Who woulda thunk a mid-sized city doesn't have all the amenities of a major city? Those mid-sized cities are worthy of only contempt and disdain!!

Who woulda thunk a mid-sized city doesn't have all the amenities of a major city? Those mid-sized cities are worthy of only contempt and disdain!!

Surely you don't think I'm only talking about cities like Chicago and NYC...wow

Spartan I agree, and as a middle class African American, I can tell you native, college educated African Americans are leaving for not only better jobs but african american centered entertainment and social options which are almost non existent in OKC.

Lol, Gee... I wish I could say I am leaving OKC to seek more "white" centered entertainment and social options. How the tables have turned......

Who woulda thunk a mid-sized city doesn't have all the amenities of a major city? Those mid-sized cities are worthy of only contempt and disdain!!

I grew-up in Chico, California. The metro population while I lived there went from 20,000 in the early '70s to about 75,000 when I moved away for good in 1990. Downtown Chico was more 'urban' back then (and still is today) than anything part of Oklahoma City is right now. The size of the city has zero (zich, zip, nada) with population. It has nothing do with building height either.

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/18881468.jpg

The town of 18,000 I grew up in had a main street just like that. So did the town with 2,000 people that my grandmother lived in. That's not urban design....that's pre-shopping mall design. I like it, but I think it's a stretch to say it's urban.

I grew-up in Chico, California. The metro population while I lived there went from 20,000 in the early '70s to about 75,000 when I moved away for good in 1990. Downtown Chico was more 'urban' back then (and still is today) than anything part of Oklahoma City is right now. The size of the city has zero (zich, zip, nada) with population. It has nothing do with building height either.

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/18881468.jpg

Based on the picture I guess downtown Edmond is more urban than OKC. Or even Ponca City where I grew up.

...I walked the streets of Bricktown when I was a freshman in college, when it still had orange cones, and dirt mounds, when the finishing touches were being put on At&t Ballpark, and now 12 years later, I still walk in Bricktown, with my family, eating at nice restaurants, going to ball games, and stimulating the Bricktown economy with my hard earned money.

Not saying some things haven't changed and improvements have definitely been made. But i was amazed at the spaces ALONG THE CANAL that look just as they did when the Canal opened (was there on the July 4th opening day weekend). Amazing that this prime locations still sit empty, broken glass, boarded up windows and what looks like the same mounds of dirt 10 years or so later!

I don't fit the desired downtown demo, but I have many friends who do. They never go downtown or to Bricktown. Instead, they prefer the Paseo, and lately, the Plaza District. Instead of doing the urban hellhole/funky bohemian/plastic consumer progression, downtown went straight from urban hellhole to plastic consumer. But you need that funky bohemian phase to draw creative types. The Film Exchange District is the one neighborhood that still has a chance to capitalize on this, if owners don't get greedy.

Definitely agree with you bornhere. While I certainly think that a "downtown premium" should be expected, I'm still puzzled as to why city planners dove into this idea that the first real construction had to be all 400K and above. Likely an offshoot of the pre-2008 financial crash, easy credit era.

I have high hopes for midtown as well. The Banta buildings are high quality yet in the price range is still doable for many young dowtown professionals.

I have high hopes for midtown as well. The Banta buildings are high quality yet in the price range is still doable for many young dowtown professionals.

Well, I still personally have high hopes for all of downtown except Bricktown...

This is terrible for me to admit, but I didn't even bother reading through the thread. That's because the premise that OKC is not attracting young, educated adults is total bull****, because it is. In droves.

Okay, then. Thanks for straightening us out on that.

nm - misread a comment.

This is terrible for me to admit, but I didn't even bother reading through the thread. That's because the premise that OKC is not attracting young, educated adults is total bull****, because it is. In droves.

I think there's a difference between whether OKC is attracting them, and whether downtown is. I think we can agree with the premise that downtown residential has been a dud after such high hopes. It will get there eventually, but it's moving at an extremely slow pace. The vibe in downtown OKC is different from that in downtown STL for example, or especially Houston. It is notable that downtowns generally cater to young graduates, but not here.

I think it's also notable that we have the Plaza, Western, Paseo, et al., and that's where you see more of the influx of young, indy culture. I don't want to insult the inner north side. This thread is a criticism of downtown solely, I believe. Or that's the way I view it...

I'd love to live downtown, but with a family...not gonna happen. It just doesn't offer the things that a young family with children NEEDS. Walkability to various things (grocery, greenspace, etc). And what it really lacks, a good school. I'm not sending my children to OKCPS. That's continued to be a detractor for OKC because of the issues with the quality of education in that system. There are pleny good students, but the schools that are outperforming (or performing at the level the burbs) are collect students from across the city...Classen SAS. One thing you see in the CBD (or even expand that out to the general core of the city), the kids go to private school. Add that cost on top of the added expense of living downtown (because of how the market prices things), and you're pushing the young out. There just isn't any focus on attracting that late 20's early 30's "just starting the family" groups.

I'd love to live downtown, but with a family...not gonna happen. It just doesn't offer the things that a young family with children NEEDS. Walkability to various things (grocery, greenspace, etc). And what it really lacks, a good school. I'm not sending my children to OKCPS......There just isn't any focus on attracting that late 20's early 30's "just starting the family" groups.

I look at it this way...Uptown Dallas has really taken off despite the horrendoues reputation of DISD, which is way worse than anything OKCPS can dish out.

The trend is most people attracted to dowtown/urban living probably do not have children. And the fact that people here in OKC tend to settle down and start families earlier than most has probably been a big factor in DT housing's slow start. The one's that do usually have kids that are so young that they don't have to worry about schools until later or they fork out the cash for private school. And this situation is actualy more common than you think in the northiside neighborhoods, where there's yards, parks, etc.


I think it's also notable that we have the Plaza, Western, Paseo, et al., and that's where you see more of the influx of young, indy culture. I don't want to insult the inner north side....

True, and this probably skews this survey. I just did some Google Earth action and did a 3 mile radius from the intersection of Robinson and Park. The "circle" includes Plaza District, Heritage Hills, Miller, and Part of Edgemere/Jefferson Park. but it leaves out Crown Heights, Western Avenue north of 36th, Putnam Heights, and Belle Isle.

As noted above, there are also people who will send their kids to Villa Theresa, St. Luke's or other private schools who would be willing to live downtown with children. We will have a brand new downtown elementary school soon. I know lots of people who live in Heritage Hills and Mesta Park and send their kids to Wilson and have no complaints.

There just isn't any focus on attracting that late 20's early 30's "just starting the family" groups.
Most of the 20-30's people that I know are sans kids and most have no desire to have them, these are many of the ones moving into Downtown Austin now along with empty nesters looking to ditch their 4,500 sf Westlake homes. Most downtown areas outside of the old, traditional downtowns back east are not setup for kids. Much of that is because of the attitude that you (and many others) profess, if no one with kids is going to move into an urban area then nothing will ever be done to improve the areas for those people with kids. As with most things, it is a chicken/egg thing.

Please don't get me wrong, but what in the world us African American entertainment? I thought the point was to integrate and desegregate races. How is that ever going to happen with places specifically designed for certain races?

Back on topic, Rover, I agree with the other posters' remarks about your comment. Even Tulsa grew significantly in downtown and certain parts if midtown. Even though the city lost overall population (we've grown nearly 10,000 sine 2005 though), we still saw a reurbanization of the core.

Oh geez, don't be so naive. Give me a break. Are you really this obtuse?

Why does Oklahoma City have to be like other cities? Why can't they foster their own culture, their own way of growing? Who cares is people flocking downtown are in their 50's? As long as we have people living downtown, no matter the age, money will flow to stimulate the economy. Oklahoma City is a young city, all the other cities you mention had a 40-50 year head start, I am tired of people comparing us to cities who have years ahead of us in development. The good thing about being behind, is that we can observe what other cities done wrong and right in their development efforts, and use that to our advantage.

I walked the streets of Bricktown when I was a freshman in college, when it still had orange cones, and dirt mounds, when the finishing touches were being put on At&t Ballpark, and now 12 years later, I still walk in Bricktown, with my family, eating at nice restaurants, going to ball games, and stimulating the Bricktown economy with my hard earned money.

Are you serious? Are you mainlining heroin? Come on, this is a stupid argument. People want to live in urban centers where they can walk places and do lots of stuff. Why would we not present an option for these people?

I hear this stupid argument all the time: "We are not going to be San Francisco. Let it go." I hear this argument from people who are AFRAID OKC will become a very cool urban center.

They prefer Jude 'n Jody Furniture to, say, Whole Foods. And that's fine. But at least admit your cultural biases. You want to live in Mustang or Tuttle? Go knock yourself out, pal.

Cattlemen's ain't going anywhere. OKC is still largely a disaster of urban planning. We've got your gun shows and convenience stores and bad architecture. Cool! We're not San Fran, that's for sure.

If you ever make the argument that you're worried OKC will ever become "too much like San Francisco" you're an idiot and need to get a grip.

I'd love to live downtown, but with a family...not gonna happen. It just doesn't offer the things that a young family with children NEEDS. Walkability to various things (grocery, greenspace, etc). And what it really lacks, a good school. I'm not sending my children to OKCPS. That's continued to be a detractor for OKC because of the issues with the quality of education in that system. There are pleny good students, but the schools that are outperforming (or performing at the level the burbs) are collect students from across the city...Classen SAS. One thing you see in the CBD (or even expand that out to the general core of the city), the kids go to private school. Add that cost on top of the added expense of living downtown (because of how the market prices things), and you're pushing the young out. There just isn't any focus on attracting that late 20's early 30's "just starting the family" groups.

WTF are you talking about? Great. I won't have to compete with your children for entry into the best public school in the state, Classen. Also, I can enjoy my elementary-aged child going to either Wilson or Cleveland, two of the finest elementary schools in the state. This self-defeating argument makes me want to scream.

And what it really lacks, a good school. I'm not sending my children to OKCPS. That's continued to be a detractor for OKC because of the issues with the quality of education in that system.

I understand your concerns but keep in mind that this is in the works for downtown even if no one can know in advance about the quality of the school.

True. If we have learned anything from MAPS for Kids. All of the bright, shiny, new and/or improved buildings, have led to little improvement in the quality of the product.

Most of the 20-30's people that I know are sans kids and most have no desire to have them, these are many of the ones moving into Downtown Austin now along with empty nesters looking to ditch their 4,500 sf Westlake homes. Most downtown areas outside of the old, traditional downtowns back east are not setup for kids. Much of that is because of the attitude that you (and many others) profess, if no one with kids is going to move into an urban area then nothing will ever be done to improve the areas for those people with kids. As with most things, it is a chicken/egg thing.

It is mostly young professionals and empty nesters in my apartment building in downtown, but a few young families too--Austin is lucky in that some of the public schools in the inner city (i.e., in downtown and to the west) are pretty good, so the area is probably more attractive to families than central OKC might be. Other central neighborhoods like Hyde Park and Bouldin have lots of families; many might go to private schools given the cost to live in these areas, but the public schools in these areas are rated high enough (by TAKS assessments) that I suspect people in these neighborhoods are sending their children to them.

But that's entirely the point. The city isn't attracting anyone other than the Non-kid crowd downtown. Wasn't that part of the question.....it may not be written in words, but it is part of the underlying question. Statistically speaking, what age group has children...20-30's. What are we talking about not having downtown...these folks. The now out of college (still young and educated) folks, just got married, gonna start a family. Downtown isn't offering what they want.

No matter how many layers of paint you put on (and while the new buildings are something that ABSOLTELY had to happen for OKCPS) it's still paint. See John Marshall. The underlying issues with parental involvement, language barriers, scores, etc. all still exist in the district. And for the largest district in the state to have 1 or 2 good elementary schools as stated above....what about the thousands of other students? The class one year behind me at Midwest City had 7 national merit finalists and more than one of them made it on through. I'll take that over 2 elementary schools. Now is Midwest City going to produce that 15 years later..probablly not. Soci-economics creates the downfall of so many districts. OKCPS has yet to find a way to recover. They lost a lot of their possible continued life when they allowed the other districts to split off....ie Putnam City.

So I'm still going to say, unless you can find a way to create a system that can produce what parents want, then you're going to have problems attracting. Elementary is one of those things that anyone should be able to get right. The trick is middle school. Getting the students into the correct patterns before they get to HS. By then, they've already decided on their identity and most of their path. That 6-8th grade leven is so vitally important in a kid's life...they are molded so much in such a short amount of time. So if the downtown elementary school is built, ok great. But what about that next level? Capital Hill or Douglas?...i don't really know the secondary lines to know which they would go to.

So yes, it's a chicken and egg, but only to a point. But OKCPS isn't going to build until they see people move into the area and start to crowd the existing buildings. Schools don't build elementary schools that way. So you're going to have to find a way to get the butts in the seats first. It's a tough requirement, but if you want it, that's what it's going to take.

[QUOTE=bombermwc;420294]They lost a lot of their possible continued life when they allowed the other districts to split off....ie Putnam City.
/QUOTE]

That's not an accurate statement. Those districts did not split off from OKC.

http://www.putnamcityschools.org/District/DistrictHistory.aspx

Look at it from whatever technical standpoint you want. But the point was that had OKPS been able to maintain that area in their district, it would be providing lifeblood today. I've heard the story on the history of that district before. The same story could be said for Mid-Del and many other districts in the area that came out of de-annexation.

For that matter, a county school system would habe been a great leveler for everyone. More to the point...broaden the base and spread the money. Consolidate the high schools, etc. But that's straying off-topic.

I live in the central park neighborhood in uptown, vast majority are young people here, same with Paseo area to the south.

Downtown would probably be a fine place to raise kids. Convenient, even. From where I sit, the biggest problem is that the properties look like terrible investments. I don't think the value is there. As soon as there is some inventory, expect downtown home prices to plummet. There will be a lot of disappointed homeowners who tied up their retirements in those properties.

Look at it from whatever technical standpoint you want. But the point was that had OKPS been able to maintain that area in their district, it would be providing lifeblood today. I've heard the story on the history of that district before. The same story could be said for Mid-Del and many other districts in the area that came out of de-annexation.

For that matter, a county school system would habe been a great leveler for everyone. More to the point...broaden the base and spread the money. Consolidate the high schools, etc. But that's straying off-topic.

Bomber, I understand your logic and don't disagree. I was just pointing out that the situation was not caused by the OKC public schools allowing other districts to split off. I make similar points when arguing with other posters who think that OKC should deannex large amounts of their land which is a point of view that I strongly disagree with.

Downtown would probably be a fine place to raise kids. Convenient, even. From where I sit, the biggest problem is that the properties look like terrible investments. I don't think the value is there. As soon as there is some inventory, expect downtown home prices to plummet. There will be a lot of disappointed homeowners who tied up their retirements in those properties.

It all depends on desirability and what else is available. Why did (pre downturn, granted) homes in Nichols Hills sell for $400 a square foot? Were they really four times nicer than a home selling for $100 a square foot? No. Twice as nice maybe. But people are willing to pay to live there. A lot of people look at price per square foot and think it should be identical for every neighborhood in town, given identical materials. Sometimes you pay extra for location and/or amenities. It also depends on availability. If proximity to downtown becomes valuable to people, they'll pay more to live there. I don't think there are too many people in dontown who have tied their retirements up in their homes. No one I know, anyway. Most of the people living downtown either are so young they're a long way off from their retirement, or downtown housing is cheaper than where they were living originally. I'm saving enough money by living downtown to pay for a big old trip every year. Last year it was Africa, this year it's Southeast Asia. Lower taxes, lower insurance, no yard or pool maintenance, utilities literally one tenth of what they were at my old house. I'm driving a mile to go to work every day, so I'm saving on gas too. We're loving living downtown.

Also, I think there is a bit of mythology involved in suburban schools evaluation. It wasn't quality of education or lack thereof in OKC schools that led to the rise in suburban schools. It was busing and sprawl. Tax bases rose in suburban areas and because of sprawl, tax bases in OKC fell. That led to schools being less well-maintained and having less money to spend on services. From that, people extrapolated that the education in suburban schools was somehow better. It wasn't the education that was better, it was the amenities. But, that led to a vicious cycle. As people move back into the city, tax bases will rise and schools will look better, which will reverse the cycle. Most people aren't sophisticated enough to truly evaluate the quality of education, and test scores don't always indicate it either. Intelligent children will learn no matter where they're taught. The smartest person I've met in my life came from Poteau. I wonder what the quality of education is there.

Here is an interesting list of "Best Markets For Young Adults ages 18-34".
http://www.portfolio.com/interactive-features/2010/03/Best-Markets-for-Young-Adults/

Okc ranks fairly high on this list, but remember this is Okc metro, not downtown Okc.

To me this is another finding that shows Okc has the influx of the young and educated, but it is lacking the affordable urban setting to attract the young adults.

On this list you can look at the rankings in the left column and sort them various ways. Out of 67 metros Okc ranks #6 overall, but in the income category for ages 45 and under making $100k Okc is dead last. That is a very telling stat as to the lagging downtown population numbers of the 18-34 demographic. Not saying Okc needs to be at the top of this stat, but dead last obviously is not good.

Well you can't compare income. A low cost of living equates to a lower salary. Salary comparisons are always a terrible comparison...you can earn twice as much working in NYC, for example, but you're going to take a lot less home in your pocket after living expenses.

OKC as a metro, is doing a better job. That central core near the CBD is what seems to be off limits though. I've argued this time and time again about how the only developments to be had downtown are upscale. If that's the target, ok then fine. But if you ever want those young folks too....there HAS to be more average Joe options for residential IN the CBD...not just deep deuce or Midtown. Otherwise, just get ready for more of the same.

I'm not saying living downtown isn't attractive, but right now it doesn't offer what it needs for that demographic. That also doesn't seem to be the demographic that is being targeted. A prime example is Edmond. The northern flight happened because Edmond was able to create an image that people bought in to...accurate or not.

No way an OKCPS teacher or administrator will ever have any interaction with my kids. Those people are incompetent.

Sorry, but there are incompetent and great teachers everywhere, in every school system. What makes a "great" teacher frequently is great students. Every child is a great student if you find what they love. The problem with our schools is that we do a terrible job of making learning fun. Like puppies, children learn by playing and through enjoyment of what they are doing. We make kids sit behind desks and sit still for hours, listening to teachers talk about things, most of which don't interest them. The kids who are naturally dutiful, have been discplined to be dutiful, or who are naturally intelligent in the subjects taught in schools do well. Our brains can grow if taught almost anything and we're far too concerned about making sure kids learn specific things, rather than just helping them learn something. Engineers and scientists are born, not made. I think the Europeans probably do a better job than we do, although even they are too regimented. Find the kids who are going to be scientists and engineers and spend time teaching them what they love. Let the artists spend less time learning math they hate....make sure they learn what they need. And make sure everyone can read, no matter what.....if you can read, you can learn anything.

And on to housing. Most cities don't have many young adults living right downtown. It's too expensive. They live close in, in the neighborhood equivalent of the Plaza District, the Paseo, Jefferson Park, Gatewood, Linwood. Because land was cheap, our closer in neighborhoods don't look that much different from the ones farther out. We don't have the row houses that you see in Chicago. And then, we don't have the public transit that makes these places feel as urban as the neighborhoods the younger adults live in in New York and Chicago. We either didn't have or tore down many of the buildings that would have made great loft apartments. There isn't that much land immediately adjacent to downtown and now it's all being filled with the apartments we've heard we need, because the land is too expensive for anything else, too expensive for what people are willing to pay to buy. What we need to do is work on significantly improving public transit, and making these closer in neighborhoods have enough amenities to appeal to those who want to live closer to the city center. But hoping to live within walking distance of the CBD for $100 a square foot may not be reasonable, as it is not an option in any city I know of.

Sorry, but it takes more than a single teacher or single student's efforts in order to succeed. A good school and school system requires competence at all levels and teamwork (teachers/administrators/parents). I don't see that at all in OKCPS, and I do see it where I live.

Besides the fact that I think our educational system is totally screwed up, I don't see anything particularly wonderful about public schools anywhere the tax base is low, to be honest with you. We want great schools but we don't want to pay for them. I remember my father-in-law, who lived in Great Neck, NY, which supposedly has one of the best public school systems in the nation, telling me what he paid for property taxes. He lived in a house there that we would probably pay $200,000 for here, at most. 20 years ago he was paying $25,000 a year in property taxes. We get what we're willing to pay for.

But, I don't think great schools necessarily make smart kids smarter. As I've said before, the smartest person I've ever met came from Poteau.....or was it Gotebo? One of those. Imagine the school system there.

I dont know for sure but NY could be like Texas in that preperty taxes are much higher because of low or no state income taxes. We dont have to raise property taxes, but OKC could and should give more of our property taxes to public schools. We dont need to give as much as we do to the zoo or library system. They are flush with cash

No way an OKCPS teacher or administrator will ever have any interaction with my kids. Those people are incompetent.

You, sir, obviously have not met my child's teachers. This is a worthless, baseless generalization.

...Every child is a great student if you find what they love. The problem with our schools is that we do a terrible job of making learning fun. Like puppies, children learn by playing and through enjoyment of what they are doing. We make kids sit behind desks and sit still for hours, listening to teachers talk about things, most of which don't interest them. ...

Naturally, if you enjoy something you are probably going to be better at it (and if you are better at it, enjoy it).

But are you saying that only OKCPS haven't figured this out but the more successful districts in the burbs have? That burbs don't also require the students to "sit still for hours" etc etc.?

No Larry, my point is that the teachers in the schools in the burbs are generally no better or worse than those in OKCPS. I think there are multiple reasons why many people consider suburban schools "better" than urban schools, but they're not being fully honest with someone - either us or themselves about what they think makes a school better. I think all our schools have a poor curriculum and general design for all but the "best" students, but that too is an opinion.

No Larry, my point is that the teachers in the schools in the burbs are generally no better or worse than those in OKCPS. I think there are multiple reasons why many people consider suburban schools "better" than urban schools, but they're not being fully honest with someone - either us or themselves about what they think makes a school better. I think all our schools have a poor curriculum and general design for all but the "best" students, but that too is an opinion.

I think it is mostly perception that the suburban schools are better than inner city schools. Like they say if you say something so many times it eventually becomes true, even if it isn't. The problems you deal with in inner city schools that are not as prevalent in the suburbs are lower income kids whose parents may not value education. That is why magnet schools in inner city districts are usually much better than suburban schools because it's all kids who have to meet academic certain standards to get in, something you don't get at other public schools. That is why schools like Classen SAS and Booker T Washington in Tulsa are the top performing schools in the state.

Curriculum design is generally horrible for the "best" students as you call them, Betts. They aren't pushed at all and oftentimes, especially in the early years, it's just considered bad form for the teacher to recognize one student is outperforming the other. Many schools, particularly suburban ones, have shut down gifted and talented programs entirely because of the belief that it was humiliated not to be selected for their programs. Our best and brightest are written off until sometime in High School where it suddenly becomes okay again not to be average.

And I disagree with admissions standards for public schools unless we're talking about aptitude in fine arts. If the kids can take care of business academically, they should be able to get in. I'd much rather have educational darwinism than magnet schools' entitlement via passing an entrance exam and application process. Take Harding Charter Prep, a school which routinely has higher API scores than Booker T and SAS.... they do it with open enrollment and a very high number of kids on free and reduced lunch programs. How do they do that? If you expect excellence, many kids will surprise you.