If iconic buildings are like those in the photos posted by PluPan, I think I hate iconic buildings. What is people's obsession with obnoxious blinding lights about? Why does that keep coming up in OKCTalk discussions? Are some people so overstimulated these days that they are bored unless their eyes are being assaulted by bright flashing lights as they walk around town? Lights aren't what give a city character or tell the world that we have a lot to offer. Garishness and ostentatiousness can push away many intelligent and talented people we might want to attract to OKC. Nobody wants to live at a carnival.Blinding lights? Are you for real? The lights are not blinding. This is the typical small town crap that engulfs this city. "Oh, not the blinding lights!!!! we don't want Las Vegas or Disney...." now it's living in a Carnival.

When I think of I iconic, it needs to be an attention grabber. The lights aren't blinding. Shut up. Get out of the way of progress. Go to a real city and see the buildings for yourself before passing judgement and making stupid ass statements like the ones that continue to be made here that the lights are blinding.

For Pete's sake (not our Pete), can you stop comparing us to those cities? They are huge areas that very few can compete against. Like BChris said, we need to crush cities like Tulsa, Wichita, LR, and even beat out cities like KC. We should be trying to get national exposure as well as regional exposure to come here because it is cool, fun, and a great place fora convention. We need to try to be so aggressive that we can barely meet demand and need to grow and add more hotel space. We should try to fill all those gates and then some due to increased air traffic coming into the city. We should build a rail from WRWA to DT- (I think that would be amazing) to attract even more and be impressive enough to perhaps get a mini hub of some sort. This is what I think needs to happen. We won't ever be Dallas, won't ever have a DFW airport, but we can aim for the stars and get as close as we possibly can with no regrets.

You may want to read back up the chain of comments in this thread and see I was just quoting another poster who chose those three cities to compare, not me.

If Cleveland can do something like this, OKC certainly can. Our economy compared to theirs is like night and day.

Economy in what regard? The economy of the Cleveland MSA is far larger or more diverse than OKC. Their convention industry is also far larger and more competitive than OKC.

Aside from that, the economy city or metro area really doesn't factor into how a convention center hotel is going to look

If iconic buildings are like those in the photos posted by PluPan, I think I hate iconic buildings. What is people's obsession with obnoxious blinding lights about? Why does that keep coming up in OKCTalk discussions? Are some people so overstimulated these days that they are bored unless their eyes are being assaulted by bright flashing lights as they walk around town? Lights aren't what give a city character or tell the world that we have a lot to offer.

Are you serious?

What do you propose does give a city character or tell the world what it has to offer? History? OKC can't go that route; most of it has been demolished. It sure isn't surface parking, Lower Bricktown, or the Producer's Co-op. While I am not going to deny that its possible to go too far with lighting to the point it looks tacky, OKC is a long, long, long way from that. Anything the CC hotel could accomplish on that front would be a welcome addition to the night skyline.


Garishness and ostentatiousness can push away many intelligent and talented people we might want to attract to OKC. Nobody wants to live at a carnival.

Wrong. Clinging to a small town mentality is going to push people away, not well lit skyscrapers that signify progress.

If there's any phrase I wish people would stop throwing out as if it makes their argument for them, it's probably "small town mentality". Make your arguments with actual arguments, not talking points.

Blinding lights? Are you for real? The lights are not blinding. This is the typical small town crap that engulfs this city. "Oh, not the blinding lights!!!! we don't want Las Vegas or Disney...." now it's living in a Carnival.

When I think of I iconic, it needs to be an attention grabber. The lights aren't blinding. Shut up. Get out of the way of progress. Go to a real city and see the buildings for yourself before passing judgement and making stupid ass statements like the ones that continue to be made here that the lights are blinding.

Agree with you Panda, this guy is probably 70 years old. I now realize why progress hasn't been made in this city. It has and is currently being run by people who have an out dated mentality and no real comprehension of what a dynamic city is like. I think their intentions are sincere, they are just old and clueless. The article that the lady wrote and someone posted a link was spot on. It described how this old guy got up and said "no one is going to go into an old bus stop and eat". Seriously, you can't make this crap up and it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. New and younger leadership is needed and I'd vote for Panda and BChris should they ever throw their hat in that ring.

Blinding lights? Are you for real? The lights are not blinding. This is the typical small town crap that engulfs this city. "Oh, not the blinding lights!!!! we don't want Las Vegas or Disney...." now it's living in a Carnival.

When I think of I iconic, it needs to be an attention grabber. The lights aren't blinding.

What if we pretend that the one occurrence of the word "blinding" in my post isn't there, just for the sake of argument? Would you have a response to any of my other comments, or are you content to knock down the straw-man that architectural lighting doesn't literally cause blindness?


Shut up. Get out of the way of progress.

I guess I hit a nerve. If you don't mind my asking, what's the rationale behind equating progress or the perception of progress with colorful lighting displays? You seem to be worried that OKC cannot achieve its potential without an array of constant garish multi-colored lighting in the skyline, despite the small number of large cities throughout the western world that prominently feature this.


Go to a real city and see the buildings for yourself before passing judgement and making stupid ass statements like the ones that continue to be made here that the lights are blinding.

What would you consider a "real city"? I would guess that I've visited more "real cities" than you have. At least enough to know that clown-colored skylines are only popular in Asia.

Agree with you Panda, this guy is probably 70 years old. I now realize why progress hasn't been made in this city. It has and is currently being run by people who have an out dated mentality and no real comprehension of what a dynamic city is like.

I'm 25 years old. I work at a Silicon Valley company and regularly travel to San Francisco for work.

If there's any phrase I wish people would stop throwing out as if it makes their argument for them, it's probably "small town mentality". Make your arguments with actual arguments, not talking points.

No kidding. Unfortunately, some people can't tell the difference between a talking point and an argument. I've observed that my generation is generally not skilled at reasoning.

What is people's obsession with obnoxious blinding lights about? Why does that keep coming up in OKCTalk discussions? Are some people so overstimulated these days that they are bored unless their eyes are being assaulted by bright flashing lights as they walk around town? Lights aren't what give a city character or tell the world that we have a lot to offer. Garishness and ostentatiousness can push away many intelligent and talented people we might want to attract to OKC. Nobody wants to live at a carnival.

It is because the architecture community can't design a building worth looking at so they have to come up a gimmick to make it interesting.

What would you consider a "real city"? I would guess that I've visited more "real cities" than you have. At least enough to know that clown-colored skylines are only popular in Asia.

I don't think anybody has advocated a "clown colored" skyline. Its a fact though that other than the Devon tower, the skyline in OKC at night is very poorly lit. A bit more light would help it out in my opinion and I am obviously not the only person that thinks that.

It is because the architecture community can't design a building worth looking at so they have to come up a gimmick to make it interesting.
As opposed to beautiful and architecturally magnificent Jacksonville. Lol.

You can turn ANY discussion of OKC into a snarky comment.

I don't think anybody has advocated a "clown colored" skyline. Its a fact though that other than the Devon tower, the skyline in OKC at night is very poorly lit. A bit more light would help it out in my opinion and I am obviously not the only person that thinks that.

That is actually correct and something that also needs to be addressed. Why is the OKC so dark compared to about any other DT? I know their is a lack of height besides Devon, however if these other buildings had some nice lights and more office lights left on, it would make it look totally different. I have never seen such a dark DT, which I hope changes down the road.

As opposed to beautiful and architecturally magnificent Jacksonville. Lol.

You can turn ANY discussion of OKC into a snarky comment.

No, anything built here since 1980 is just a sucky. I'll say this thought - downtown Jax at night is pretty cool.

Things don't have to be lit up with neon to be good design and to look good at night.

Of course, I think this pic of NYC looks great.

http://homeiswhereyourbagis.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/nyc_empire-03.jpg

Things don't have to be lit up with neon to be good design and to look good at night.

Of course, I think this pic of NYC looks great.

http://homeiswhereyourbagis.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/nyc_empire-03.jpgNew York does have a great skyline. Here is a more 'lit up' pic

http://www.cubebreaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/skyline-01-new-york-city.jpg?7cfe85

If there's any phrase I wish people would stop throwing out as if it makes their argument for them, it's probably "small town mentality". Make your arguments with actual arguments, not talking points.I just started using that phrase the other day. I don't recall seeing it used much in this thread before I just called it like it was and said this small town mentality going on here.

If by talking point you mean what a talking is, which is something used to generate a discussion about an important issue, than yes, what I said falls in line with a bigger issue I am presenting here. But of course, you're going to bring up talking points like why would Edmond build at Covell and I-35 "way in the middle of nowhere" and also overlook other talking points like ethan using overly dramatic terms like blinding and living at a carnival because of buildings that have cool LED features.

You have to have points to base your argument off of otherwise it is not an argument, you're just agreeing with the other person. My point is, we need to break away from the small town mentality. If you don't like that phrase, I'm going to suggest you block because it won't be the last time I use that phrase.

What if we pretend that the one occurrence of the word "blinding" in my post isn't there, just for the sake of argument? Would you have a response to any of my other comments, or are you content to knock down the straw-man that architectural lighting doesn't literally cause blindness?



I guess I hit a nerve. If you don't mind my asking, what's the rationale behind equating progress or the perception of progress with colorful lighting displays? You seem to be worried that OKC cannot achieve its potential without an array of constant garish multi-colored lighting in the skyline, despite the small number of large cities throughout the western world that prominently feature this.



What would you consider a "real city"? I would guess that I've visited more "real cities" than you have. At least enough to know that clown-colored skylines are only popular in Asia.When did I say that you insinuated the buildings were actually going to cause someone to go blind?

This does piss me off very much so because it's one thing to say you just flat out don't like skylines like Singapore but another to go and be overly dramatic and use like things like blinding skylines, living in a circus, and now with this post, a clown city. The word troll is starting to become more and more in line with what I'm seeing from your posts.

I like skylines that are colorful. I enjoy them. I want OKC's skyline to become lit up like a clown city in east Asia.

Guess all you want. I've been to Jax, Dallas, Houston, L.A., Honolulu, Las Vegas, St. Louis, Memphis, and several others. I don't really care if you have been to more 'real' cities than I have. It makes no difference to me.

You know what, I'm not going to argue that there are tons of skylines in the US are filled with 'blinding' neon either, because there isn't. Here's the thing though, that would make OKC unique in that regard. It would be a different skyline than what most are used to seeing. What am I thinking though? Unique and OKC just don't go together. Look at the Stage Center. Look at the Star Flyer. I think the Gold Dome might even be too 'unique' for OKC. So naaa, you're right. Let's just do what every other city does. Let's also not go with the wireless streetcar because most cities have wires and even though the future is going wireless on a lot of levels, we'll just play it safe and stick with what we know not venturing outside the box.

Slow and steady wins the race. Me personally, I'd slather myself up with grease and stick a super-sonic rocket to my back to the tune of fine opera blowing by snails riding on turtles and pray I don't explode, but you know, do what you do.

That is actually correct and something that also needs to be addressed. Why is the OKC so dark compared to about any other DT? I know their is a lack of height besides Devon, however if these other buildings had some nice lights and more office lights left on, it would make it look totally different. I have never seen such a dark DT, which I hope changes down the road.+1

No kidding. Unfortunately, some people can't tell the difference between a talking point and an argument. I've observed that my generation is generally not skilled at reasoning.

Argument: an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.

Talking Point: a topic that invites discussion or argument.

this most certainly wouldn't be a talking point created by David that you bought into, would it? No, certainly not.

I like the first pic of NYC better.

I like the first pic of NYC better.
Ironically enough, the Empire State Building is my all time favorite skyscraper.

Things don't have to be lit up with neon to be good design and to look good at night.

Of course, I think this pic of NYC looks great.

http://homeiswhereyourbagis.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/nyc_empire-03.jpg

NYC is not lit up with neon but its still very well lit. OKC isn't. Then again, OKC might as well be a one caution light, one gas station town compared to NYC. Lets compare OKC to something a little more realistic.

Louisville, KY - Metro population 1,262,261

http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/images/otrc/2010/photos/louisville_kentucky.jpg

Over smaller markets, sure. Not over Dallas, Houston or Denver.

That is just it. Groups want to go somewhere different. Not Houston or Dallas, maybe Denver though. Okc has received a lot of press nationally as being somewhere to visit.

We have been getting some very nice press lately. Forbes , NY Times, etc. We just need to keep doing all we can to continue this trend. The Conv. Hotel should be seen as part of that "re-birth" in OKC.

I don't believe for an instant that that second pic of NYC isn't doctored up to look pretty. Even if it isn't, most of the impact comes from the sky, and I bet OKC would look nearly as stunning with it as the backdrop.


I just started using that phrase the other day. I don't recall seeing it used much in this thread before I just called it like it was and said this small town mentality going on here.

If by talking point you mean what a talking is, which is something used to generate a discussion about an important issue, than yes, what I said falls in line with a bigger issue I am presenting here. But of course, you're going to bring up talking points like why would Edmond build at Covell and I-35 "way in the middle of nowhere" and also overlook other talking points like ethan using overly dramatic terms like blinding and living at a carnival because of buildings that have cool LED features.

You have to have points to base your argument off of otherwise it is not an argument, you're just agreeing with the other person. My point is, we need to break away from the small town mentality. If you don't like that phrase, I'm going to suggest you block because it won't be the last time I use that phrase.

I have a long-standing policy to not block people because you never know when they might finally say something useful and I'd hate to miss that. There's a guy on another forum I frequent that I've been waiting for something useful out of for like 15 years.


Argument: an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.

Talking Point: a topic that invites discussion or argument.

this most certainly wouldn't be a talking point created by David that you bought into, would it? No, certainly not.

You really like to invent definitions, don't you? Arguments don't have to be heated or angry, have you never heard of debating? Hell, arguments are what we do on this forum all the time.

One of the things I find most annoying about the typical built environment is the monumental squandering of resources on decorative and wasteful lighting use. Turn that stuff off.

That is just it. Groups want to go somewhere different. Not Houston or Dallas, maybe Denver though. Okc has received a lot of press nationally as being somewhere to visit.

Yes, they go to Orlando, New Orleans, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Atlanta, San Diego, Miami.

Some one else stated those three cities, I just quoted the names and questioned the statement made.

OKC will not and can not compete with Tier 1 convention cities. What it can do is take business from smaller markets like Tulsa, Little Rock, Wichita, and Omaha. In addition, the city will be in a good position to compete with places like Kansas City and Indianapolis or some larger conventions.

Our convention hotel is going to make a statement to all of those outside OKC. It's just a matter "What do we want to tell them? " The bottom line of Conventions & Hotels is very simple at its core....Bring them in, and let them experience a little of what we have to offer. In order to get them here, they have to have an interest to be here, a desire to experience something different. This Convention Hotel must be that Point of Interest. The greater the interest level, the greater the desire becomes to fulfill that impulse. ie....Candy by the register in grocery stores. Impulse Items.

What this hotel should be is the Eye-Candy of OKC and it should be irresistible. This Hotel needs to be big enough for everyone. If this Conv. Hotel is done correctly, then there will be a greater demand in OKC ( as things continue to increase / economy ) and the 21C Museum Hotel will see the same increase in demand too.

I don't believe for an instant that that second pic of NYC isn't doctored up to look pretty. Even if it isn't, most of the impact comes from the sky, and I bet OKC would look nearly as stunning with it as the backdrop.



I have a long-standing policy to not block people because you never know when they might finally say something useful and I'd hate to miss that. There's a guy on another forum I frequent that I've been waiting for something useful out of for like 15 years.



You really like to invent definitions, don't you? Arguments don't have to be heated or angry, have you never heard of debating? Hell, arguments are what we do on this forum all the time.

What? Seriously? I think you are way off base. Panda is one of the best posters on this forum and brings great insight. It does get frustrating to see OKC make progress but yet being so "small minded" and cheaping out on things far too often. We could really use an attention getting CC and Hotel that makes a statement. It it almost like we don't see the big picture like we should. We have 2 major Interstates that pass through OKC and they both go right past DT. I love skylines from all over the world, I can't stop staring at them when I get close- always have since I was a kid. I used to draw skylines pictures when I was a kid.

With that said, I have never seen a darker skyline than OKC and I hate that. The Cotter Ranch is basically lifeless and dark. The First National Building is about to go totally dark which is sad because someone could do some really cool lighting features on it. It is like the city to cheap to even to much accent and crown lighting in our buildings. This is what millions of people drive by and judge our city by and it looks depressing except for the Devon. I love staring at the Devon at night all lit up and it makes me proud. I just wish we had more of this or at least an attempt to brighten up a very dark DT. I have said it before, perception goes a long ways and outsiders driving through judge this city by what it sees. City leaders if you ever read this forum, please take note of that because it is true.

With that said, I have never seen a darker skyline than OKC and I hate that. The Cotter Ranch is basically lifeless and dark. The First National Building is about to go totally dark which is sad because someone could do some really cool lighting features on it. It is like the city to cheap to even to much accent and crown lighting in our buildings. This is what millions of people drive by and judge our city by and it looks depressing except for the Devon. I love staring at the Devon at night all lit up and it makes me proud. I just wish we had more of this or at least an attempt to brighten up a very dark DT. I have said it before, perception goes a long ways and outsiders driving through judge this city by what it sees. City leaders if you ever read this forum, please take note of that because it is true.

You just used the two worst examples of lighting on buildings possible. The Cotter Ranch is owned by a guy out of Texas that refuses to sell, but also refuses to do anything to it. FNC has an owner who bought it in 2006 and is now in jail or awaiting trial (I can't remember which one). I think we can expect the next owners of FNC to do what needs to be done to it to make it another iconic structure.

Sandridge is well lit up, the and Braniff building is amazing. The only one I wish would be done more with the current ownership is the OG&E building. Take the old equipment off the roof and liven the place up a little, even if that means addind some windows to those blank walls.

A couple of months ago they were doing some video shoots for something and they lit it up very nicely, including leaving lights on in the Chase tower and I thought it was awesome. I was in Bricktown that night and it really felt like a much more vibrant city. It was amazing what just a little lighting could do to what is currently already in place. A city's skyline is its image, both during the day and night. A dark downtown creates the impression of a dead downtown. While I can understand that some may not like bright neon or LED lighting, that isn't the only option to create a vibrant, well lit cityscape at night.

A couple of months ago they were doing some video shoots for something and they lit it up very nicely, including leaving lights on in the Chase tower and I thought it was awesome. I was in Bricktown that night and it really felt like a much more vibrant city. It was amazing what just a little lighting could do to what is currently already in place. A city's skyline is its image, both during the day and night. While I can understand that some may not like bright neon or LED lighting, that isn't the only option to create a vibrant, well lit cityscape at night.

See that is a Reasonable position, but it's not one that was taken by other posters who seemed to be spitting at their screen in rage when someone said they didn't like the LED wrapped building examples. Appropriate lighting can be great. I love the screen on the century center (and would welcome more like that) and I'm all for a well lit downtown, although there's some arguments to be made for avoiding to much light pollution just for the sake of it.

You just used the two worst examples of lighting on buildings possible. The Cotter Ranch is owned by a guy out of Texas that refuses to sell, but also refuses to do anything to it. FNC has an owner who bought it in 2006 and is now in jail or awaiting trial (I can't remember which one). I think we can expect the next owners of FNC to do what needs to be done to it to make it another iconic structure.

Sandridge is well lit up, the and Braniff building is amazing. The only one I wish would be done more with the current ownership is the OG&E building. Take the old equipment off the roof and liven the place up a little, even if that means addind some windows to those blank walls.

I can honestly say I've never heard anyone say the skyline was dark, outside the aforementioned Chase Tower (which is dark also because its 40 percent vacant).

I can honestly say I've never heard anyone say the skyline was dark, outside the aforementioned Chase Tower (which is dark also because its 40 percent vacant).

I wouldn't say dark, but nor would I say it's especially lit or bright. Part of it also is determined by the viewing angles. I did a quick google search for OKC Skyline at night, and it's amazing the variety of images you can see..

10060

10061

10062

10063

I can honestly say I've never heard anyone say the skyline was dark, outside the aforementioned Chase Tower (which is dark also because its 40 percent vacant).

The Chase tower happens to be the second most dominant fixture in the skyline. Thing is, just a little more lighting on it makes a huge difference for all of downtown.

Argument: an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.

Talking Point: a topic that invites discussion or argument.

this most certainly wouldn't be a talking point created by David that you bought into, would it? No, certainly not.

Thanks for proving my point. You got "argument" wrong.

The full version of the forum banner is pretty good.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/banner6c.jpg

Looks a bit over-exposed, but even without that it would hardly be dark.

Our convention hotel is going to make a statement to all of those outside OKC. It's just a matter "What do we want to tell them? " The bottom line of Conventions & Hotels is very simple at its core....Bring them in, and let them experience a little of what we have to offer. In order to get them here, they have to have an interest to be here, a desire to experience something different. This Convention Hotel must be that Point of Interest. The greater the interest level, the greater the desire becomes to fulfill that impulse. ie....Candy by the register in grocery stores. Impulse Items.

What this hotel should be is the Eye-Candy of OKC and it should be irresistible. This Hotel needs to be big enough for everyone. If this Conv. Hotel is done correctly, then there will be a greater demand in OKC ( as things continue to increase / economy ) and the 21C Museum Hotel will see the same increase in demand too.

You are really putting this hotel on a pedestal, huh. Convention groups don't care one iota how a hotel looks. If that were the case Vegas would take all the business and Orlando would get none.

What convention groups do care about is how many hotel rooms you have within walking distance of the Convention and how much there is to do (activities and entertainment) within walking distance of the Convention and with in the hotel room.

There is a reason New Orleans is a favorite Superbowl host city and Dallas was called one of the worst ever. There isn't much to do in the downtown area and the stadium isn't accessible by any type of mass transit.

Bottomline, and I'm not trying to be negative or downer, but you're greatly overvaluing the effects a convention center hotel will have.

You are really putting this hotel on a pedestal, huh. Convention groups don't care one iota how a hotel looks. If that were the case Vegas would take all the business and Orlando would get none.

What convention groups do care about is how many hotel rooms you have within walking distance of the Convention and how much there is to do (activities and entertainment) within walking distance of the Convention and with in the hotel room.

There is a reason New Orleans is a favorite Superbowl host city and Dallas was called one of the worst ever. There isn't much to do in the downtown area and the stadium isn't accessible by any type of mass transit.

Bottomline, and I'm not trying to be negative or downer, but you're greatly overvaluing the effects a convention center hotel will have.

That's funny you should include Vegas as a Convention / Trade Show destination, because they both are. Vegas gets a ton of convention business for all the obvious reasons. Orlando has many for the other obvious reasons ( golf, warm climate, WDW ), .....OKC is not a destination place as of yet, and this is a large part of my point. This hotel should be part of that equation that helps lure outside interest.

They also care about having them in airport hub cities, since attendees are more likely to show up if they can get direct flights. That was cited in the still unreleased chamber study as being one of the issues here in OKC.

The bad news is... OKC has a ton of work to do to really move up in the world against other cities. We need a much better convention center, bigger hotels, better mass transit, better airport, better neighborhoods surrounding downtown, better downtown, more stuff to do, more attractions, better presence on TV, better overall appearance, iconic structures, and a million other etceteras.

The good news is... these are incremental improvements and OKC will benefit from each one. Better mass transit, we'll benefit. Better convention center, we'll benefit. And so on and so forth. There's no one project that this city can build that will jump us up to competing with Vegas for conventions. But in 20 years, if we keep going like we've been going, we'll be in an overall much better position.

That's funny you should include Vegas as a Convention / Trade Show destination, because they both are. Vegas gets a ton of convention business for all the obvious reasons. Orlando has many for the other obvious reasons ( golf, warm climate, WDW ), .....OKC is not a destination place as of yet, and this is a large part of my point. This hotel should be part of that equation that helps lure outside interest.

I know they're both convention and trade show destinations. There one and two in the US. My point was, if groups planning conventions cares anything about what a hotel looked like, Orlando would have no conventions and Vegas would have every convention. Companies care about the amount of rooms close enough to the convention center than how the hotels look. Convention attendees would rather stay at a inexpensive Doubletree or Holiday Inn hotel than some high end Hilton or Hyatt to be honest.

Oklahoma City has comparable demographic metro figures to Jacksonville, Memphis, Louisville, & Richmond which are a better competitive gauge. None of these cities are among the Top 50 convention destinations. OKC has a realistic chance to make the list once we get a new competitive convention center & hotel ready:

Top convention destinations: Orlando, Chicago, Las Vegas (http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/destinations/2013/08/21/top-50-destinations-for-meeting-planners/2681695/)

OKC's 5% growth rate is higher than any of the five cities in their (40-44) group.


Current Rank
City
Population Estimate: MSA - Central City 2013
Change since 2010 Census


40th
Jacksonville, FL
1,394,624 - 842,583
+3.64% - +2.53%


41st
Memphis, TN
1,341,746 - 653,450
+1.28% - +1.01%


42nd
Oklahoma City, OK
1,319,677 - 610,613
+5.32% - +5.28%

43rd
Louisville, KY
1,262,261 - 609,893
+2.15% - +2.10%


44th
Richmond, VA
1,245,764 - 214,114
+3.12% - +4.85%


Chart the largest regional cities to gauge where you would like to be in five, ten or fifteen years from now; that is where Dallas (8), Denver (13), Houston (19), Fort Worth (30) , St. Louis (35) & Kansas City (42) come into play; they are among the Top 50 cities in the United States that will provide competition for the hotel & convention industry.

.

They also care about having them in airport hub cities, since attendees are more likely to show up if they can get direct flights. That was cited in the still unreleased chamber study as being one of the issues here in OKC.

The lack of direct flights is pretty high up on my list of reasons I'm skeptical of this project's long term prospects.

The lack of direct flights is pretty high up on my list of reasons I'm skeptical of this project's long term prospects.

This is a factor that has concerned me for a long time. What can be done about this? Can our city leaders agressively pursue some type of mini hub type situation? If you think about it, we have so much land at our airport, very nice run ways, an air traffic control center, etc. DFW is about to bust at the seam but I am sure that won't matter. Is is possible that with our expansion we could add on to that and have a rail system from the airport to DT? Having more direct flights and a mini hub type situation will bring in more people for conventions and without a doubt easier to convince companies to locate here or relocate here. In fact, I think that might one of the biggest factors that determines whether a company will move it's HQ here and why we don't see more.

To me it would be worth the money to invest in this to pursue because I think it has hurt us more than we will ever admit. The problem is how do we get it done? Keep in mind, I am not talking about a major hub, just a mini hub that would be a positive or an airline and help our city as well. Could they be enticed to come here with funding, and a great facility? When you talk about TIF this would be an area that would add so much to our city. Citizens from all over would have more access and those in south of OKC would choose not to drive to DFW and Tulsa peeps would drive to OKC at times. If we get more conventions and a few businesses coming here it is worth it and then some.

This is a factor that has concerned me for a long time. What can be done about this? Can our city leaders agressively pursue some type of mini hub type situation? If you think about it, we have so much land at our airport, very nice run ways, an air traffic control center, etc. DFW is about to bust at the seam but I am sure that won't matter. Is is possible that with our expansion we could add on to that and have a rail system from the airport to DT? Having more direct flights and a mini hub type situation will bring in more people for conventions and without a doubt easier to convince companies to locate here or relocate here. In fact, I think that might one of the biggest factors that determines whether a company will move it's HQ here and why we don't see more.

To me it would be worth the money to invest in this to pursue because I think it has hurt us more than we will ever admit. The problem is how do we get it done? Keep in mind, I am not talking about a major hub, just a mini hub that would be a positive or an airline and help our city as well. Could they be enticed to come here with funding, and a great facility? When you talk about TIF this would be an area that would add so much to our city. Citizens from all over would have more access and those in south of OKC would choose not to drive to DFW and Tulsa peeps would drive to OKC at times. If we get more conventions and a few businesses coming here it is worth it and then some.

Go read the commercial aviation threads before this becomes another debate on whether OKC can/will/should become any type of hub. I think it's been pretty well determined it will not happen, no matter what we as a city do.

I don't believe for an instant that that second pic of NYC isn't doctored up to look pretty. Even if it isn't, most of the impact comes from the sky, and I bet OKC would look nearly as stunning with it as the backdrop.



I have a long-standing policy to not block people because you never know when they might finally say something useful and I'd hate to miss that. There's a guy on another forum I frequent that I've been waiting for something useful out of for like 15 years.



You really like to invent definitions, don't you? Arguments don't have to be heated or angry, have you never heard of debating? Hell, arguments are what we do on this forum all the time.ill screenshot the page and provide a link when I get home

Thanks for proving my point. You got "argument" wrong.you keep spewing the same crap in different words out. You still have not addressed my original point and it is starting to become more clear as to what your intentions are here. The last word is all yours.

I wouldn't worry about Jax infringing on the national convention business. Being located in a state with Tampa, Orlando, Miami, Ft Lauderdale, plus Atlanta just up the road it is a tough market down here. Our convention center is a former train station. We don't even have a hotel near the convention center.

The new OKC convention center along with the size of the anchor hotel room count could be a game-changer as we approach the 2020 decade:


1. More regional & some national conventions could be booked. Success breeds success...
2. Our proximity to feeder cities like Amarillo, Fort Smith, Lubbock, Wichita Falls-Lawton, Wichita & Tulsa puts us closer than Dallas or Kansas City.
3. Demand will increase for more direct flights into WRWA as the convention industry grows. Result: Continuous Will Rogers World Airport expansion...

A large four-star quality hotel can supply the demand for the OKC convention industry.

OKC is not stuck in a vacuum where we will continue to be a feeder to DFW or Love Field (Southwest Airlines) which are busting at the seams. We have the best potential among the feeder cities in this region to establish ourselves as a commercial city.

Note: Kansas City has National Football League & Major League Baseball; their airport hasn't been a flight concern for the two biggest sports leagues in North America.

Note: Kansas City has National Football League & Major League Baseball; their airport hasn't been a flight concern for the two biggest sports leagues in North America.

Pro teams use charter service.

OKC will not and can not compete with Tier 1 convention cities. What it can do is take business from smaller markets like Tulsa, Little Rock, Wichita, and Omaha. In addition, the city will be in a good position to compete with places like Kansas City and Indianapolis or some larger conventions.


The new OKC convention center along with the size of the anchor hotel room count could be a game-changer as we approach the 2020 decade:


1. More regional & some national conventions could be booked. Success breeds success...
2. Our proximity to feeder cities like Amarillo, Fort Smith, Lubbock, Wichita Falls-Lawton, Wichita & Tulsa puts us closer than Dallas or Kansas City.
3. Demand will increase for more direct flights into WRWA as the convention industry grows. Result: Continuous Will Rogers World Airport expansion...

A large four-star quality hotel can supply the demand for the OKC convention industry.

OKC is not stuck in a vacuum where we will continue to be a feeder to DFW or Love Field (Southwest Airlines) which are busting at the seams. We have the best potential among the feeder cities in this region to establish ourselves as a commercial city.

Note: Kansas City has National Football League & Major League Baseball; their airport hasn't been a flight concern for the two biggest sports leagues in North America.

This is all true. It'll be a slightly better regional draw for Kansas and Arkansas, opposed to Dallas, Houston, or Denver.

I don’t think anybody has advocated a “clown colored” skyline.

Convention - OKCTalk (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Convention+Hotel&p=861214#post861214)


Its a fact though that other than the Devon tower, the skyline in OKC at night is very poorly lit. A bit more light would help it out in my opinion and I am obviously not the only person that thinks that.

I agree. I’d love to see a better-lit skyline, as long as it's not colorful.

Convention - OKCTalk (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Convention+Hotel&p=861214#post861214)



I agree. I’d love to see a better-lit skyline, as long as it's not colorful.

That's just small town thinking....

:Smiley122

New York does have a great skyline. Here is a more 'lit up' pic

You know that's not what it looks like in person, right? OKC's skyline can look like that in a photo too.

The more visible structures (large convention hotel) you add to the skyline; hopefully, the more full & illuminated the skyline will become. OKC's skyline doesn't have to be colorful or will it need to light up like Vegas to be impressive.


https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608023453795814256&pid=15.1&P=0 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v8FB4Muf2XI/UjACLWFMEuI/AAAAAAAABxs/d55uHAyPrzI/s320/014.JPG
Oklahoma City's skyline looms large in comparison to cities like Orlando, Portland & San Antonio; cities with one million more residents in their metropolitan areas.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608056138499948977&pid=15.1&P=0 . . https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608055275206870417&pid=15.1&P=0 . .https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607995532215192549&pid=15.1&P=0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Orlando, FL, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Portland, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Antonio, TX

The more visible structures (large convention hotel) you add to the skyline; hopefully, the more full & illuminated the skyline will become. OKC's skyline doesn't have to be colorful or will it need to light up like Vegas to be impressive.


https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608023453795814256&pid=15.1&P=0 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v8FB4Muf2XI/UjACLWFMEuI/AAAAAAAABxs/d55uHAyPrzI/s320/014.JPG
Oklahoma City's skyline looms large in comparison to cities like Orlando, Portland & San Antonio; cities with one million more residents in their metropolitan areas.

https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608056138499948977&pid=15.1&P=0 . . https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.608055275206870417&pid=15.1&P=0 . .https://sp.yimg.com/ib/th?id=HN.607995532215192549&pid=15.1&P=0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Orlando, FL, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Portland, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Antonio, TX

OKC's skyline is very compact in comparison to San Antonio and Portland. The distance between the buildings in the picture you showed and a cluster of some of downtown's largest buildings is nearly one mile. Whereas, Okc's downtown buildings are all built within a perimeter of a quarter mile.

Here's an image of San Antonio with downtown outlined in blue and the two tower cluster areas of downtown in blue X's. The one to the right is the area that is shown in the picture you posted.


http://i.imgur.com/rCDEnF1.png

Now here's the area of dowtown plus the X's over the downtown area of Oklahoma City.


http://i.imgur.com/kSkQZjr.jpg?1

As you can see, downtown San Antonio covers a lot more area than downtown OKC and the skyline for OKC are within a 5 block by 5 block area. If all the highrise and midrise buildings in downtown San Antonio were contained within a 5x5 block area, it would look massively different.

The spread out nature of the tall buildings in downtown San Antonio gives the skyline an unimpressive feel and look.[/SIZE]

actually, the downtowns are very comparable in area but SA is just more built up (or should I say, not torn down).

as for portland, consider the block sizes they use (very small) when trying to compare. Yet, I'd agree that Portland CBD is probably twice as built up but still not as impressive as OKC due to their OVER-use of midrises (again, likely due to the block sizes).