It is amazing to me, that in the land of brick, we see so much EIFS. If you combined some metal and glass with brick, you could get a nice modern look that would blend in quite well in bricktown.

http://www.catfishbilly.com/images/brick-glass-metal.jpg

What's funny is that design committees exist as much to give exceptions as they do to make sure designs meet requirements. We'll know when we've arrived when we start making exceptions for proposals that are awesome or make up for the lack of strict compliance elsewhere.

For example, I honestly think they should have made some sort of compromise on the Hampton Inn project so they would have kept the glass tower in the front. I think they gained 1 more floor of brick and lost the tower in that deal.

That design looks pretty good to me.

I concur, I like the look and design of that building.

Must I do everything? *grin*

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/files/2009/09/aerialbrick1998.jpg

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/09/15/downtown-okc-2020-blair-humphreys/aerialbrick1998/

man, that really puts it in perspective. We've come a long way.

You were on a roll until lately, it seemed like we were going through a phase where I agreed with you 100% on non political stuff, but in this last week you have been saying a lot of crazy things. Is everything alright in your life, Kerry?

I am going to chalk it up to sleep deprivation. I had the flu or sever cold for 11 days and just as I get over it I stayed up late watching west coast Thunder games on east coast time (I think I woke my wife up about 1:30AM yelling "stop shooting so many damn 3's") - then getting up at 7AM for work. As for design standards - I would never support anything that would lead to another Bass Pro development. I learned my lesson on that one.

So where are we at on this hotel development? M.P. took some preliminary plans to the Review Board and they indicated some changes that need to be made. I assume those change are going to be incorporated to some degree and then re-presented. When will that happen?

Can anyone guess why only two private strucutures have been built in Bricktown and prime lots still sit vacant after almost 20 years?


You mean as opposed to the grassy lot on the canal corner? I'll take the Days Inn over grass. Heck, I supported 4 abandoned buldings on McGee over flower beds so I would have no problem with Days Inn over grass. That was an easy one. People are not beating down the door to build in Bricktown and as more option become available downtown even fewer people will be doing so. Bricktown has probably gone as far as it can go with the current design standards, and it didn't even go very far.

Dr. McKean looked at that property when he bought the property for JDM and he said (at the time) they wanted twice the price for the previous, smaller grassy knoll than he paid for the JDM property with the existing building sitting on it.

We had meetings every few months with Dr. McKean to go over budgets on the JDM Place building whenever he was concerned over the what it was costing him. We always suggested ways to lessen the cost with the nope of minimal impact on the style, this included items like using much less cast stone, mainly the water table base and something cheaper than Pella Architect Series windows/doors. He pretty much dismissed all of the exterior finish cost cutting proposals as they just weren't what he would be happy with and we always left the meeting with the original design intent intact. He had a vision of what he wanted and was willing to see it through, it would be nice to have more clients like that instead of the ones who are looking to shave anything they can. I have dealt with too many of those here in Austin.


Kerry, I've been covering design review for 15 years. I've yet to see an example in Bricktown where design standards killed a project (I have, however, seen it happen in MidTown and NW 23).
We never had a problem with the design committee for JDM Place whenever we had to submit for a review. They seemed very happy with pretty much everything we proposed.


Here's something people don't like to talk about: did you know a property owner faces a smaller assessment to pay into the Business Improvement District for a surface parking lot than for a building on that same lot?
I've never understood the incentive for this, especially if a building previously sat on a site that was cleared. When I worked in Dallas in the early 90's there was an article in Texas Architect magazine about the surface parking lots in Downtown Dallas, it stated (at that time) that about 38% of the land in the Dallas CBD was surface parking lots. They were still bringing buildings down at that time even though there was an oversupply of parking in that area of downtown. The only reason what most were being cleared were to save the tax money for changing it to an "unimproved lot" instead of keeping a building in the site for possible reuse. To me the valuation shouldn't be changed from an improved lot to an unimproved lot if the lot has been improved at one time. The valuation from that "improvement" should stick with the property until some other "improvement" is done on the same lot.


Kerry, when did you start spewing strange rhetoric in every single thread? Also, your argument about "three new structures in 20 years" is seriously flawed. You're forgetting MAJOR additions to JDM Place and the building that houses Nonna's, both done with really high design quality. You're neglecting to give due importance to thousands of square feet of activity that has occurred (and is still occurring) inside buildings, as well as major exterior renovations (Candy Factory for example). These total renovations are basically equivalent to new construction within the shells of old buildings. Now that the majority of these buildings are fixed up, it is far more likely that we'll start seeing more new construction in Bricktown.
JDM Place surely was, it was stripped down to its cast-in-place concrete structure and completely built new with a floor added to the top of the concrete structure.

Original building
http://bluedogok.com/jdmp/jdmp1-25s.jpg
http://bluedogok.com/jdmp/jdmp1-25n.jpg

Stripped to concrete frame
http://bluedogok.com/jdmp/frame.jpg

Bluedog, that was one of the classiest projects done on the canal to date (Kingman is a close second)

Thanks bluedog.

Think we could talk him into building another one on the grassy knol now! That would be awesome.

Think we could talk him into building another one on the grassy knol now! That would be awesome.
I tried years ago and have done a few schemes for those lots just for myself, one a New Orleans style hotel on the canal but I know the developer money wasn't there at the time (again, years ago) for how much I knew they wanted for the property. Just some more "paper architecture"....

Weird... not sure why that happened. I'll look at it.

I got the same error message when I tried:


Forbidden

You don't have permission to access /okccentral2/files/2009/09/aerialbrick1998.jpg on this server.

man, that really puts it in perspective. We've come a long way.

Thanks for a link that works! LOL

I do have a question though, there is the surface lot behind the ballpark (think that is where the Coca-Cola Event Center is), but are the "barren" adjacent lots (looks like fresh dirt) in preparation for the Lower Bricktown (Bass Pro area) development? In other words what was there before the prep work for the new development? Do we have a pic of that area before MAPS and the Canal? By the way, good pic posted earlier showing the Canal area, pre-canal.

Just for reference, this is the hotel in Austin they mentioned as similar in concept:

http://media.expedia.com/hotels/2000000/1460000/1453600/1453501/1453501_78_b.jpg

looks suburban to me.

How do you define suburban?

stucco lol

faux stucco, faux Italian

So Rome isn't urban? What about LA?

This hotel is just outside LAX. It isn't urban?

http://aff.bstatic.com/images/hotel/org/132/1329243.jpg

I think urban has more to do with parking lots, setbacks from the street, and vertical development - not building materials.

So Rome isn't urban? What about LA?

This hotel is just outside LAX. It isn't urban?

http://aff.bstatic.com/images/hotel/org/132/1329243.jpg

I think urban has more to do with parking lots, setbacks from the street, and vertical development - not building materials.

Interestingly enough, there is a brand new Hilton Garden Inn on NW expressway. It's 3 or 4 stories and all EIFS. That to me is a suburban hotel, not an 11 story 255 room hotel.

Interestingly enough, there is a brand new Hilton Garden Inn on NW expressway. It's 3 or 4 stories and all EIFS. That to me is a suburban hotel, not an 11 story 255 room hotel.

Does it have a big parking lot and sit 50 or more feet from the road?

Does it have a big parking lot and sit 50 or more feet from the road?

How did you know?

http://embassysuites1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/CHIREES/media/images/photo_gallery/CHIREES_Embassy_Suites_Chicago-Downtown_Lakefront_home_right.jpg

This Embassy Suites is in the heart of Chicago. Notice no bricks. Plenty of alternate materials and glass. The anti stucco or alternate material obsession or idea that materials makes something urban or not is silly.

How did you know?

Lucky guess.

http://embassysuites1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/CHIREES/media/images/photo_gallery/CHIREES_Embassy_Suites_Chicago-Downtown_Lakefront_home_right.jpg

This Embassy Suites is in the heart of Chicago. Notice no bricks. Plenty of alternate materials and glass. The anti stucco or alternate material obsession or idea that materials makes something urban or not is silly.

That hotel could be anywhere on NWExpway. (sorry, I just want to beat others to it).

That hotel could be anywhere on NWExpway.

And blow away any other hotel on it.

It could also be downtown.

It would be retarded in bricktown.

Hilton Ad from the 70's...yikes!

http://consumerist.com/2011/01/long-for-the-70s-this-vintage-hilton-ad-will-cure-that.html

And blow away any other hotel on it.

It could also be downtown.

It would be retarded in bricktown.

What about in Lower Bricktown?

What about in Lower Bricktown?

Scrape everything that is there for it.

I have no doubt the hotel will be sufficiently urban. I just wonder how it will blend in with the surrounding Bricktown style. I was under the impression that there were design and architecture standards for Bricktown. This hotel may indeed be wonderful when built. However, the only rendering I have seen is rather underwhelming or even ordinary.

My understanding is that the new hotels are to be brick up to the top two floors with a cap of alternate materials. However, the upper floors looked to be buff brick. Now I guess it may not be Bricktown but we should change the name to "RedBricktown".

I understand consistency and standards, but if we want totally homogeneous then I think it will wind up pretty bland. Heck, let's just go solicit Disney to develop it as another of their theme lands. They might even bring in the retail we crave - the Disney Store. (Sorry, just poking a little fun)

I think something like this would be a good fit, its modern, brick, red, and 11 stories:

http://photonet0.hotpads.com/search/listingPhoto/ThreeWide/DAARMN-156297/0000_1143671569_medium.jpg

Yes, that is nice. Ironically, it looks to be in a suburban setting. LOL because that will get it shot down here.

I think something like this would be a good fit, its modern, brick, red, and 11 stories:

http://photonet0.hotpads.com/search/listingPhoto/ThreeWide/DAARMN-156297/0000_1143671569_medium.jpg

Yes, that is an excellent example. Where is that Sheraton?

I think something like this would be a good fit, its modern, brick, red, and 11 stories:

http://photonet0.hotpads.com/search/listingPhoto/ThreeWide/DAARMN-156297/0000_1143671569_medium.jpg

That is precisely what I was talking about. Contemporary red brick buildings will blend very well with traditional structures in Bricktown because they were simple warehouses, for the most part. We don't need a lot of architectural detail, and we don't need a Disneyworld approach to the area. But, it would be nice to see buildings that are designed to be attractive and blend with the area, regardless of architectural style.

I have no problem with glass, metal and/or real stucco in other parts of Oklahoma City. The fact that LEVEL will be primarily stucco doesn't bother me because that area has no historical character, since it was essentially leveled (bad pun, I realize).

I think something like this would be a good fit, its modern, brick, red, and 11 stories:

http://photonet0.hotpads.com/search/listingPhoto/ThreeWide/DAARMN-156297/0000_1143671569_medium.jpg

That is a beautiful building.

More of this in Bricktown, please! Either a hotel or a mixed use or both.

Thank you to the developers that will be building this in Bricktown.

Would it pass Bricktown design standards?

I
Would it pass Bricktown design standards?
Doubtful.

looks suburban to me.

That picture doesn't do it justice. What makes it urban is that is pedestrian-oriented and not set back from the street by an ocean of surface parking. Instead, there is an underground parking garage. There are nice, wide sidewalks all around. The hotel shares a block with other buildings that have restaurants and retail at street level, and is less than a block away from a commuter rail stop.

It's not as "urban" as a Manhattan boutique hotel, but it's as urban as anything that exists in OKC right now.

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g342/feconi/inn_1.jpg

http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g342/feconi/inn_2.jpg

http://embassysuites1.hilton.com/ts/en_US/hotels/content/CHIREES/media/images/photo_gallery/CHIREES_Embassy_Suites_Chicago-Downtown_Lakefront_home_right.jpg

This Embassy Suites is in the heart of Chicago. Notice no bricks. Plenty of alternate materials and glass. The anti stucco or alternate material obsession or idea that materials makes something urban or not is silly.

Agreed. Based on some of the posts I've seen, it seems people would rather see a brick-clad single story Wal-Mart (like the one on Danforth in Edmond) be built in Bricktown rather than a high rise swathed in EIFS because architectural uniformity is what makes an area "urban." And you wonder why lower Bricktown is such an abomination...

Would it pass Bricktown design standards?

Why wouldn't it? Their issues are using brick versus EIFS, and rightfully so.

Some on this thread are trying to paint the committee as unreasonable but I've seen no examples of this. They want to keep the use of EIFS at a minimum and want some sort of harmony in the district. Considering Nonna's has lots of glass and contemporary details and there are architects also as members, I bet they would love to see something similar to the contemporary designs, just like everyone else that has been commenting.

Remember, The Factory and the large hotel/condo proposed on the south side of the canal were both about 8-10 stories and had lots of contemporary elements. They were both mainly brick and glass. I think everyone would have loved to have seen them built.

http://www.hellooklahomacity.com/media/articles/large/4029_image1_large.jpg

The anti stucco or alternate material obsession or idea that materials makes something urban or not is silly.

The issue here is if primarily EIFS buildings have a place in the main part of Bricktown. The design committee doesn't think so and it seems most agree with that.


EIFS isn't inherently urban or suburban. It is inherently cheap-looking when used in excess and requires far more maintenance than brick, glass, stone or metal. Lots of these buildings covered in EIFS are going to start looking pretty shabby in about 10 years.

The issue here is if primarily EIFS buildings have a place in the main part of Bricktown. The design committee doesn't think so and it seems most agree with that.


EIFS isn't inherently urban or suburban. It is inherently cheap-looking when used in excess and requires far more maintenance than brick, glass, stone or metal. Lots of these buildings covered in EIFS are going to start looking pretty shabby in about 10 years.

The proposed hotel only had EIFS on the top two floors. The rest was brick, it just wasn't red brick. Anyone know if there is a copy of the design standards on-line?

I realize it only has two floors but I was addressing the broader issues being discussed here, not just this particular building.

I'm sure the standards are broad, which is why Pitman's group wanted to get a concept to them to for feedback. In the end, it's the job of the committee to do what's best for the district and the community and it seems they've raised some valid concerns. With the Hampton Inn this process seemed to work just fine, with compromise on both sides.

Just curious what the installed cost of bricks for approximately 60,000 square feet of exterior wall vs. EIFS. Commercial brick should be about $950-975,000.

So Rome isn't urban? What about LA?

This hotel is just outside LAX. It isn't urban?

http://aff.bstatic.com/images/hotel/org/132/1329243.jpg

I think urban has more to do with parking lots, setbacks from the street, and vertical development - not building materials.

Kerry, Rome is not faux Italian and EIFS wasn't around in 200 BC when it was built. And did you just ask if LA was urban, to a board with a few urban enthusiasts? Answer: NO! Don't LA my OKC.

I agree with you on building materials not making something urban, but it is important here for other reasons. You are forgetting the fact that this is Bricktown. A brick-themed historic district. We typically like for new construction in a historic district to match that of the existing neighborhood. This is good practice. Bricktown's existing historic structures are awesome brick warehouses. So it does seem reasonable to want new construction to incorporate a heavy usage of brick.

And I also think there are concerns about the street level. They will probably need to put more attention there.

The above image you posted is perhaps possibly somewhat urban, though it is not attractive, and it is not something that any of us except for you would want to see in Bricktown. I'll put it this way, it's somewhat more urban than a Hilton Garden Inn on the NW Expressway, but still doesn't belong in Bricktown. I also think it's very telling that you wanted us to look at this building as a good example of what you're trying to explain.

So the issue goes beyond urban or suburban in site plan. Bricktown is a special district that has urban design codes that require a specific style. The issue is what is appropriate for the Bricktown district.

The proposed hotel only had EIFS on the top two floors. The rest was brick, it just wasn't red brick. Anyone know if there is a copy of the design standards on-line?

I don't think that was the case. First of all, I don't see how the design committee could have an argument with EIFS on the top two floors since they allowed it on the Hampton Inn. Here's the quote from the second story: "Committee members took issue with the amount of Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems." Secondly, there was the quote from Mr. Pitman in the initial article in the paper referencing changes in design guidelines since the Hampton Inn was built, which wouldn't have been important either if he was planning to put the same number of floors of EIFS as on the Hampton Inn. I think the description of materials we have received probably relates to the compromise which both parties feel will be agreeable.

Also, the use of EIFS for only two floors was still a compromise of the standards at the time and they appear to have become even more strict.

This is why exceptions are so tricky... Now that a precedent has been set, it's hard to turn down similar proposals without appearing biased.

If every new building proposed for the area was 20% synthetic stucco, that would probably be too much IMO.

Yes, that is an excellent example. Where is that Sheraton?

Duluth, MN

And did you just ask if LA was urban, to a board with a few urban enthusiasts? Answer: NO! Don't LA my OKC.

You must be joking. Most of the suburbs of LA are more urban and densely populated than so-called "urban" neighborhoods like Midtown and the Paseo.

OKC will never come even remotely close to being as urban as LA, sorry.

Wrong. LA proper is a mess. Yes, 3 or 4 of the suburbs are nice, like Pasadena, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, et al.

LA is not a good example of urban, but Chicago is.

Wrong. LA proper is a mess. Yes, 3 or 4 of the suburbs are nice, like Pasadena, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, et al.

You're clueless. Why even bother replying?


LA is not a good example of urban, but Chicago is.

LA may not be model example of urbanism, but it is far and away more urban than OKC, and that's all I'm saying. At least as far as density is concerned, OKC could benefit from being a lot more like LA.

I guess the question is whether LA is the best role model for a city of OKC's size, or whether there are other examples of urban density that might be more fitting. And that's where the two of you might not be communicating well. (I say there are better cities than LA to follow, though I do realize LA doesn't deserve all the bad marks it sometimes gets)

At the time I posted that picture some were still on the "building material makes it urban" idea. That arguement seems to have been dropped. As for the design standards in Bricktown; based on the initial posts in this thread I was under the impression that exisiting buildings that undergo renovations would need to be finished in the original red brick, but new buildings could use different color bricks so long as the bricks made up some large percentage of the exterior. That appears to not be the case.

Is LA a good role model for urban growth? No probably not but as stated before, it is 1000X time more urban the OKC. If you went to LA and told them they weren't urban you would probably get stabbed in the neck with a soldering iron.

faux stucco, faux Italian
EIFS use is somewhat limited here, for some reason the Austin market uses a lot of real plaster cement stucco. In seven years I have not done anything here with EIFS, one thing I do notice is projects designed by out of town firms tend to spec EIFS instead of stucco for projects here. I know that I probably would have before living in the market.

Now the faux Italian part.....we couldn't have built much here during the boom if developers couldn't have had their faux Tuscan style and thinking it is "high design". I was tired of seeing that style and having to do buildings in that style, luckily most of what I have done recently is not in that style.


At the time I posted that picture some were still on the "building material makes it urban" idea. That arguement seems to have been dropped. As for the design standards in Bricktown; based on the initial posts in this thread I was under the impression that exisiting buildings that undergo renovations would need to be finished in the original red brick, but new buildings could use different color bricks so long as the bricks made up some large percentage of the exterior. That appears to not be the case.
JDM Place was done in red brick and green metal (roof/railings) because that is what Dr. McKean wanted, he wanted it to match the Bricktown Ballpark and we used a similar brick and exact paint colors that Schwartz/ADG used. The original building had more of a brown brick than red. We might have been able to use a different color with committee approval but never had to find out.

Actually, LA might be a perfect example. A spread out metropolis where "urban" is really a collection of suburbs - one moving right along into another. The revitalization areas of downtown Los Angeles (including rail) has proved to be a boon for residential development and all that follows. If you haven't been to downtown Los Angeles, in even the last couple of years, you haven't seen the impressive work being done. The southwestern/western style sprawling spread of a city is definitely more like Oklahoma City than Oklahoma City can ever be like Chicago (as much as I love Chicago). The huge numbers of young people moving downtown in Los Angeles is much like what we all kind of see on the horizon here. No, LA is not the "model" urban city - but it's as good an example from a big city that is very much like OKC when it comes to the planning (or lack thereof) and trying to re-urbanize within the sprawl. Of course, Pete is close and can tell you about all that much better than I can.

re-urbanize within the sprawl

I like that phrase.

Hilton Ad from the 70's...yikes!

http://consumerist.com/2011/01/long-for-the-70s-this-vintage-hilton-ad-will-cure-that.html

Click on the high res link and take a look at the state of the art, high tech computer and facsimile machine...LOL

Baskin Robbins for some reason came to mind with the rainbow hued uniforms...

You're clueless. Why even bother replying?

LA may not be model example of urbanism, but it is far and away more urban than OKC, and that's all I'm saying. At least as far as density is concerned, OKC could benefit from being a lot more like LA.

I think you have the Wizard of Oz complex, where you envision that the nation's 2nd largest city is this mega urban mythical city where everything is completely different from OKC in every way and that OKC is just barely a blip on the map in comparison. The reality is that LA exists on the same planet as OKC and in the same country. I don't think even NYC is as urban as you seem to suggest LA is, because most people do not realize the overwhelming majority of NYC is brownstones and mid-rises (although I would call that more urban than skyscrapers personally), and one of the 5 boroughs is entirely low-density ranch and faux tuscan houses (Staten). The majority of LA proper is not nearly as impressive as Santa Monica or Old Pasadena. Downtown LA is mostly terrible. I would say LA proper is comparable to Staten Island for the most part, and then you add in South Central and Compton.

For you to say that all of LA and most of its suburbs, which is exactly what you said, are more urban than anywhere in OKC is very untrue and relies on the forgone conclusion that LA is Oz and OKC is a ****hole. It relies on people automatically agreeing with the presumption that OKC is not urban, and I think that there are a lot of people that live in the urban parts of OKC who would beg to differ. I'd say even though downtown may be a small portion of OKC proper, it is a very downtown-centric city, especially compared to LA which is very decentralized. The decently urban parts of OKC are pretty sizable, too. It's not as though there aren't 560,000 people living in OKC, which has got to count for something..

I just think this is a dangerous suggestion that OKC isn't already and hasn't ever been urban, when in reality OKC was originally designed as a very urban, dense city, and it's those roots that OKC is looking to return to eventually. Defeatism serves no purpose, and it's more interesting to be eternally optimistic about OKC's urban prospects. There's optimistic delusion and negative delusion, both of which are less than ideal conditions. Just because you aren't a delusional booster doesn't make someone impervious.

I do think OKC and LA have very similar urban forms in many ways. One of LA's most notable urban forms are the dense strips, similar to Western Avenue or the Plaza--LA has a lot of strips of density that developed along major early corridors, many of which were streetcar corridors, similarly to OKC. And I do recognize LA is a world-class city, obviously, and has a lot of assets that are clearly in a different universe than OKC. But as a city's urban form? I'd say they are comparable, in the unlikely scenario that OKC ends up being the 2nd largest city. That's getting past my prejudice against some of the southwest and CA cities, which I just don't like that much for some reason.

I also think LA is a lot less urban than many cities that are much smaller. Portland, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, DC, Boston, Philly, Denver, New Orleans, Atlanta, Seattle, Chicago, et al are all much more urban, and IMHO more successful cities. You simply can not compare the urban quality of Pittsburgh or Portland, perhaps the best in the nation in my opinion, to that of LA. I'd put LA kind of level with Detroit, although they have very different urban forms, very similar feel, especially downtown (and I would just add that downtown Detroit is much nicer than its perception).


If you went to LA and told them they weren't urban you would probably get stabbed in the neck with a soldering iron.

That would probably happen regardless of what you say.

LA is urban Spartan.

http://www.greenpacks.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/downtown-los-angeles-from-above.jpg

I think you have the Wizard of Oz complex, where you envision that the nation's 2nd largest city is this mega urban mythical city where everything is completely different from OKC in every way and that OKC is just barely a blip on the map in comparison. The reality is that LA exists on the same planet as OKC and in the same country. I don't think even NYC is as urban as you seem to suggest LA is, because most people do not realize the overwhelming majority of NYC is brownstones and mid-rises (although I would call that more urban than skyscrapers personally), and one of the 5 boroughs is entirely low-density ranch and faux tuscan houses (Staten). The majority of LA proper is not nearly as impressive as Santa Monica or Old Pasadena. Downtown LA is mostly terrible. I would say LA proper is comparable to Staten Island for the most part, and then you add in South Central and Compton.

For you to say that all of LA and most of its suburbs, which is exactly what you said, are more urban than anywhere in OKC is very untrue and relies on the forgone conclusion that LA is Oz and OKC is a ****hole. It relies on people automatically agreeing with the presumption that OKC is not urban, and I think that there are a lot of people that live in the urban parts of OKC who would beg to differ. I'd say even though downtown may be a small portion of OKC proper, it is a very downtown-centric city, especially compared to LA which is very decentralized. The decently urban parts of OKC are pretty sizable, too. It's not as though there aren't 560,000 people living in OKC, which has got to count for something..

I just think this is a dangerous suggestion that OKC isn't already and hasn't ever been urban, when in reality OKC was originally designed as a very urban, dense city, and it's those roots that OKC is looking to return to eventually. Defeatism serves no purpose, and it's more interesting to be eternally optimistic about OKC's urban prospects. There's optimistic delusion and negative delusion, both of which are less than ideal conditions. Just because you aren't a delusional booster doesn't make someone impervious.

I do think OKC and LA have very similar urban forms in many ways. One of LA's most notable urban forms are the dense strips, similar to Western Avenue or the Plaza--LA has a lot of strips of density that developed along major early corridors, many of which were streetcar corridors, similarly to OKC. And I do recognize LA is a world-class city, obviously, and has a lot of assets that are clearly in a different universe than OKC. But as a city's urban form? I'd say they are comparable, in the unlikely scenario that OKC ends up being the 2nd largest city. That's getting past my prejudice against some of the southwest and CA cities, which I just don't like that much for some reason.

I also think LA is a lot less urban than many cities that are much smaller. Portland, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, DC, Boston, Philly, Denver, New Orleans, Atlanta, Seattle, Chicago, et al are all much more urban, and IMHO more successful cities. You simply can not compare the urban quality of Pittsburgh or Portland, perhaps the best in the nation in my opinion, to that of LA. I'd put LA kind of level with Detroit, although they have very different urban forms, very similar feel, especially downtown (and I would just add that downtown Detroit is much nicer than its perception).
That would probably happen regardless of what you say.

This is just false. It leads me to think you have never been to LA. Los Angeles is one of the most densely populated areas on earth. certainly in the United States. If you think OKC is like LA then you have never been to LA.

Population density for:
Los Angeles, City - 7,828, Urbanized Area - 7,068
Oklahoma City, City - 833, Urbanized Area - 2,317

The density for LA's urbanized area is the highest in the nation, higher than New York. And in the city, how many of Oklahoma City's census tracts have 7,828 people per square mile much less averaging that over more than 400 square miles.