OK - I understand your point better now. I generally agree because of that ingenuity and innovation I mentioned; but one could just as easily say that any "developed" country's citizens would probably do the same. But I also maintain we are resource hogs due to the inefficiencies inherent in our society.

OK - I understand your point better now. I generally agree because of that ingenuity and innovation I mentioned; but one could just as easily say that any "developed" country's citizens would probably do the same. But I also maintain we are resource hogs due to the inefficiencies inherent in our society.

Absolutely agree.

Also, I would say that ingenuity and innovation are components of efficiency. So it is part and parcel to the statement that Americans are efficient juxtaposed to the rest of the world.

I also think if the rest of the world were on the same level as America, then we would find more competition to be better at what we do, more synergy would develop and these things would dramatically increase our efficiency.

In the context of the over-population discussion, I'm saying that the problem is as much the fact that the countries who have high population/high density are far too uneducated/inefficient to support themselves. This continent could easily support more people than it has now. And while we shouldn't necessarily be striving for that, it's a bit alarmist to say "we're vastly overpopulated".

Garbage...If everyone lived the "lifestyle" of the average American, the entire world would be a ridiculous amount more educated than it currently is and the world would function at a much higher efficiency than it currently does.

Umm, no. There is not enough food or other resources to support 7 billion Americans. Nor is there enough to support the same number of Europeans. The environment simply does not have enough resources to support billions of people living our lifestyle.

Absolutely agree.

Also, I would say that ingenuity and innovation are components of efficiency. So it is part and parcel to the statement that Americans are efficient juxtaposed to the rest of the world.

I also think if the rest of the world were on the same level as America, then we would find more competition to be better at what we do, more synergy would develop and these things would dramatically increase our efficiency.

In the context of the over-population discussion, I'm saying that the problem is as much the fact that the countries who have high population/high density are far too uneducated/inefficient to support themselves. This continent could easily support more people than it has now. And while we shouldn't necessarily be striving for that, it's a bit alarmist to say "we're vastly overpopulated".

Yes, THIS continent could support more people. However, placing more people in this continent would shove the carrying capacity of other continents down. Some of the food that we currently export would instead be eaten here. Resources that we export would instead be used here.

Just because a certain area can support many more people than it has does not mean that globally that is sustainable. The world population could reach 11 billion (by some estimates, there are many different ones) by 2050. The globe cannot support constant growth. At some point it will stop, either by choice or force. Overpopulation, although not currently a problem in America, does exist and we cannot simply turn our backs to it. One day it will affect us, but that day is up for speculation just like anything else.

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating for American families to have less kids. We're actually close to perfect on fertility rates, with the average being slightly less than two kids per family. However, to say that the world is not overpopulated just because we don't see it is blatantly ignorant. We are lucky people, us Americans.

I misspoke on my continent comment and meant to say this planet.

Your statement originally was 1.5 Billion people living like the average American is not possible. Europe and America alone have 1.05 Billion people. Between Middle-Easterners, Chinese, Japanese, Brazilian, and everyone else coupled with the Americans and Europeans you are sure to have what amounts to 1.5 Billion people already living like the average American, on top of the rest of the 7 billion that lives in bad to horrible conditions, that claim is just silly.

Furthermore, you are not accounting for the fact that if all 7 billion people are educated to the extent that Americans are, the capacity to farm, fish, mine, manufacture, etc. goes up exponentially.

Look, I'm not saying that everything's rosy, but you make it sound like the world is about to fall out of orbit with the over abundant weight of all these humans.

I misspoke on my continent comment and meant to say this planet.

Your statement originally was 1.5 Billion people living like the average American is not possible. Europe and America alone have 1.05 Billion people. Between Middle-Easterners, Chinese, Japanese, Brazilian, and everyone else coupled with the Americans and Europeans you are sure to have what amounts to 1.5 Billion people already living like the average American, on top of the rest of the 7 billion that lives in bad to horrible conditions, that claim is just silly.

Furthermore, you are not accounting for the fact that if all 7 billion people are educated to the extent that Americans are, the capacity to farm, fish, mine, manufacture, etc. goes up exponentially.

Look, I'm not saying that everything's rosy, but you make it sound like the world is about to fall out of orbit with the over abundant weight of all these humans.

The thing is, nowhere else do people use the amount of resources the average American does. We live consuming lives, and we burn through important resources like they're infinite. I'm not blaming you or anyone else, just making an observation. I enjoy my resource depleting lifestyle, however I have tried to make a few changes to use less and recycle more.

While yes, if the rest of the world were as educated as Americans there would be better farming and a higher harvest ratio, that is never going to happen. People are constantly making advancements in farming techniques, which results in more food. However, many believe that we have nearly run out of land we can safely use for agriculture. The advancements, while helpful are also limited with the available land space. If every acre of available land was farmed to its maximum capacity, we would be able to feed many more people, for a time. Then, that soil wold stop producing be cause of nutrient depletion.

I know it sounds like I'm probably making making preparations for the end of the world in my basement, I'm not. Not really scared at all. However, population is a problem, and if we continue down our current path, major world problems will erupt from it. However, I know that much is being done in many developing countries to educate them about problems of overpopulation and instill practices that lead to less kids.

America does not feel the overpopulation pains because it does it exist here. It probably never will. But it is still a problem, no matter what you or I say.

When I was in Chicago last, a cab driver told me that Mayor Daley had been in Paris and wanted Chicago to be beautiful as well. He started a massive project to beautify the downtown with flowers, and it does look gorgeous in the summer time. They have an ordinance that any outdoor cafes must be "landscaped" either with flower boxes, shrubs, trees or some combination thereof. Some of the outdoor dining areas are stunning. It seems like an ordinance like that would be simple to institute.

Agree with this and it wouldn't be a very difficult problem to fix. Having been in this city a couple of months I am going to give some constructive criticism. I apologize if I offend anybody and I mean no offense by this, and overall I am really enjoying OKC. Its constructive criticism that allows places to improve and it was constructive criticism that has brought OKC as far as it is today (I lived here in the '90s, its almost a completely different town now).

Now on to landscaping and aesthetics. Many cities, some smaller than OKC are in general much more aesthetically appealing than much of OKC is. When I first moved back here after living and spending extensive time in several other places such as Little Rock, Memphis, Nashville, Atlanta, Charlotte, etc, it was a culture shock to me how ugly most of the city is near the freeways and how outdated much of the development looks. I was feeling pretty mixed about my decision to move to OKC and was starting to plan waiting out the recession here and then moving again when the economy gets better. A lot of people over on city-data forum bash OKC and say stuff like its nothing but a big truck stop. We all know that's not reality but that is the impression people get. It wasn't until I discovered OKC's better areas i.e. Western Ave, Classen, Memorial Rd west of QS mall, Nichols Hills, the Lk Hefner area, etc that I started to think this city is actually pretty nice. First impressions mean a lot to people, so the major thoroughfares should be spruced up because that's where first impressions are made. It's not just about image either as personally I find more aesthetically pleasing places more enjoyable to spend my time in. OKC is a nice place to live with a lot of very nice places, but it doesn't leave a good impression on those not patient enough to get off the beaten path and seek the nicer areas out.

Pretty much no city is all that "appealing" from the interstates since that is where most of the industrial type of properties are located, to really "see" any city you have to get off the interstates. If you don't have the patience r interest to do that then there probably isn't much hope of them changing their opinion, it says more about them than the city. I have spent quite a bit of time in the cities that you mention (except Charlotte) and most of their nasty industrial areas are along the interstates. I know here in Denver the main entry from the east (I-70) is all industrial until you get past downtown, the only variation from that is the new development where Stapleton airport used to be which is nothing more than a big box mall. Just the nature of interstates and one of the main reasons for them. Some places have some natural elements (like Little Rock and Nashville) that make industrial development a bit more difficult but they still have their areas along the interstate, other than the mountains in the distance there is really not that much appealing here if I-70 is your only point of reference.

Most people on City-Data are nothing but fanboi blowhards of their own city and feel the need to bash anyone or any place incessantly. There is some good info on there but you have to sort through a ton of crap to glean that information.

Agree with this and it wouldn't be a very difficult problem to fix. Having been in this city a couple of months I am going to give some constructive criticism. I apologize if I offend anybody and I mean no offense by this, and overall I am really enjoying OKC. Its constructive criticism that allows places to improve and it was constructive criticism that has brought OKC as far as it is today (I lived here in the '90s, its almost a completely different town now).

Now on to landscaping and aesthetics. Many cities, some smaller than OKC are in general much more aesthetically appealing than much of OKC is. When I first moved back here after living and spending extensive time in several other places such as Little Rock, Memphis, Nashville, Atlanta, Charlotte, etc, it was a culture shock to me how ugly most of the city is near the freeways and how outdated much of the development looks. I was feeling pretty mixed about my decision to move to OKC and was starting to plan waiting out the recession here and then moving again when the economy gets better. A lot of people over on city-data forum bash OKC and say stuff like its nothing but a big truck stop. We all know that's not reality but that is the impression people get. It wasn't until I discovered OKC's better areas i.e. Western Ave, Classen, Memorial Rd west of QS mall, Nichols Hills, the Lk Hefner area, etc that I started to think this city is actually pretty nice. First impressions mean a lot to people, so the major thoroughfares should be spruced up because that's where first impressions are made. It's not just about image either as personally I find more aesthetically pleasing places more enjoyable to spend my time in. OKC is a nice place to live with a lot of very nice places, but it doesn't leave a good impression on those not patient enough to get off the beaten path and seek the nicer areas out.

No offense taken. There are indeed some pretty ugly corridors in this city. The worst is 35 between 240 and downtown. Five miles of roach motels, flea markets, strip clubs, oil field lots, etc. Not pretty.

At the same time, these pretty much exist in every city. All the places you named (Atlanta, Charlotte, Nashville) are lucky enough to have giant loblolly pines and hickory trees along their highways to block out most of the junk. If you can ever peer behind the trees you'll see plenty of ugliness. Some of our main highways could use some landscaping, but for the most part, most native plants to this area aren't going to be big enough to block out stuff. Another thing is most highways here (unlike out east) have access/service roads. Since nobody wants to live behind a roaring 6-8 line freeway, most development along these is going to be commercial/industrial.

I can certainly see the "culture shock" factor from someone coming from out east. For better or for worse, OKC is very western-oriented in our development pattern and isn't all that different from TX cities, Albuquerque, Phoenix, Denver, etc.

I post on city-data as well, and bluedogok is exactly right. The typical poster on there is probably from a coast, and anything west of the Appalachians and east of the Pacific Ranges is a redneck filled wasteland. Much larger cities that just so happen to be in "flyover county" like Chicago and Dallas are frequently piled on as much as OKC.

Wow. This thread got sidetracked.

My Bad. :calvin2:

Pretty much no city is all that "appealing" from the interstates since that is where most of the industrial type of properties are located, to really "see" any city you have to get off the interstates. If you don't have the patience r interest to do that then there probably isn't much hope of them changing their opinion, it says more about them than the city. I have spent quite a bit of time in the cities that you mention (except Charlotte) and most of their nasty industrial areas are along the interstates. I know here in Denver the main entry from the east (I-70) is all industrial until you get past downtown, the only variation from that is the new development where Stapleton airport used to be which is nothing more than a big box mall. Just the nature of interstates and one of the main reasons for them. Some places have some natural elements (like Little Rock and Nashville) that make industrial development a bit more difficult but they still have their areas along the interstate, other than the mountains in the distance there is really not that much appealing here if I-70 is your only point of reference.

Most people on City-Data are nothing but fanboi blowhards of their own city and feel the need to bash anyone or any place incessantly. There is some good info on there but you have to sort through a ton of crap to glean that information.

Yeah you are right about this. It took me a little while to get used to the terrain here but the longer I have been here the more I like it. The Great Plains does grow on you.

About ugly freeways, In thinking about this topic though I can think of numerous places in Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville, etc that would be horrendously ugly if you took away the greenery. If you drive I-30 in Little Rock it looks worse than anything in OKC (think I-35 between 240 and 40 but for about 30 miles from Benton, AR to the airport). Charlotte does a very good job at either hiding its ugliness with trees or putting up large concrete walls so you can't see it. That is one advantage Tulsa has is the large, lush trees grow much better there.

Climatically, OKC only gets a few inches of rain per year less than Tulsa does. Is there another reason large trees don't grow well in Central Oklahoma?

Climatically, OKC only gets a few inches of rain per year less than Tulsa does. Is there another reason large trees don't grow well in Central Oklahoma?

The hard-packed concrete that masquerades as red dirt clay just 1 1/2 feet below the surface!

I would think the very flat terrain makes it harder for trees to take root and grow.

If you think about the Great Plains, it's all pretty barren and that's across a very wide area, with all types of differences. Yet, the one common denominator is that it's all flat and pretty treeless.

Lots of things happen here that are hell on trees. Wind, ice, periodic drought, lightning strikes, intense heat, etc.

Frankly, the urban canopy in some parts of OKC is looking kinda bad. A lot of trees haven't even recovered from 2007 ice storm.

The hardiest trees native to this area (Cottonwood, Post Oak, Pinyon Pine) I guess are not "majestic" enough and you rarely see them planted around town.

I would think the very flat terrain makes it harder for trees to take root and grow.

If you think about the Great Plains, it's all pretty barren and that's across a very wide area, with all types of differences. Yet, the one common denominator is that it's all flat and pretty treeless.

Eastern Arkansas is every bit as flat as Oklahoma and huge, 80' tall trees are quite common once you get east of Little Rock. It's noticeable when driving west on I-40 from Memphis that the tree canopy gets progressively shorter once you get west of Little Rock until trees disappear nearly entirely in western Oklahoma.

Not sure what this has to do with Tulsa and OKC but here is a nice map:

http://conservationreport.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/anim_area-of-virgin-forest-usa_.gif

Interesting map. I actually read an article not too long ago that said there is still some old growth forest in the cross-timbers region of eastern Oklahoma.

This relates to OKC and Tulsa because the discussion was on the fact OKC doesn't have the advantage of tall, majestic trees like places farther east, including Tulsa, have to prettify their otherwise ugly industrial areas. That can give people the perception that OKC is ugly as compared to Tulsa. I think the Great Plains are an acquired taste for transplants. I am growing more fond of it the longer I am here.