Not that the buildings are even remotely similar, but for the sake of argument, couldn't the Fred Jones Building be defined as old decrepit industry?

Don't know...what business is operating in the business now.

BTW, I wasn't really being serious. Just poking a little fun.

I was wondering who the first person would be to chide VP. It's easy to criticize when you don't have the frame of reference of what that property looked like compared to what it is now. It definitely has its problems but it is FAR better than the sad state it was in 15 years ago.

So...better than crappy makes us happy? I'll take it back; should be a great fit here then!

Me too!

Don't forget the putrid STENCH that emits from this place.

There's nothing quite like opening your windows in Midtown on a nice spring day, only to have your entire apartment smell like burnt fried chicken and yeast within 15 minutes.

This is actually the worst part about it, imo. It's a potentially amazing site for redevelopment, but it is still a working business, and you have to respect that. However, the smell affects the experience of all of the downtown districts. I think a lot of visitors have no idea where the smell is coming from and just think Oklahoma City stinks in general. There is no doubt it has a negative affect on the appeal of the core, but I think the smell it emits into the core has a much bigger and broader negative impact than the way it looks does.

I've worked downtown for 10 years and have never smelled anything like you're talking about.

The wind has to be blowing just the right way. On Sunday I exited Harkins after a movie with a bunch of friends and several of them were like, "what IS that terrible smell?!?!" as they'd never smelled it before.

I've worked downtown for 10 years and have never smelled anything like you're talking about.

You're one of the lucky ones.

It's not 365 days a year and the wind obviously matters, but when it's present it just hangs over BT and the surrounding districts. Smells like the pan drippings under your grill x 10.

This property does have frontage along Shields which is decent access to I-40 and downtown & the visibility from I-40 is great.
But I agree it is WAY over priced. Might be close to being worth the price if it were a brownfield site.

This piece of real estate would be perfect for a large Corporate Plaza w/ a American Energy Partners new HQ. AEP ( Aubrey M. ) would know exactly how to develop this location.

It would also be a great location for several key energy players.... It could be called Energy Plaza I, II , III, IV, V. With several 5-10 story bldgs each w/ TapStone / Enable / Enlink...

Or the new Continenal HQ w/ multiple towers & Energy Hotel.

It would be best if it was High End Corp. Small lake in center that flows into the canal.

Well Charlotte or Austin wouldn't have something that ugly and smelly right in the middle of their downtown. If the Co-op were in downtown Austin or Charlotte it would have been partitioned and sold to developers years ago. From what I've read here selling the property is the primary roadblock. It's harsh and you can bash me all you want for saying it but it's the truth. I am all for preserving stuff that is unique to OKC in a positive way, but the Co-op downtown is a negative. It's ugly, confirms the perception most Americans have of this city, and it will likely prevent quality development around it as long as it remains.



Cool concept, but I don't think it would work with the Co-op. The brewery has better bones. Something like that would have been perfect for the Belle Isle power plant rather than demolishing it to build a Wal-Mart. The Co-op is primarily steel buildings that would be difficult to repurpose for anything other than dirty industry.


Boo hoo. You sound like Spartan. Have you ever been to Detroit, the upper Midwest or across the NE? Most of the "rust belt" has tons of industrial buildings in the heart of the urban core or downtown's. Cleveland, Pittsburg, Philly, even "progressive utopia" NYC has plenty of industrial buildings in the heart of urbanity. Get over it, it adds character. Sure we'd all love to see a new BILLION dollar development at the Cotton Mill in OKC, but nothing serious will happen here for at least a decade.

Every time I see this property I think about Victory Park in Dallas and what it has become. If I remember correctly, VP occupies about 75 acres that was formerly a polluted rail yard/power plant -- so about twice the size of the Mill property here in OKC.

6302

You realize Victory Park is considered a disaster in modern redevelopment don't you? They are spending over $100 million to "fix" it.

http://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2009/june/the-failure-of-victory-park

http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2013/10/do-over-of-victory-park-expected-to-cost-around-100-million.html/

How about a land swap between Humphreys and the COOP owners where Blair builds his (I presume) dense development on this site, leaving the airpark site to be negotiated between the concert venue owner, the soccer team(s), etc (or some combination thereof). Meanwhile, the COOP function moves to the tire plant and the owners still come out ahead cash wise...

(I think the airpark is the perfect place for soccer stadiums... by the river and closer to the south side, which may give higher initial support fan-base wise...)

This would be the most visible piece of RE in OKC. ...1-40, the new Blvd., The River, The Peake...

Boo hoo. You sound like Spartan. Have you ever been to Detroit, the upper Midwest or across the NE? Most of the "rust belt" has tons of industrial buildings in the heart of the urban core or downtown's. Cleveland, Pittsburg, Philly, even "progressive utopia" NYC has plenty of industrial buildings in the heart of urbanity. Get over it, it adds character. Sure we'd all love to see a new BILLION dollar development at the Cotton Mill in OKC, but nothing serious will happen here for at least a decade.

Sorry, but cities like Detroit don't have a reputation as being the best or most desirable places to live either. One could say OKC in the '80s was the Detroit of the Great Plains and the city is finally coming back from that, but Detroit is nothing to aspire to, despite its history. The Co-op does nothing to add character. It only adds smell, blight, and lowers property values around it. You are right, its probably not going anywhere for at least a decade, but that doesn't mean people can't post their opinions about it on a website.

The local commercial lending should be drooling all over this. This is the lowest risk w/ the Greatest Upside in Oklahoma. $1-2B, ... Energy Center w/ the Energy Tower of 1,000 ft. ???? The Anara Tower, perfect.

Sorry, but cities like Detroit don't have a reputation as being the best or most desirable places to live either. One could say OKC in the '80s was the Detroit of the Great Plains and the city is finally coming back from that, but Detroit is nothing to aspire to, despite its history. The Co-op does nothing to add character. It only adds smell, blight, and lowers property values around it. You are right, its probably not going anywhere for at least a decade, but that doesn't mean people can't post their opinions about it on a website.

LOL, of course you use the ONE city with a bad rap, but I listed SEVERAL of just a FEW cities that have great reputations, more culutural life than OKC, AND have industrial "blight" in the urban core. Do you compare NYC to Detroit? Yes Detroit has SERIOIUS issues, but regardless, IS STILL a more urban city with more to do than OKC does NOW!

The local commercial lending should be drooling all over this. This is the lowest risk w/ the Greatest Upside in Oklahoma. $1-2B, ... Energy Center w/ the Energy Tower of 1,000 ft. ???? The Anara Tower, perfect.

Too bad OKC doesn't have an NFL team because this would be the ultimate site for a stadium. I mean perfect! Lets get those Raiders to come on down and lets get a special maps and build that stadium. That would spur all kinds of development.

Stadiums of the NFL and MLB caliber don't always spur development. They are so large and have so much parking around them...

I think the industrial blight on the north side of the new I-40 alignment between Western and May is much more pronounced than the COOP. The COOP is actually sortof interesting to a lot of people, I think. It's unusual looking and difficult to identify the function if you don't know what you're looking at. I'm not sure what stereotypes it (or any industrial use) confirms for visitors though; most of them are probably expecting cows in fields, not industry. If you're saying it confirms their agricultural stereotypes, I say no way, because again, they don't know the purpose of that building.

I will agree about the odor. As someone who offices in Bricktown I am probably exposed to it more than most, and it can be a little much at times, but it's not THAT often. In my experience it happens more when there is only a slight breeze (not the wind we usually have) and normally when it is blowing from the SE, which is also unusual. Beyond, that, I think it is seasonal (which would make sense due to the product). Maybe 10-20 days a year do I notice it, if that.

That said, I would love to see a great redevelopment project, if only for what it would do for downtown and Bricktown.

LOL, of course you use the ONE city with a bad rap, but I listed SEVERAL of just a FEW cities that have great reputations, more culutural life than OKC, AND have industrial "blight" in the urban core. Do you compare NYC to Detroit? Yes Detroit has SERIOIUS issues, but regardless, IS STILL a more urban city with more to do than OKC does NOW!

Most of the rust belt has a very negative perception. OKC is embarassingly one of only two cities in the Southern half of the United States with such a bad image. Only Detroit, Cleveland, and Birmingham are perceived as being worse than OKC. If this city wants to improve its image - and its a must if it wasn't to see a real boom - then following the example of the rustbelt is not the answer.

http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/01/05/Arbesman.main.jpg

A soccer stadium would be cool.

An NFL stadium doesn't have to be surrounding by surface parking. The Bank of America stadium in Charlotte is serviced by a huge parking garage and integrates very well into the urban fabric of uptown Charlotte.

An NFL stadium doesn't have to be surrounding by surface parking. The Bank of America stadium in Charlotte is serviced by a huge parking garage and integrates very well into the urban fabric of uptown Charlotte.

Agreed, that's why I said "don't always" instead of never. But I'm not sure how much faith I'd have in us "doing it right" in this case. Plus, NFL for OKC is somewhere between NBA All-Star game and Olympics, so we've got plenty to do before we worry about that anyway...

Most of the rust belt has a very negative perception. OKC is embarassingly one of only two cities in the Southern half of the United States with such a bad image. Only Detroit, Cleveland, and Birmingham are perceived as being worse than OKC. If this city wants to improve its image - and its a must if it wasn't to see a real boom - then following the example of the rustbelt is not the answer.

http://cdn.theatlanticcities.com/img/upload/2012/01/05/Arbesman.main.jpg

Ok, when was the poll taken and by whom?

That's not a poll, it's an unsourced map with dots.

Ok, when was the poll taken and by whom?


That's not a poll, it's an unsourced map with dots.

Do Rankings Affect Our Opinions of Cities? - Samuel Arbesman - The Atlantic Cities (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/01/do-rankings-affect-our-opinions-cities/883/)

Do Rankings Affect Our Opinions of Cities? - Samuel Arbesman - The Atlantic Cities (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/01/do-rankings-affect-our-opinions-cities/883/)

Basically all that map proves is that if your city isn't near the east or west coast, the mountains, or has a population under 2 million people, it will be negatively perceived.

Agreed, that's why I said "don't always" instead of never. But I'm not sure how much faith I'd have in us "doing it right" in this case. Plus, NFL for OKC is somewhere between NBA All-Star game and Olympics, so we've got plenty to do before we worry about that anyway...

I would say the NFL is more likely than an NBA All-Star game. Both are far more achievable than the Olympics.

Do Rankings Affect Our Opinions of Cities? - Samuel Arbesman - The Atlantic Cities (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/01/do-rankings-affect-our-opinions-cities/883/)

Read the story, the people used were from an Amazon mechanism. Amazon is Headquartered in Seattle. They don't like OKC in Seattle....... Also, Seattle was voted # 1.... that'll tell you were the majority of their responders were from....not saying anything bad about Seattle, but you can tell it's weighted.

Pretty obvious that this data is biased and shouldn't be used in this discussion.

You realize Victory Park is considered a disaster in modern redevelopment don't you? They are spending over $100 million to "fix" it.

The Failure of Victory Park - D Magazine (http://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2009/june/the-failure-of-victory-park)

Do-over of Victory Park expected to cost around $100 million | Dallas Morning News (http://cityhallblog.dallasnews.com/2013/10/do-over-of-victory-park-expected-to-cost-around-100-million.html/)

Again, never said it was perfect, but growing up in DFW and having firsthand experience of what that property looked like beforehand makes me appreciate it a bit more. And $100M in improvements to a multi-billion dollar economic development is fairly minor.....Especially considering we have all been disappointed in that same amount for development of the Stage Center site.

I think I would rather have this area developed into a dense, mixed neighborhood of some sort rather than a sports arena, with residential, retail, some offices and entertainment. It has great access to the river and trails [perhaps via a pedestrian bridge(s) over I-40?] and Bricktown, providing that the new boulevard is pedestrian friendly. Just throwing ideas out there because I think this land could be better used as another downtown neighborhood to contribute to the core's growing urban fabric while also offering another option for urban residential living.

BChris, if you think that this site is such an overwhelming eyesore to the downtown area, then I don't know why you speak so highly of KC's DT in other threads. KC's DT core is completely surrounded to the N and to the W by industrial facilities on the other side of the river. And a lot of those are a lot gritter looking than this.

But I do agree that this is a prime area for development, and hopefully within the next 5-10 years. A poster above mentioned Aubrey's new company building a complex on this site, and I couldn't help but think about what it would look like if he had built the entire CHK campus on this location!

Basically all that map proves is that if your city isn't near the east or west coast, the mountains, or has a population under 2 million people, it will be negatively perceived.

Yeah pretty much. Heck, even Minneapolis and SLC have negative ratings on that map.

BChris, if you think that this site is such an overwhelming eyesore to the downtown area, then I don't know why you speak so highly of KC's DT in other threads. KC's DT core is completely surrounded to the N and to the W by industrial facilities on the other side of the river. And a lot of those are a lot gritter looking than this.

But I do agree that this is a prime area for development, and hopefully within the next 5-10 years. A poster above mentioned Aubrey's new company building a complex on this site, and I couldn't help but think about what it would look like if he had built the entire CHK campus on this location!

In Kansas City dirty industry is not in such a prime and visible location. There is nothing that I am aware of in the immediate core. What we have in OKC would be equivalent to having it right across from the Sprint Center for all to see. It's also not like it's an entire industrial district either. It's one plant surrounded by some of the most prime development land in the state of Oklahoma. It's very visible from I-40 and the Peake.

I think I would rather have this area developed into a dense, mixed neighborhood of some sort rather than a sports arena, with residential, retail, some offices and entertainment. It has great access to the river and trails [perhaps via a pedestrian bridge(s) over I-40?] and Bricktown, providing that the new boulevard is pedestrian friendly. Just throwing ideas out there because I think this land could be better used as another downtown neighborhood to contribute to the core's growing urban fabric while also offering another option for urban residential living.

Dense is the key. High-end Residential would work well too. As long as it is done correctly w/ ( either Corporate "Energy Plaza" or High End Residential ) would look great!

I agree, a stadium could fit, but this is not the best use for this location.

In Kansas City dirty industry is not in such a prime and visible location. There is nothing that I am aware of in the immediate core. What we have in OKC would be equivalent to having it right across from the Sprint Center for all to see. It's also not like it's an entire industrial district either. It's one plant surrounded by some of the most prime development land in the state of Oklahoma. It's very visible from I-40 and the Peake.

Then I guess you've never driven into downtown KC from either I-670 or Highway 169 from the west. I don't see how one industrial facility near DT is as bad as a huge "industrial district", as you described, adjacent to DT. I don't think either is bad, I'm just comparing it to this situation. And I wouldn't say this site is in the immediate core, it is on the far SE part of the DT area.

Read the story, the people used were from an Amazon mechanism. Amazon is Headquartered in Seattle. They don't like OKC in Seattle....... Also, Seattle was voted # 1.... that'll tell you were the majority of their responders were from....not saying anything bad about Seattle, but you can tell it's weighted.

If Norman ran a "poll" on favorite cities, would Austin be in the bottom 5? This poll of 310 votes, in one location...."TILT".

Basically all that map proves is that if your city isn't near the east or west coast, the mountains, or has a population under 2 million people, it will be negatively perceived.

I'm not sure what it says, but if it does say that, then it's kind of making the case that something should be done with the Mill site.

Without a coast, mountains, or large population base, appealing development becomes even more important. In a sense, it's the city's only chance to improve its image. Image may seem superficial, but we're talking about people who have to make a decision where to live, work and/or visit based on limited information. Most people can not afford to "test drive" every city to which they may locate by living in it for a period of time. So, image, polls, raw data, etc. make a real difference. Of course, when there's a poll with data that people don't like, they will always dismiss it as biased. But, if we're being honest with ourselves, do we really think that OKC has a better image than the cities listed above it in the survey and that it's just a flawed survey? Of course, the oil mill and its smell does not create this image on its own, but could very well reinforce a negative image if and when someone does visit the city.

I'm not saying that Oklahoma City isn't a better place to live than those cities, but I can't imagine that even the most objective poll would show that it has a better reputation or perceived image than most of those cities. And I think the first step to changing that is to recognize it as a real problem and work to reverse it. In fact, I think that is the entire reason MAPS was started in the first place and why those original architects of the plan were able to begin to concretely take steps through development to begin to reverse years of erosion, both literally and in the public perception. Without a lot of natural features that are attractive to people when deciding where to live, we essentially have to build a great city through exceptional development. And I don't necessarily think it had to be BIG development, just good development that creates a place that is attractive to people seeking many different kinds of lifestyles.

So, with that in mind, I think the Oil Mill site is probably going to be a part of the equation at some point. However, with it currently being a working and viable business and with all the other development opportunities sill left within Oklahoma City's core, it may be awhile before it becomes an economically feasible redevelopment project. If we were to a point where major downtown developments could only be made possible by relocating existing businesses and clearing sites, then I think we'd have to look at ways to orchestrate it, if the market couldn't handle it on its own. If and when redevelopment does happen, there are actually a lot of good examples of how formally industrial areas have been re-purposed into popular destinations for living, working, and playing. Cities must always look ahead to stay relevant and these types of projects have been a big part of how many of the more favorable cities have done just that. However, as much as I like to see the Oil Mill and its stench make an early exit, I'm just not sure what current factors would make that imminent.

If Norman ran a "poll" on favorite cities, would Austin be in the bottom 5? This poll of 310 votes, in one location...."TILT".

The reality is that this kind of poll is taken constantly. A simple look at where people migrate and visit will give a pretty clear indication of what cities are favored.

I'm not sure what it says, but if it does say that, then it's kind of making the case that something should be done with the Mill site.

Without a coast, mountains, or large population base, appealing development becomes even more important. In a sense, it's the city's only chance to improve its image. Image may seem superficial, but we're talking about people who have to make a decision where to live, work and/or visit based on limited information. Most people can not afford to "test drive" every city to which they may locate by living in it for a period of time. So, image, polls, raw data, etc. make a real difference. Of course, when there's a poll with data that people don't like, they will always dismiss it as biased. But, if we're being honest with ourselves, do we really think that OKC has a better image than the cities listed above it in the survey and that it's just a flawed survey? Of course, the oil mill and its smell does not create this image on its own, but could very well reinforce a negative image if and when someone does visit the city.

I'm not saying that Oklahoma City isn't a better place to live than those cities, but I can't imagine that even the most objective poll would show that it has a better reputation or perceived image than most of those cities. And I think the first step to changing that is to recognize it as a real problem and work to reverse it. In fact, I think that is the entire reason MAPS was started in the first place and why those original architects of the plan were able to begin to concretely take steps through development to begin to reverse years of erosion, both literally and in the public perception. Without a lot of natural features that are attractive to people when deciding where to live, we essentially have to build a great city through exceptional development. And I don't necessarily think it had to be BIG development, just good development that creates a place that is attractive to people seeking many different kinds of lifestyles.

So, with that in mind, I think the Oil Mill site is probably going to be a part of the equation at some point. However, with it currently being a working and viable business and with all the other development opportunities sill left within Oklahoma City's core, it may be awhile before it becomes an economically feasible redevelopment project. If we were to a point where major downtown developments could only be made possible by relocating existing businesses and clearing sites, then I think we'd have to look at ways to orchestrate it, if the market couldn't handle it on its own. If and when redevelopment does happen, there are actually a lot of good examples of how formally industrial areas have been re-purposed into popular destinations for living, working, and playing. Cities must always look ahead to stay relevant and these types of projects have been a big part of how many of the more favorable cities have done just that. However, as much as I like to see the Oil Mill and its stench make an early exit, I'm just not sure what current factors would make that imminent.

Excellent post!

If you don't think OKC has a negative image, spend some time on the City-Data national forum or even the state forum. That forum is populated mostly by upwardly mobile, creative twentysomethings seeking to relocate - the demographic that OKC wants to be in the running for. Most people from the coasts visit OKC already having a negative bias based on stereotype and things like the Oil Mill, as well as the miles of scrapyards along I-40 in both directions from downtown help confirm that bias. I have long though that OKC needs to do more to compensate for not having great natural geography. Little things, often considered superficial, are important. It's not just about image either. A more visually appealing city will increase the quality of life for all residents.

I'm sure this is very colored by the recession and only goes up to 2010, but kind of fun to play with:

American Migration [Interactive Map] - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2011/migration.html)

Based on these patterns Detroit, Cleveland, and Philly had some nasty negative migrations numbers between 2005 and 2010. Austin's flipped from net inbound to outbound in that time. And Oklahoma City's flipped from net outbound, to net inbound. However, given the resurgence in the last four years of the traditionally popular cities, this data seems kind of dated already.

EDIT:

Yep, more recent data shows a lot of cities hit worst in migration during the recession are making a comeback:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/11/27/where-americans-are-moving/

I'm sure this is very colored by the recession and only goes up to 2010, but kind of fun to play with:

American Migration [Interactive Map] - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2011/migration.html)

Based on these patterns Detroit, Cleveland, and Philly had some nasty negative migrations numbers between 2005 and 2010. Austin's flipped from net inbound to outbound in that time. And Oklahoma City's flipped from net outbound, to net inbound. However, given the resurgence in the last four years of the traditionally popular cities, this data seems kind of dated already.

EDIT:

Yep, more recent data shows a lot of cities hit worst in migration during the recession are making a comeback:

Where Americans Are Moving - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2012/11/27/where-americans-are-moving/)

Ok, this one makes sense. If you are single, Dallas & Austin might be your place, but if you are married w/ children, OKC is the place to be.

Excellent post!

If you don't think OKC has a negative image, spend some time on the City-Data national forum or even the state forum. That forum is populated mostly by upwardly mobile, creative twentysomethings seeking to relocate - the demographic that OKC wants to be in the running for. Most people from the coasts visit OKC already having a negative bias based on stereotype and things like the Oil Mill, as well as the miles of scrapyards along I-40 in both directions from downtown help confirm that bias. I have long though that OKC needs to do more to compensate for not having great natural geography. Little things, often considered superficial, are important. It's not just about image either. A more visually appealing city will increase the quality of life for all residents.

All cities have "ugly" locations, but you cant see them because they have tall pines to hide behind, ...or they have hills to hide their views by sinking in the valleys.

Why dont we plant the Tall Pines all along our major corridors? From Yukon to Choctaw, From Norman to Edmond. Newcastle to Turner Turnpike on I-44. They grow quickly, they won't be blowing leaves. Along the Oklahoma River? ...much better than lookng at our metal buildings.

Excellent post!

If you don't think OKC has a negative image, spend some time on the City-Data national forum or even the state forum. That forum is populated mostly by upwardly mobile, creative twentysomethings seeking to relocate - the demographic that OKC wants to be in the running for. Most people from the coasts visit OKC already having a negative bias based on stereotype and things like the Oil Mill, as well as the miles of scrapyards along I-40 in both directions from downtown help confirm that bias. I have long though that OKC needs to do more to compensate for not having great natural geography. Little things, often considered superficial, are important. It's not just about image either. A more visually appealing city will increase the quality of life for all residents.

I'm sorry, but you're so bipolar on some of your views its silly. Not too long ago City-Data got brought up in a different thread, and you were in agreement with everyone else that the people on that forum are a bunch of East/West coast folks with an elitist mentality that nowhere in the middle of the country is worth living. Now you're saying its full of upwardly mobile creative 20 somethings? The majority of the posts on that site are people spewing the usual stereotypes that have no clue what they're talking about. If someone is to take what the clowns on City-Data say as fact than every city in the US that isn't in the NE or the Pacific NW is trash and is miserable to live in.

Article after article and study after study come out showing that OKC has been one of the top 10-20 cities in the US for millennial migration the last five years. I think OKC is doing just fine. I'm not going to lose sleep at night because a bunch of elitist kids who grew up in Manhattan and went to Harvard or Yale don't think that OKC would be a good place to live.

Sorry for the rant. I'm not saying the city shouldn't continue to improve it's image, but with how some people talk you would think we were hemorrhaging young people left and right.

I too wonder how in-migration to OKC will hold up as cities that are perceived as more desirable begin to recover from the recession. I probably wouldn't be in OKC right now if it wasn't for my own unique circumstances and the fact the job market here was virtually unscathed compared to most of the country. From articles I've seen it seems to be holding up. Does anybody have any more recent data? The single vs married thing is a sore spot for me about OKC so I won't go there. I'll say I think there is progress being made.

The single vs married thing is a sore spot for me about OKC

One among many.

All cities have "ugly" locations, but you cant see them because they have tall pines to hide behind, ...or they have hills to hide their views by sinking in the valleys.

Why dont we plant the Tall Pines all along our major corridors? From Yukon to Choctaw, From Norman to Edmond. Newcastle to Turner Turnpike on I-44. They grow quickly, they won't be blowing leaves. Along the Oklahoma River? ...much better than lookng at our metal buildings.

I would love to see tall pines planted throughout the metro, but they wouldn't hold up very long due to our ice storms. Personally I think semi-arid landscaping is the way to go, similar to what you see in the Wichita Mtns in Southwest Oklahoma. Cedars, various shrubs, cactus, etc along with more redbuds, post oak, and blackjack oak.

I would love to see tall pines planted throughout the metro, but they wouldn't hold up very long due to our ice storms. Personally I think semi-arid landscaping is the way to go, similar to what you see in the Wichita Mtns in Southwest Oklahoma. Cedars, various shrubs, cactus, etc along with more redbuds, post oak, and blackjack oak.

I like that too! It's time to make this place worth looking at! The entire metro needs (major corridors) needs to be on the same plane, providing the same desired results. Our image would begin to equal our friendliness.

Tall Pines would still work, as they are linear & carry the tall height needed for cover. ( if we get too much ice, all the trees are coming down, lol)

All cities have "ugly" locations, but you cant see them because they have tall pines to hide behind, ...or they have hills to hide their views by sinking in the valleys.

Why dont we plant the Tall Pines all along our major corridors? From Yukon to Choctaw, From Norman to Edmond. Newcastle to Turner Turnpike on I-44. They grow quickly, they won't be blowing leaves. Along the Oklahoma River? ...much better than lookng at our metal buildings.

People like to forget that right across the river from Tulsa's downtown is a huge expanse of ugly, smelly refineries that are going absolutely nowhere.

Not calling out Tulsa, just providing an example of how most cities have big, ugly things near their downtowns. OKC actually has less than most.

People like to forget that right across the river from Tulsa's downtown is a huge expanse of ugly, smelly refineries that are going absolutely nowhere.

Not calling out Tulsa, just providing an example of how most cities have big, ugly things near their downtowns. OKC actually has less than most.

Precisely. The refineries in Tulsa are in view, but they get "hidden" from the hills they have there. So they get overlooked.

The OKC Metro could use a healthy dose of trees ( to limit ) our ugly visuals. The Carolina's have the Tall Pines / Houston has the tall pines / Florida has them too. They are cheap and readily available. This would be a huge help.

Oklahoma (Central -> West) doesn't have many trees for a reason. We don't get enough rain for them. Artificially building forests would dry up our water table and disrupt ecosystems and wildlife. Nothing is wrong with some trees in landscaping and streetscaping, but I'd vote no on planting forests in Central and Western Oklahoma. We have some excellent forests just to the east of us. (In fact, OKC is right on the dividing line between Green Forests and Mountains, and the rolling plains and desert. Maybe we should capitalize on that. Not many places have such a night and day difference in topography.

Oklahoma (Central -> West) doesn't have many trees for a reason. We don't get enough rain for them. Artificially building forests would dry up our water table and disrupt ecosystems and wildlife. Nothing is wrong with some trees in landscaping and streetscaping, but I'd vote no on planting forests in Central and Western Oklahoma. We have some excellent forests just to the east of us. (In fact, OKC is right on the dividing line between Green Forests and Mountains, and the rolling plains and desert. Maybe we should capitalize on that. Not many places have such a night and day difference in topography.

Well, then let's meet in the middle on this and plant more trees along the major corridors in the OKC Metro.

Speaking of trees, how many of you OKC residents know that the City of OKC gives away free trees each year? One per home... even if you live in an apartment. So, keep an eye out for the announcement of the next giveaway, and make sure you order your tree and plant it (give it to a friend to plant if you live in an apt).

Speaking of trees, how many of you OKC residents know that the City of OKC gives away free trees each year? One per home... even if you live in an apartment. So, keep an eye out for the announcement of the next giveaway, and make sure you order your tree and plant it (give it to a friend to plant if you live in an apt).

Even if you're in an apartment? Do you have a link for this?

Great OKC Tree Give-Away (http://www.okc.gov/releaf/giveaway.html)

Looks like last year's give-away was targeted at folks that had storm damage, but I am pretty sure the previous years were not limited like that.

Great OKC Tree Give-Away (http://www.okc.gov/releaf/giveaway.html)

Looks like last year's give-away was targeted at folks that had storm damage, but I am pretty sure the previous years were not limited like that.

Thanks, David.

Yeah previous years weren't limited...

What is wrong with people seeing the Producers Cooperative Oil Mill? It shows we have industry here besides the mostly hidden oil and gas business. And having a cluster of tall buildings in not an industry.

What is wrong with people seeing the Producers Cooperative Oil Mill? It shows we have industry here besides the mostly hidden oil and gas business. And having a cluster of tall buildings in not an industry.

A thriving diverse economy is what we want, but the Mill is just holding up other real estate opportunities from outside sources / investment groups.

This would be perfect for High Tech Research Park / Energy Technologies Center & Corporate Plaza ...etc.