Those in the past were not stupid or ill-intentioned. Everything evolves and things like recessions change things dramatically. Just like today's generation thinks that we have everything finally figured out, they thought they had if figured out then. And in 30-50 years, our grandkids and great grandkids will be astounded how stupid we were to think we have it all figured out now.

If this is in response to my post directly above yours, then I think you misunderstood. I never said they were stupid or ill-intentioned. I even stated that they thought they were doing great things. I just found the film very interesting to look at from our perspective in 2013. They made it sound great in the film but not all of it lived up to what they thought it would be. I'm sure there things that we are doing with downtown today that in 40 years they'll wish we hadn't done. I just found the film extremely interesting.

It wasn't in response to your post. It was just a comment after living through that era of the film that I was reminded by the film that the leaders then truly believed they were using state of the art planning and one of the world's most revered planners. Every generation thinks they absolutely have the answers. I was just pointing out that as sure as we are today that we have all the answers (evidenced by dogmatic posters on this site) we will have still different thoughts in the coming decades. Ideas promoted and decisions made today WILL be widely criticized after the fact, just as I have heard those of our past referred to as stupid, ignorant, greedy, etc. It is always easier to second guess after the fact than to lead and implement great ideas.

It wasn't in response to your post. It was just a comment after living through that era of the film that I was reminded by the film that the leaders then truly believed they were using state of the art planning and one of the world's most revered planners. Every generation thinks they absolutely have the answers. I was just pointing out that as sure as we are today that we have all the answers (evidenced by dogmatic posters on this site) we will have still different thoughts in the coming decades. Ideas promoted and decisions made today WILL be widely criticized after the fact, just as I have heard those of our past referred to as stupid, ignorant, greedy, etc. It is always easier to second guess after the fact than to lead and implement great ideas.

This.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pQdjwliLMA&feature=player_embedded

No.

No what? lol. . . There was a lot lot of posting about Dubai in this thread and I got this funny email and thought I'd share the video and see what people thought. It's a city with massive beautiful buildings and it doesn't have a sewage system. It's interesting and I'm curious how many people know that. :P

It wasn't in response to your post. It was just a comment after living through that era of the film that I was reminded by the film that the leaders then truly believed they were using state of the art planning and one of the world's most revered planners. Every generation thinks they absolutely have the answers. I was just pointing out that as sure as we are today that we have all the answers (evidenced by dogmatic posters on this site) we will have still different thoughts in the coming decades. Ideas promoted and decisions made today WILL be widely criticized after the fact, just as I have heard those of our past referred to as stupid, ignorant, greedy, etc. It is always easier to second guess after the fact than to lead and implement great ideas.

I think the difference so far is that there has been measurable positive results and, most importantly, things are getting done. At the end of the day, the biggest problem with the first urban renewal and the Pei plan was that it didn't even get finished. The plan never was fully realized and is now known simply for its destruction. If anything, the lesson there is that destruction should always be used as a last result or the product of a true need (as in no other readily available resources such as available land or redevelopment opportunities, both of which we still have in abundance downtown), because there is never a guarantee that any project will be completed. When assets aren't recklessly destroyed, the city mitigates the risk of ending up with nothing, or very little, as it did in the early 80s.

This time around redevelopment and restoration has occurred and, collectively, those projects now represent the biggest successes of this urban renewal and are what have given downtown, and Oklahoma City in general, a new relevant identity. When OKC's two largest urban renewal efforts are compared, it becomes clear that support of renovation over destruction is not just dogmatic rhetoric, it's the approach that has actually worked in very quantifiable and tangible ways. The fragility of our undiversified economy and the fickle nature of its biggest players should always be considered in development decisions. When the city grants permission for demolition, the only assurance we have is that the given structure will be lost forever. Unfortunately, we know all to well that there is a very real possibility that nothing will replace it for decades.

http://i.imgur.com/4OHhVPP.jpg

This is what FNC needs.

Here's an example of what urban renewal did for Lawton, Oklahoma in the 1970s:

Downtown Lawton, OK circa 1964 looking west (Hotel Lawtonian visible on left side of photo)
3654

Downtown Lawton, OK during destruction of downtown (1978)
3655

Downtown Lawton, OK after Central Mall replaced downtown, looking south/southwest. (Hotel Lawtonian in center of photo)
3656

Middle of the day in Beijing. Pollution, not fog.

http://i.imgur.com/IjeuaAx.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/d5MKAk0.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/ZbPPnh5.jpg

Jesus, what an awful place.

http://vimeo.com/51137834

http://vimeo.com/51137834

http://i.imgur.com/giUCVY0.jpg

blursurfing photoblog ~ The Crystal Ballroom (http://www.blursurfing.com/)

What city is that? Amazing how built out it is.

Same as the above video.

Here's an example of what urban renewal did for Lawton, Oklahoma in the 1970s:

Downtown Lawton, OK circa 1964 looking west (Hotel Lawtonian visible on left side of photo)
3654

Downtown Lawton, OK during destruction of downtown (1978)
3655

Downtown Lawton, OK after Central Mall replaced downtown, looking south/southwest. (Hotel Lawtonian in center of photo)
3656

Goodness... that is depressing. How could anyone think that was a good idea?

Goodness... that is depressing. How could anyone think that was a good idea?

I honestly don't think there is a legit answer to that question.

http://www.urdesign.it/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/7-absolute-towers-by-mad-architects.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/FPO3S59.jpg

^ Belo Horizonte?

Interesting pictures but I'm not quite sure I get the connection to the thread topic.

I've been wondering the same thing. How does any of this relate to urban renewal? They are very cool pics, most of them I have already seen, but they're awesome anyways.

Check some of these pictures out!!!!!! Hong Kong Vertical Horizon - Hong Kong photo book (http://www.rjl-art.com/vertical-horizon.php)

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/249190_10151593601106329_1905999333_n.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/beerhjz.jpg

My ex-girlfriend is fatter than that building.

Lunch time in Hong Kong

http://i.imgur.com/duzxTaS.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/YGRxvqv.jpg

Again, those are interesting pics, but I don't understand the connection to this thead.

There isn't any connection.

I wonder if its very good foresight to encourage greater density in Oklahoma City. It's not if, but when an F4/F5 tornado plows right through downtown, Bricktown, Deep Deuce, etc. The more warm bodies in a smaller area means more fatalities. Maybe OKC's sprawl is a good thing.

You can't really look at it like that.

I wonder if its very good foresight to encourage greater density in Oklahoma City. It's not if, but when an F4/F5 tornado plows right through downtown, Bricktown, Deep Deuce, etc. The more warm bodies in a smaller area means more fatalities. Maybe OKC's sprawl is a good thing.

As detailed in the Severe Weather thread, Moore has had 4 major tornadoes (2 devastating) truck through it in the last 15 years...That's a pattern.

I don't have the records on this, but I do not remember downtown OKC even really approached by a tornado in my lifetime (b. 1988), nor have I heard of one approaching DT in any other era (and you think it would be at least localized knowledge). In fact, I've never really heard of one approaching the Urban Core, and every tornado seems to take a path that distinctly curves around the most dense portions of the metro area, while still being true to the general directions storms take (i.e. they rarely curve to the south or west).

I'm sure there's still much science to be done, and I'm far from a meteorologist, but I would not be surprised if heavily developed areas in some way influence both the direction storms take and their general strength. I certainly don't believe that it's impossible for one to truck through a CBD, and these storms are far too complex for us to fully understand, but anecdotal evidence at least suggests that tornadoes struggle in vast urban areas, particularly where density is at it's highest.

I could certainly be wrong about all that, but it's buyable enough for me to think that OKC should continue on the path to more dense development, and that even if it's not true, a rare event such as an EF4/5 tornado going through more urban areas is not really a reason to avoid developing the city in such a way that makes better use of resources and creates higher value and use.

I was just thinking that all these stick built apartments in Deep Deuce and The Hill would be reduced to toothpicks. The Brownstones, with their 8 inch concrete and rebar walls would likely do alright, although the roofs would be gone. We went on a walk last night and noticed that the new townhouses being built at The Hill definitely don't have above ground tornado shelters. I didn't notice a below ground shelter in the slab either. If I were spending that much on a townhouse I think I'd want one.

I notice after I mow my lawn I can easily blow the grass off the sidewalk with my leaf blower putting out a 100 mph wind. But if I sweep all the grass into a pile first the leaf blower can't move it. If I let that pile sit there for awhile until it becomes a cohesive blob my garden hose can't even wash it away. if I leave it there for a month I notice that it only gets bigger by trapping material that blows or washes by. We can learn a lot from a pile of lawn clippings. As for sprawl, if this hit pre-1945 it would have only taken out some barns.

I wonder if its very good foresight to encourage greater density in Oklahoma City. It's not if, but when an F4/F5 tornado plows right through downtown, Bricktown, Deep Deuce, etc. The more warm bodies in a smaller area means more fatalities. Maybe OKC's sprawl is a good thing.

I think it tells us not to have greater density in Moore.

I wonder if its very good foresight to encourage greater density in Oklahoma City. It's not if, but when an F4/F5 tornado plows right through downtown, Bricktown, Deep Deuce, etc. The more warm bodies in a smaller area means more fatalities. Maybe OKC's sprawl is a good thing.


I think it tells us not to have greater density in Moore.

It's smart to have greater density ANYWHERE taxes are collected. A wealthier municipality (a direct result of greater density) could invest better in the public -- maybe afford more/better storm shelters.

I believe that the difference of damage would not be high density urban core vs. suburban (with all due respect to the misguided comparison of grass on a sidewalk), but rather the TYPE of structures one might find in an urban core vs. suburban. Steel structured buildings, or reinforced concrete buildings of all heights would generally survive as a structure, but would likely sustain comparable damage to the outer shell. Whereas suburban homes create their structural integrity with the walls, high rises (steel and concrete) are not supported by their exterior walls but with their spine or structure. The shell/windows would still be severely damaged and contents destroyed, the structure would remain. The tall thin buildings as promoted by some on here would likely see the shell blown away and the floor contents swept out of the building. One with girth and lots of steel/concrete internal obstruction would catch more of the debris, like a filter would. A good example of the effect is the tornado that hit Ft. Worth and destroyed the Cash America building, among others.

I read yesterday that the storm that hit Moore was estimated to be between 6 and 600 times the power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. Bricktown would be no safer than Moore. Devon tower would be devastated with such a direct hit. And, with increased density would come and increased density of flying debris, including panes of glass capable of great damage to humans.

Face it, tornadoes like this one is insensitive to these petty urban vs. suburban arguments. It is equally evil to both. To use its destruction to make a case for one over the other is just wrong.

That nuclear bomb comment was beyond stupid (I know that was not Rover's comparison). No person in their right mind would pick nuclear bomb over tornado.

I read yesterday that the storm that hit Moore was estimated to be between 6 and 600 times the power of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima.That is complete bs. That bomb vaporized people and killed 100,000+ in mere seconds and that's not including the people that died from radiation poisoning. If you detonated that bomb near an F5 tornado, the tornado would be blown away by the initial blast, so yeah. Wherever you heard that from, I'd think about never listening to that source again.

There is no way ANY tornado on earth is more powerful than Atomic Bomb and especially today where we have made them 100x more powerful than they were back then.

That is complete bs. That bomb vaporized people and killed 100,000+ in mere seconds and that's not including the people that died from radiation poisoning. If you detonated that bomb near an F5 tornado, the tornado would be blown away by the initial blast, so yeah. Wherever you heard that from, I'd think about never listening to that source again.

There is no way ANY tornado on earth is more powerful than Atomic Bomb and especially today where we have made them 100x more powerful than they were back then.

I'll dig up the article but that is indeed what they were saying. The sustained energy over the course of that tornado surpassed that of the Hiroshima bomb.

I'll dig up the article but that is indeed what they were saying. The sustained energy over the course of that tornado surpassed that of the Hiroshima bomb.I think I saw the headline somewhere and just skimmed passed it, because I was busy.

Wind speed in the Hiroshima blast was 620 mph.

Probably for a few seconds. This lasted what, an hour?

It was far more energy than the bomb, but over the period of an hour rather than an instantaneous release.

It was far more energy than the bomb, but over the period of an hour rather than an instantaneous release.

Yes, and over a much more concentrated area (radius of approximately 1.6 kM, or about 2 mile diameter, approximately the width of the tornado but far short of the total area). You cannot make a direct comparison...the bomb was one area one blast, the tornado swept an area and moved through it with great mass over a period of time affecting the same area over a longer period of time) However, the point is that we are dealing with a devastating amount of energy which is not merely disrupted by the resistance of a building structure whether 1 story or 6 stories. The violent energy is constantly redistributed and redirected, but not diffused and killed. The mass and weight of the air at that velocity is astoundingly powerful.

Probably for a few seconds. This lasted what, an hour?The tornado lasted about 30-40 mins and killed 24 people and destroyed and/or damaged 12,000 homes.

The Bomb dropped on Hiroshima lasted initially for a few seconds, killed 100,000+, and destroyed(vaporized!!!) 4.7 square miles, and caused even more devastation further out than that. That is not including the people who are still suffering from the effects and birth defects that the radiation caused.

You can spin it however you want, the bomb was far more powerful, killed more people, and caused more destruction. Comparing a tornado on earth to an atomic bomb is silly.

Correction, 60,000-70,000 were killed almost instantly and up to 140,000 were injured.

Some website are saying 150,000 perished and others are saying 60,000. I know for a fact, it was in between 60,000-100,000 people that almost instantly died.

It was far more energy than the bomb, but over the period of an hour rather than an instantaneous release.How would you measure the energy between an atomic bomb and a tornado? I would really like to know. I can understand making that comparison when you're dealing with something like an meteor impact, but a tornado???? What unit of measurement would you use to compare these two???? Calories. . . Joules??? If this tornado did put out more energy than atomic bomb did, fine, it is still an invalid comparison, imo.

I don't have the records on this, but I do not remember downtown OKC even really approached by a tornado in my lifetime (b. 1988), nor have I heard of one approaching DT in any other era (and you think it would be at least localized knowledge).

I think it's more just a matter of luck, just as Moore getting hit so often is a lack of luck. There is nothing which would draw a tornado to Moore.

As another poster mentioned:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbVp6HSWR8

It was far more energy than the bomb, but over the period of an hour rather than an instantaneous release.

This is kind of like pointing out that Reggie Jackson scored more points than Durant over a month when KD only played one game.

Clearly the bomb was more destructive without getting into the effects on people. No point in comparing tragedy. They were both unfortunate events.

How would you measure the energy between an atomic bomb and a tornado? I would really like to know. I can understand making that comparison when you're dealing with something like an meteor impact, but a tornado???? What unit of measurement would you use to compare these two???? Calories. . . Joules??? If this tornado did put out more energy than atomic bomb did, fine, it is still an invalid comparison, imo.
It is actually not that hard. Mass x velocity, etc. to calculate the energy in wind. The air in the tornado is heavily moisture laden and dense, and at plus 200 mph has unbelievable force. It is easy to quantify.

Urban renewal? Big US cities showing strong growth | News OK (http://newsok.com/urban-renewal-big-us-cities-showing-strong-growth/article/feed/544987)

It is actually not that hard. Mass x velocity, etc. to calculate the energy in wind. The air in the tornado is heavily moisture laden and dense, and at plus 200 mph has unbelievable force. It is easy to quantify.I still don't think it'd be fair, seeing as the twister had a much longer lifespan than an atomic blast

I still don't think it'd be fair, seeing as the twister had a much longer lifespan than an atomic blast

plupan, this isn't about what is fair. It's about facts. LOL

But this is straying considerably from the topic.

plupan, this isn't about what is fair. It's about facts. LOL

But this is straying considerably from the topic.Facts don't support comparing a bomb to a tornado, right????

Facts don't support comparing a bomb to a tornado, right????

Why are you so hung up on this? Give it a rest. The tornado put out more energy than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The example was used to give a sense of scale, so people go "wow that was a powerful tornado". But it didn't cause the same level of destruction that the bomb caused, for a number of reasons. 1) Moore is more spread out than Hiroshima, giving the tornado lots of empty space to run over. 2) We have significantly better building codes than a city made up of mostly pre-war construction. 3) People had warning from the tornado and knew how to take cover. 4) The bomb blew a bunch of toxic crap all over the place, and the tornado didn't.

But who cares? The tornado put out more energy because that's what weather systems do.

I don't understand how the tornado generated energy - period. I fully understand how a nuclear reaction can generate energy.

I don't understand how the tornado generated energy - period. I fully understand how a nuclear reaction can generate energy.

It didn't generate energy per se, it transformed what was already present.

That is exactly right.

Think of wind mills and wind generators. They take the kinetic energy present in the mass and movement of the wind and convert it to mechanical movement which converts it to electrical power. The wind didn't "create" the electricity, but the kinetic power was transformed through a mechanical process. In the case of the tornado, like straight winds, the energy present is measurable.

The tornado lasted about 30-40 mins and killed 24 people and destroyed and/or damaged 12,000 homes.

The Bomb dropped on Hiroshima lasted initially for a few seconds, killed 100,000+, and destroyed(vaporized!!!) 4.7 square miles, and caused even more devastation further out than that. That is not including the people who are still suffering from the effects and birth defects that the radiation caused.

You can spin it however you want, the bomb was far more powerful, killed more people, and caused more destruction. Comparing a tornado on earth to an atomic bomb is silly.

Correction, 60,000-70,000 were killed almost instantly and up to 140,000 were injured.

Some website are saying 150,000 perished and others are saying 60,000. I know for a fact, it was in between 60,000-100,000 people that almost instantly died.

I can tell you completely do not understand power. You are confusing total power and the effect of concentration of power. You might want to take some physics and engineering classes.

Facts don't support comparing a bomb to a tornado, right????

Wrong