I'm not sure if anything like this has been discussed on here before but if it has then just merge threads.

If one actually stops and thinks about what MAPS did to OKC, it is really quite stunning. I was in college or maybe had just graduated when MAPS was passed. At first I was excited about all the stuff they said it would build. But it got off to such a slow start, I lost confidence and began to believe that it was like all the other OKC pie in the sky that we'd been sold over the years and that it would never happen and we'd never see the money again, or it'd be scaled down and done in a crappy cheap manner.

What a difference 20+ years makes.

It's pretty obvious that had it not been for the original MAPS and the subsequent MAPS we wouldn't have all the building going on in our downtown districts right now. Devon Tower would've never been a thought. We would've never been looked at as a temporary home for the NOLA Hornets and later as a landing place for the Sonics/Thunder. We would've never had world class rowing on the Canadian/Oklahoma river nor all of the development and proposed development on the river for such activities. All the hotels, condos and apartments would've never been dreamed of downtown. No one would've ever thought of putting a school or a grocery store downtown.

Looking at downtown all of that stuff is rather obvious. But MAPS has affected central Oklahoma in ways that aren't immediately obvious. Edmond is investing in it's old downtown. Business and retail developments are being produced to a higher standard than they were. Uptown Grocery would've never been believed to be a successful concept 15 or 20 years ago. Talk of high density living in Norman is not looked at as crazy and is a real possibility. All over central Oklahoma you can see businesses and residential going up that has a higher and sometimes more urban feel to it. In short, people are taking more pride in what they produce in Oklahoma now. We're not just tossing up ugly, disposable buildings and strip malls. People here finally realize that they can reach higher when building a development and make it nicer and better and more successful.

I know ther's still developments around here that aren't up to the standards that we wish, but we've come a long way from where we were in the 80s. Our standards and quality have been raised. Our expectations have been raised. You can no longer entice us with some crappy concept and have us be thankful for even considering building in Oklahoma. People are taking chances on businesses here in central Oklahoma that would've been deemd insane 20 years ago.

I know Tulsa had big plans for downtown and on the river front and a lot of it's fallen by the wayside. I hope they can turn things around and be as successful as OKC. I know there's sometimes animosity between the two cities but I think it benifits Oklahoma as a whole if it has two successful cities.

Coming back to my main point. Think of all the things we have now or coming up in the pipeline that we never would've had if it weren't for MAPS.

There was a MAPS Impact Study conducted by the City back in 2003 and updated around 2008.

The numbers below reflect the just-announced Devon project and I'm working on the list of other things that were included in their projections, so we can then add everything else that has been announced since.

The original MAPS was passed in 1993 and raised about $360 million.



http://www.okctalk.com/images/wikiphotos/mapsinvestment1.jpg

You also can't just think about what wouldn't have been developed, but what would have been lost. OKC likely would have kept losing most of its educated young people. Because of the development today more OU and OSU grads are staying here rather than going to Texas. Companies and jobs would have continued to pull out of OKC. We could very well have been looking at Detroit in Central Oklahoma had OKC remained on the path it was on in the 1980s. MAPS truly turned OKC around.

Yep, things were pretty bad in the late 80's and early 90's.

I left in 1989 and the primary reason was the poor economy and lack of opportunity.

City officials also projected at the time of the original MAPS campaign that OKC could see up to $80 million in private investment as a result of the MAPS projects. I know at times there are debates on here regarding hitting budgets/timelines throughout MAPS, but that is perhaps the most important projection they missed, but in a very GOOD way. They missed it by a mile. Or a light-year.

I believe the white water rafting course will be one of the biggest draws in Maps 3. In past years I've ran into many people who would travel from the DFW Metroplex to Southeastern Oklahoma to float and raft the rivers. The only other comparable facility is in Charlotte...that's a long commute from anywhere but the east coast. We can be a huge draw for white water enthusiasts from several of our surrounding states. I feel it'll have more of an impact than anticipated.

Yep, things were pretty bad in the late 80's and early 90's.

I left in 1989 and the primary reason was the poor economy and lack of opportunity.
Yes and every July 5 I remember the Penn Square failure.

It didn't seem so bad at first but that began a 10 year period of astonishingly steep sales declines and just as steep inclines for bad debts and delinquencies for a very broad range of Oklahoma businesses. Truly could not cut costs fast enough to keep up with the mounting losses. Inventories diminished in value practically while one was watching. Pretty sobering to watch a decade or two worth of investment and work disappear so quickly.

You know you really don't know the future but you kind of lull yourself into believing you know a little about the short term. But it's just a happy fiction.

Before this turns into a, "OKC's growth is keeping the rest of the state alive" thread, I would submit that OKC's growth has actually come at the expense of some Oklahoma cities. Certainly Tulsa. Especially Enid. Conversely, there are a lot of Oklahoma cities that are benefiting the most from OKC's growth - namely Norman and Stillwater. It's a mixed bag.

Were it not for MAPS, I would bet that affairs in Oklahoma would have continued exactly as they were. Tulsa probably would be close to eclipsing OKC in population, and certainly economic output as well. Tulsa would have continued to get all the state's college graduates that didn't leave, which would have given that city the cultural revolution that resulted in OKC's urban resurgence.

Now, I think that the state is a lot better off with OKC as the booming metropolis. Tulsa is doing stuff and will turn it around, but for the most part the rest of the state including Tulsa will start to reap rewards once OKC kicks it into overdrive with growth. The next phase, in which OKC becomes the next Austin or Charlotte, is right around the corner.

Being a huge Thunder fan, I have to thank MAPS. Obviously MAPS has benefitted OKC in numerous other ways, but the Thunder are perhaps the most visible on a national scale and the one that I personally interact with most on almost a daily basis. (I visit Daily Thunder pretty much every day. It's unhealthy.)

It's good to live in a thriving city such as OKC. Seeing what's happening with Detroit, we're fortunate that OKC is doing so well. MAPS is a big part of that, along with the the people and organizations that are striving to make the city a great place to live.

Hopefully OKC can/will keep the momentum going!

Enid is thriving. This is an article from just four days ago talking about a housing shortage due to all the growth with plenty more expected:

Booming Enid Needs At Least 600 New Homes Within the Next Two Years | KGOU (http://www.kgou.org/post/booming-enid-needs-least-600-new-homes-within-next-two-years)


You could argue Tulsa has benefited from OKC's rise due to the increased positive national exposure brought to the state in general.

You could also say the great success of MAPS and the impact afterwards has given Tulsa a big kick in the tail and caused them to pass similar plans of their own.

And finally, the great prosperity OKC is experiencing certainly gets spread to the state's universities, not only due to increased tax revenues but also great increases in contributions. Increased funding for universities help the entire state.


I really think this is a case of a rising tide (OKC) lifting all ships (the state).

Despite losing Continental, I believe Koch is growing quite a bit up in Enid.

Enid is thriving. This is an article from just four days ago talking about a housing shortage due to all the growth with plenty more expected:

Booming Enid Needs At Least 600 New Homes Within the Next Two Years | KGOU (http://www.kgou.org/post/booming-enid-needs-least-600-new-homes-within-next-two-years)


You could argue Tulsa has benefited from OKC's rise due to the increased positive national exposure brought to the state in general.

You could also say the great success of MAPS and the impact afterwards has given Tulsa a big kick in the tail and caused them to pass similar plans of their own.

And finally, the great prosperity OKC is experiencing certainly gets spread to the state's universities, not only due to increased tax revenues but also great increases in contributions. Increased funding for universities help the entire state.


I really think this is a case of a rising tide (OKC) lifting all ships (the state).

The rise of Texas came at the expense of Cali's growth. Florida's explosion came at the expense of Ohio and Queens, NY. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, regardless of how distant it is (I'm good friends w a graduate researcher at Case Western who is studying the notion of a space equilibrium portal between Cleveland's predominantly Jewish east side and SE Florida).

Tulsa has simply not used that kick in the rear and harnessed it in any positive way. Their civic dialog is so overwhelmingly negative and destructive. Their idea of a MAPS for Tulsa is corporate welfare. They missed the point. Here in OKC our ED plan is quality of life. Tulsa's QoL plan is faith, freedom, and family, still stuck in the 1990s, blissfully unaware of how unattractive that is to people who would otherwise love to live in Tulsa. It's a beautiful city with gorgeous neighborhoods and districts nestled in scenic topography. They need a Cathy O'Connor, not a Kathy Taylor. And definitely not a Dewey Bartlett.

OKC is showing how even at its worst, which we have probably accomplished at this point, professional civic leadership is still better than unprofessional civic leadership at its worst.

That is good to see about Enid!

I agree that OKC's boom has not hindered Tulsa in any way. Tulsa's dysfunctional government and leadership is what has hurt Tulsa (read "beware OKC", we don't want to create the same dysfunction). Tulsa also has been in the grip of old school, old money plutocrats who thought Tulsa had already "arrived" (also read "beware OKC"). When everyone starts believing their own BS and quits working their butts off to make progress, it gets dangerous.

So, again I agree with Pete. Tulsans have take notice of what has happened here and are starting to demand more from their business community and city leadership. I think OKC post 2000 has been a wake up call to them. They have a very bright future, but I think now will always be Robin to our Batman. Together they work great.

When everyone starts believing their own BS and quits working their butts off to make progress, it gets dangerous.



That quote oughta be framed and hung on the walls of city hall, the Chamber, and everywhere else in town.

I agree that OKC's boom has not hindered Tulsa in any way. Tulsa's dysfunctional government and leadership is what has hurt Tulsa (read "beware OKC", we don't want to create the same dysfunction). Tulsa also has been in the grip of old school, old money plutocrats who thought Tulsa had already "arrived" (also read "beware OKC"). When everyone starts believing their own BS and quits working their butts off to make progress, it gets dangerous.

So, again I agree with Pete. Tulsans have take notice of what has happened here and are starting to demand more from their business community and city leadership. I think OKC post 2000 has been a wake up call to them. They have a very bright future, but I think now will always be Robin to our Batman. Together they work great.

The reality though is that we still need ALL of OU/OSU's grads to move to OKC after graduation at least until OKC starts becoming a national draw. The reality is graduates of the UC system, Big Ten and ACC schools, etc., are a lot likelier to end up in Charlotte and Austin than OKC right now. That's where we have to get to in order to diversify our economy and in order to not need ALL of the state's best human capital. What I'm saying is when we get to that point, then naturally more in state grads will infuse Tulsa again and THEN the rising tide will lift all boats. But until then we're deadlocked for human capital and ED. That's reality, it's a small state after all.

I know Tulsa is struggling but I think it would be worse without OKC's success to serve as a road map.

They've made some progress and in many respects I think the OKC/Tulsa rivalry has motivated them.


And while OKC and the state in general is still not a big draw for young professionals nationally, every time I come back to OKC I meet more and more people who have moved from elsewhere due to work opportunities. We also see them on this site. So, that is starting to change and I think at some point the ball will really start rolling down hill.

That's how true boom towns stay fueled: A constant flow of people moving in from elsewhere, and not just regionally.

I
And while OKC and the state in general is still not a big draw for young professionals nationally, every time I come back to OKC I meet more and more people who have moved from elsewhere due to work opportunities. We also see them on this site. So, that is starting to change and I think at some point the ball will really start rolling down hill.



That's how I'm here. When I was asked to transfer here, I called my wife and asked her what she thought of OKC. Her response was "to visit?" and I said "no, how about to live?" Her response was the human equivalent of the losing trombone on The Price is Right.

Now, 5 years later, we love it and are big advocates of the city to all our friends and family. We even have some friends looking at opportunities here to move and work.

^
I frankly had no intentions of staying in this area after I graduated in 2009. If I were to be completely honest, it took me a while to warm up to OKC and the temptation was there to move back to TX. But I am glad I waited it out, and definitely tell OKC's story when I am out of town.

I too have noticed a lot of people who moved here from out of the area. A few months ago, I actually ran into someone I knew in high school at Walmart! He told me he moved up here for a job and ended up liking it far more than he thought.

^
I frankly had no intentions of staying in this area after I graduated in 2009. If I were to be completely honest, it took me a while to warm up to OKC and the temptation was there to move back to TX. But I am glad I waited it out, and definitely tell OKC's story when I am out of town.

I too have noticed a lot of people who moved here from out of the area. A few months ago, I actually ran into someone I knew in high school at Walmart! He told me he moved up here for a job and ended up liking it far more than he thought.

Everytime I visit back home in suburban west Houston I am so thankful I don't live there anymore. Even if it would provide us more help with the kiddo, I have no desire to go back.

Houston's problems (over-population, expense, traffic, etc.) are perhaps the best possible opportunity for OKC to achieve rapid growth.

We aren't likely to get a big company or a bunch of mid-sized ones to move here from L.A. or Seattle or New York. But Houston is a mess in many ways and OKC offers a great alternative.

I know we don't want to become too dependent on oil & gas but we have a great nucleus of those companies now and that makes it much easier for those in the industry to come here (experienced labor market, relationships with others in the business, etc.).

L.A's problems led to the rapid growth of first Seattle, then Portland and certainly Las Vegas. Houston's problems are certainly fueling Austin. I think many saw Charlotte as a nicer, more livable Atlanta.

I grew up in the Bay Area and moved to Austin for school and then OKC with work. I have two friends from the SFO that are moving here next year - both already bought houses and are renting them out until they move next year. OKC is definitely starting to have an appeal at the national level.

Houston's problems (over-population, expense, traffic, etc.) are perhaps the best possible opportunity for OKC to achieve rapid growth.

We aren't likely to get a big company or a bunch of mid-sized ones to move here from L.A. or Seattle or New York. But Houston is a mess in many ways and OKC offers a great alternative.

I know we don't want to become too dependent on oil & gas but we have a great nucleus of those companies now and that makes it much easier for those in the industry to come here (experienced labor market, relationships with others in the business, etc.).

L.A's problems led to the rapid growth of first Seattle, then Portland and certainly Las Vegas. Houston's problems are certainly fueling Austin. I think many saw Charlotte as a nicer, more livable Atlanta.

Pete, I wish I was as optimistic as you, but I'm telling you its just not stopping down there. The Energy Corridor along I-10 West from the Beltway out to Katy looks like freaking Dubai with tower cranes. Chevron is building a new tower downtown. Exxon is building their HQ up in The Woodlands. It's insane.

L.A. is still booming as well, even with lots of people moving elsewhere.

I just meant that we might get some spin-off from Houston, the way Portland and Vegas did from L.A.

Is there a consensus that Houston is higher up on the totem pole than Dallas?

Ah, gotcha. Yes, that's definitely possible and highly likely.

Is there a consensus that Houston is higher up on the totem pole than Dallas?

Depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about oil & gas (especially anything to do with offshore E&P), then yes.

Is there a consensus that Houston is higher up on the totem pole than Dallas?

Possibly as a metro but surely as a city, Houston grabbed enough land they had much more control on the destiny of their region than Dallas. So they were able to keep themselves the center of most everything in their metro in a way Dallas could not and assures it to keep that spot. Houston is practically the king of it's region, where Dallas is more the first among equals in it's region.

Houston is unique in that there is a ton of unincorporated land that carries a Houston (or Katy, or Spring, etc.) mailing address but is not actually within the city limits of Houston (or another city). Harris county maintains those areas. In DFW when you leave one city you cross into another. Not that simple in Houston.

You could make an argument that The Woodlands is trying to separate itself as it's own big city, especially with Exxon coming in the future, but it'll still be seen as just part of Houston.

I'm not sure if anything like this has been discussed on here before but if it has then just merge threads.
* * *
Coming back to my main point. Think of all the things we have now or coming up in the pipeline that we never would've had if it weren't for MAPS.
Traxx, the "punch" or "boost" that was given by the original MAPS to a very despondent Oklahoma City is a story that has been told too many times to bear or need repeating here. If you want documentation, read Steve Lackmeyer and Jack Moneys' book, "OKC: 2nd Time Around," as a starter. Beyond their excellent book, published in 2006, and notwithstanding any mark-timing that may have occurred beginning in 2008 when national economic issues took center stage, the city has far exceeded virtually any national measuring level for how cities are doing through the "great recession" period. Were it not for the original MAPS, not only would the original MAPS projects have not been done, neither would the city's progress during the 2008 recession have occurred, either.

While I and others do have some issues with parts of the way MAPS 3 has been developing (for me, particularly concerning the convention hotel matter), in the big picture and scheme of things, such issues only involve looking at some of the trees and not the forest.

If one looks only at the forest, the big picture, my sense is that Oklahoma City is in the early midst of one of its most historic economic binges, so to speak ... a time of unprecedented development and growth. If one looks back in time since the 1889 Land Run, there have only been a handful of those times, and, I'm glad to say, "Welcome back, burgeoning city ... you've been a long time coming." Or something like that.

I also take a historical pause for thought ... major economic events have in the past and will probably in the future cause interruptions in the city's development. That's just the way things seem to go. The Great Depression stifled perhaps Oklahoma City's greatest of its earlier booms. When the Depression finally hit the city full force in 1930-1931, after completing a handful of projects in 1931-1932, city development hit a virtual stone wall for more than thirty (30) years, until the Pei Plan developments during the 1960s-1970s came to fruition, and they were, of course, a completely mixed blessing. But, just looking at that hiatus, one sees that, aside from WPA funded projects (civic center, in particular), very little city development occurred from 1932 until the Pei Plan of the 1960s-1970s. One should not forget that history can repeat itself.

I guess that I'm saying that nothing should be taken for granted and that all euphoric expectations should be measured cautiously ... however, I'm also saying that there is nothing wrong with saying, "Hoo-rah" right now and for as long as the present-historic-period expansion lasts, PARTY ON ... but the party-time should be tempered with the knowledge, if history is the measuring stick, that no Oklahoma City boom period has lasted forever, and that today's present-day party will likely come to an end.

How long will the current boom last? Who can say. Will it someday end ... probably. But the cycle itself will continue on, and, in the end, whether during a down-side or not, an up-side will also come to pass. I'm 70. I'm hoping the present up-side continues on for at least one or two decades, so that I will die a happy man.

Houston is unique in that there is a ton of unincorporated land that carries a Houston (or Katy, or Spring, etc.) mailing address but is not actually within the city limits of Houston (or another city). Harris county maintains those areas. In DFW when you leave one city you cross into another. Not that simple in Houston.

You could make an argument that The Woodlands is trying to separate itself as it's own big city, especially with Exxon coming in the future, but it'll still be seen as just part of Houston.

Is The Woodlands still being ceded back to Houston?

That's how I'm here. When I was asked to transfer here, I called my wife and asked her what she thought of OKC. Her response was "to visit?" and I said "no, how about to live?" Her response was the human equivalent of the losing trombone on The Price is Right.

Now, 5 years later, we love it and are big advocates of the city to all our friends and family. We even have some friends looking at opportunities here to move and work.

LOL! That's one of the best humorous metaphors I've read in awhile.

Houston's problems (over-population, expense, traffic, etc.) are perhaps the best possible opportunity for OKC to achieve rapid growth.
.....

I've never been to Houston. So I rely on other people's comments about it.

When I think of Houston, I always remember that scene from a movie years ago called "Local Hero". Peter Riegert's character returns to Houston after an almost magical time in a small Scottish village. He drives down a huge freeway in his expensive car, the massive Houston skyline ahead of him. Everything feels so vapid and soulless. And that's how I think of Houston: large, wealthy, thick with buildings and cars, and just kind of soulless. Since I've not been there, that may not be fair. It's just the image that I have in my mind.

It's definitely anything but soulless.

Houston is FILLED with diversity. I rode the bus 2 weeks ago from Dallas to Houston before I flew out for Europe...You could instantly tell that you were in Houston over Dallas just by seeing the people in the Starbucks.

Houston is also simply more interesting in the core and even in other areas. Sure: the Suburbs are the suburbs...but that's every city. Houston proper has quite a few interesting districts and just generally a more eclectic environment.

To be sure, Houston is still a S*%#hole, but it's endearing and more comforting to me than the sterility of Dallas. Houston is also gentrifying most of it's core...Dallas seems to still be more worried about its highways and suburbs.

Is The Woodlands still being ceded back to Houston?

What do you mean?

Depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about oil & gas (especially anything to do with offshore E&P), then yes.

I'm a bit tardy to the party here, but in terms of cultural cache, I would say Dallas is probably "ahead." It still represents that Texas mindset, at least to big Hollywood types, and all that entails (big hair, bar-b-que, political conservatism, etc.)

In terms of economics though, I would say Houston is ahead as it is the center of a major American industry, energy. In that sense, it's on the same level as San Fran/San Jose is with tech or NYC is with finance. Dallas is an economic juggernaut but I can't really point to one thing it has the market cornered on.

I will definitely say that while Houston will always be the center of the energy industry, there is no reason that OKC couldn't play the role as a secondary hub, in the same sense with Austin is with tech or Charlotte is with finance. The de-emphasis on drilling in the GOM and more focus on shales and unconventional plays makes a location in Houston less important than it did in the past. I would say Denver is slightly ahead of us in that regard but I get the sense that a lot of companies up there are not happy with the direction CO is going in regards to oil and gas production.



To be sure, Houston is still a S*%#hole, but it's endearing and more comforting to me than the sterility of Dallas. Houston is also gentrifying most of it's core...Dallas seems to still be more worried about its highways and suburbs.

I'll always be a Dallas kid, but no doubt Houston has eaten Dallas's lunch in terms of redeveloping its core. The growth in the inner loop is has been crazy, although part of that is the insane traffic in Houston that has people looking into the city. Frankly, I think Houston provides a nice blueprint to OKC on how a sprawling city refocuses development into its core.

read Steve Lackmeyer and Jack Moneys' book, "OKC: 2nd Time Around,"

I've actually been meaning to get around to that for some time.

I just remember in the 80s and to some extent in the 90s, one would almost apologize for OKC. We built disposable buildings and strip malls etc. Now it seems we are taking pride in our home, how we represent it, what we build on it and what we do with it.