat Down 101. Well said.

Kerry. If you really believe that what A10 responded with was well said and a beat down, then I feel for you. What A10 did was to chide me for having an opinion in a way that was not consistent with any type of maturity. His "elitist post" irrated me greatly which caused me to respond with more vigor than I normally would, however claims of not meaning to sound like he was an elitist rings hollow as that is what he wrote. I certainly cannot read his mind to know if he meant it to sound that way or not. I realize my opinion does not fit well with many in this forum, however I felt that in a public forum there was room for debate but perhaps I was wrong.

Calm down Popsy or I'll sick A10 on you again. And if you want to talk about maturity you might want to read some of your own choice words. Maybe you can explain to those of us that don't know, what a "circle jerk" is. Nice debate strategy by the way. We considered your point of view - and rejected it.

Calm down Popsy or I'll sick A10 on you again. And if you want to talk about maturity you might want to read some of your own choice words. Maybe you can explain to those of us that don't know, what a "circle jerk" is. Nice debate strategy by the way. We considered your point of view - and rejected it.

Great point, Kerry. I suspect that I'm older than Popsy so his age reference doesn't wash. I tend to relate more to the "young urbanists" without worrying about achieving maturity.

Great point, Kerry. I suspect that I'm older than Popsy so his age reference doesn't wash. I tend to relate more to the "young urbanists" without worrying about achieving maturity.

I'm not a spring chicken either. I turn 41 this year.

Wow Kerry, I thought you were a lot older than that! j/k

I'm not a spring chicken either. I turn 41 this year.

I was that old once. A little over 20 years ago. lol

ljbab, it's so impressive to see a youngster like you trying to weigh in on urbanism, but really you should experience more in life before thinking you can discuss these matters in a big boy forum like OKC Talk.
:dizzy:

ljbab, it's so impressive to see a youngster like you trying to weigh in on urbanism, but really you should experience more in life before thinking you can discuss these matters in a big boy forum like OKC Talk.
:dizzy:

I would have taken offense to that....6 years ago. LOL

ljbab, it's so impressive to see a youngster like you trying to weigh in on urbanism, but really you should experience more in life before thinking you can discuss these matters in a big boy forum like OKC Talk.
:dizzy:

I hope this is a joke

It's a joke OUGrad....