^^ I have criticized OKC developers for the snail’s pace they move building residential communities. For example, Boulevard Place, which is also getting city largesse.

Then compare that to what is happening in Austin, where you come back a year later and there are multiple new residential high rises going up or nearing completion.

This may not be unique to OKC but it seems like a feature of multiple developments here.

By contrast, OAK is moving very quickly, and is a much more complicated development.

^

There are tons of developments that happen quickly here (Convergence and OKANA are huge, started quickly, and are moving fast).

You simply wouldn't know or care about all the projects in Austin that move very slowly, get scaled back, etc. I assure you there are tons that meet this description in Los Angeles.

A casual observer of OKC (as you are of Austin) would only see the hundreds of projects completed and under construction.


It's a childish, uninformed point of view that demeans the people that constantly complain about it.

^^ I have criticized OKC developers for the snail’s pace they move building residential communities. For example, Boulevard Place, which is also getting city largesse.

Then compare that to what is happening in Austin, where you come back a year later and there are multiple new residential high rises going up or nearing completion.

This may not be unique to OKC but it seems like a feature of multiple developments here.

By contrast, OAK is moving very quickly, and is a much more complicated development.

Interesting observation. Population growth is the driving force but you have to question if it is good growth or bad growth. The wife and I visit lots of cities and some cities are building so much it makes your head spin, but what they are building is absolutely unliveable. They don't seem to be building for Humans, but are building for nothing more than skyline status.

Give me the developments in Cincinnati's OTR district over anything being built in Austin. Orlando, Atlanta, etc...

Then compare that to what is happening in Austin, where you come back a year later and there are multiple new residential high rises going up or nearing completion.


Austin and Nashville have the ugliest skyline I've ever seen. I'd rather live in a beautiful city where empty lots gradually filled with thoughtful and aesthetically beautiful buildings than cold and boring glass towers built at lightspeed. Comparing Copenhagen and cities in China, which one attract more tourists. If you like seeing tall towers, it's faster if you relocate to NYC or Chicago than waiting for them to be built here (and not happy with the local developers).

I follow development in Tier 2 cities like Austin, Nashville, Salt Lake City, & Charlotte very closely. These cities have various projects that get canceled, scaled back, or delayed that don't make the big commercial development news sites. It goes under the radar because it is outweighed by the other projects that actually do come to fruition. If you really want to follow a city that seems to be doing things right at a good pace, Salt Lake City is a great example.

With that being said, OKC is doing very well against other cities in their category like Memphis, Louisville, Birmingham, Omaha, & Tulsa.

Austin and Nashville have the ugliest skyline I've ever seen. I'd rather live in a beautiful city where empty lots gradually filled with thoughtful and aesthetically beautiful buildings than cold and boring glass towers built at lightspeed. Comparing Copenhagen and cities in China, which one attract more tourists. If you like seeing tall towers, it's faster if you relocate to NYC or Chicago than waiting for them to be built here (and not happy with the local developers).
This is a new take. Sprawling parking lots over density? I sort of agree that height doesn’t equal presence but Another take is okc has gone 30 years between large scale density developments. 40 years between skyscrapers. Also Austin is in no way an ugly city. If you want a truly hideous wretch of a city look to Amarillo.

The difference between an empty lot and a new glass skyscraper is that the ugly glass skyscraper is forever. It can't be undone.

^^ That's so true!

I follow development in Tier 2 cities like Austin, Nashville, Salt Lake City, & Charlotte very closely. These cities have various projects that get canceled, scaled back, or delayed that don't make the big commercial development news sites. It goes under the radar because it is outweighed by the other projects that actually do come to fruition. If you really want to follow a city that seems to be doing things right at a good pace, Salt Lake City is a great example.

With that being said, OKC is doing very well against other cities in their category like Memphis, Louisville, Birmingham, Omaha, & Tulsa.

How do you follow SLC? Do they have an SLCTalk type site?

Omaha has some incredible growth.

The difference between an empty lot and a new glass skyscraper is that the ugly glass skyscraper is forever. It can't be undone.

Cities with a lot of empty lots tend to stay empty lots. I.E. Wichita. Oklahoma City has more than our fair share. Those lots will stay empty for a long time to come. Especially when it is so cheap to throw up a dollar general or TGIF at NW expressway and Morgan road. It takes density to build a place where people want to be. Austin is definitly winning in that category. Where is this place youÂ’re taking about where skyscrapers canÂ’t be undone? ItÂ’s a building not a diamond. Im in Charleston SC right now there is a building being torn down and rebuilt 2 blocks from the chair I sit in. Empty lots are bad for cities. Its a sign no one wants to be there. YouÂ’re either a growing city or youÂ’re dying. And I mustve Misunderstood. Sparse CBD are a bad sign. Look at Wichita. It sucks so bad. No one wanted to be there 30 years ago. No one wants to be there now. In 30 years guess what?. If youÂ’re remotely interested in these forums youre reading you should want okc to be as different from Wichita as possible. On different planets. Even I really can’t overstate how much Wichita sucks sorry but not really
Skyscrapers get torn down and rebuilt all the time.

Cities with a lot of empty lots tend to stay empty lots. I.E. Wichita. Oklahoma City has more than our fair share. Those lots will stay empty for a long time to come. Especially when it is so cheap to throw up a dollar general or TGIF at NW expressway and Morgan road. It takes density to build a place where people want to be. Austin is definitly winning in that category. Where is this place youÂ’re taking about where skyscrapers canÂ’t be undone? ItÂ’s a building not a diamond. Im in Charleston SC right now there is a building being torn down and rebuilt 2 blocks from the chair I sit in. Empty lots are bad for cities. Its a sign no one wants to be there. YouÂ’re either a growing city or youÂ’re dying. And I mustve Misunderstood. Sparse CBD are a bad sign. Look at Wichita. It sucks so bad. No one wanted to be there 30 years ago. No one wants to be there now. In 30 years guess what?. If youÂ’re remotely interested in these forums youre reading you should want okc to be as different from Wichita as possible. On different planets. Even I really can’t overstate how much Wichita sucks sorry but not really
Skyscrapers get torn down and rebuilt all the time.

Man, you really hate Wichita...

The difference between an empty lot and a new glass skyscraper is that the ugly glass skyscraper is forever. It can't be undone.

The other difference is that the new glass skyscraper will be generating a great deal of property tax and employment that the empty lot will never generate.

How do you follow SLC? Do they have an SLCTalk type site?

Omaha has some incredible growth.

www.buildingsaltlake.com

The other difference is that the new glass skyscraper will be generating a great deal of property tax and employment that the empty lot will never generate.

Unless it was built with TIF funds, but that is another story.

The other difference is that the new glass skyscraper will be generating a great deal of property tax and employment that the empty lot will never generate.

https://www.priceedwards.com/oklahoma-city-property/office/lease/broadway-park

Nah, this is an example of "not so good" development (well, I said that politely) that doesn't generate much more than an empty lot, it might have killed the opportunity to develop something that can make a better statement for AA from the north. An empty lot has a chance to be developed by the right people someday (if the location is good and the economy is strong), a bad development is very expensive to fix and becomes an eyesore for decades, worst when it happens at a great location.

https://www.priceedwards.com/oklahoma-city-property/office/lease/broadway-park

Nah, this is an example of "not so good" development (well, I said that politely) that doesn't generate much more than an empty lot, it might have killed the opportunity to develop something that can make a better statement for AA from the north. An empty lot has a chance to be developed by the right people someday (if the location is good and the economy is strong), a bad development is very expensive to fix and becomes an eyesore for decades, worst when it happens at a great location.

This is what will happen if a true land-value tax is implemented on undeveloped land. You will get piss poor, rushed, low-quality development just for developments sake.

https://www.priceedwards.com/oklahoma-city-property/office/lease/broadway-park

Nah, this is an example of "not so good" development (well, I said that politely) that doesn't generate much more than an empty lot, it might have killed the opportunity to develop something that can make a better statement for AA from the north. An empty lot has a chance to be developed by the right people someday (if the location is good and the economy is strong), a bad development is very expensive to fix and becomes an eyesore for decades, worst when it happens at a great location.

Don't forget Rand Elliot's role in this development.

Don't forget Rand Elliot's role in this development.

Yep the original design was much much better looking.

https://www.priceedwards.com/oklahoma-city-property/office/lease/broadway-park

Nah, this is an example of "not so good" development (well, I said that politely) that doesn't generate much more than an empty lot, it might have killed the opportunity to develop something that can make a better statement for AA from the north. An empty lot has a chance to be developed by the right people someday (if the location is good and the economy is strong), a bad development is very expensive to fix and becomes an eyesore for decades, worst when it happens at a great location.

Are you offering this up as an example of a developed property that is not generating property tax? Would seem kind of weird if that were true, as far as I am aware it isn't in a TIF district.

The Broadway Park development paid $27K in property tax last year.

When it was a service station / car wash they paid less than $2K per year.

It is within the TIF #2 boundaries but since it did not get TIF incentives, half of that increase goes into the TIF pot (and is paid out to other developers) and the other half goes to the usual recipients.

Ahh, so I was wrong about the TIF bit, but I didn't know about that 50/50 split which I am glad to learn about. Admittedly it would have been a better development with the original design and if it actually had some occupants, but I would have to disagree with the design being bad as is. It fits into the fabric of Automobile Alley at this point, I walked by it just Saturday night and none of the people I was with were somehow able to tell that we missed out on a better design.

After they started to get some heat about TIF and the school district was a little upset, they modified TIF 2 to include separate take rates for 'direct' properties (those that receive TIF money, 100%) and 'indirect' (those properties within the boundaries but that have not received TIF, 50%).

Even with those changes, the TIF take for District 2 (downtown, roughly) will be 10x the original forecast, and every penny of that will be spent on TIF.

Austin and Nashville have the ugliest skyline I've ever seen. I'd rather live in a beautiful city where empty lots gradually filled with thoughtful and aesthetically beautiful buildings than cold and boring glass towers built at lightspeed. Comparing Copenhagen and cities in China, which one attract more tourists. If you like seeing tall towers, it's faster if you relocate to NYC or Chicago than waiting for them to be built here (and not happy with the local developers).

Austins skyline is awesome and unique with some cool architecture and very few have any resemblance of each other i.e. no boring boxy buildings. There is no reason to speak down other cities in order to make you feel good about OKC.

The Broadway Park development paid $27K in property tax last year.

When it was a service station / car wash they paid less than $2K per year.

It is within the TIF #2 boundaries but since it did not get TIF incentives, half of that increase goes into the TIF pot (and is paid out to other developers) and the other half goes to the usual recipients.

Wait, so any new projects that are within one of the TIF districts established by the city have half their ad valorem increase go into the TIF district pot whether they received TIF funds or not?

Wait, so any new projects that are within one of the TIF districts established by the city have half their ad valorem increase go into the TIF district pot whether they received TIF funds or not?

Not just new projects. ANY property that is within the boundary.

For example, Leadership Square. When TIF #2 started, they were paying $400K per year. Now they are paying $922K.

So, every bit of that growth is totaled over 25 years. For quite a while 100% of that difference went to TIF. Now it's 50%. Just one example but there are literally hundreds of others, like Oklahoma Tower, Corporate Tower, Arvest Tower and jillions of smaller properties.

It's exactly how that district went from a budgeted $47.5 million in collections to now close to $400 million and still counting for a few more years.


No matter how much I post about TIF, it's still confusing to almost everyone, including City Council and the Planning Commission. It's portrayed as free money but of course it has to come from somewhere.

d
^

There are tons of developments that happen quickly here (Convergence and OKANA are huge, started quickly, and are moving fast).

You simply wouldn't know or care about all the projects in Austin that move very slowly, get scaled back, etc. I assure you there are tons that meet this description in Los Angeles.

A casual observer of OKC (as you are of Austin) would only see the hundreds of projects completed and under construction.


It's a childish, uninformed point of view that demeans the people that constantly complain about it.

I agree that those developments are moving rapidly, as is OAK. To be clear, my comment was regarding residential specifically. There have been multiple residential developments going back decades that had to compete to win the right to build, and then moved very slowly once they won the right to do the projects. One noteworthy example is The Hill, which has surpassed multiple extended timelines.

And then I have no idea nor do I understand what is happening with Boulevard Place, other than the standard, "construction costs have increased."

Pointing those things out does not represent my position on all OKC development. Generally I'm a glass half-full guy but we have an ostensible housing shortage and one would hope some of our local developers would move as quickly as the people at the Oak are, as well as other out-of-state residential developers like the people who did the Metropolitan, which seemed to move as fast as lightning, to get these residential properties online faster.

I think I see how the City is going come up with money for a new arena.

Austins skyline is awesome and unique with some cool architecture and very few have any resemblance of each other i.e. no boring boxy buildings. There is no reason to speak down other cities in order to make you feel good about OKC.

Nope, just my personal opinion, which is different than yours. I've lived in several cities, including San Fran, LA, and NYC, and that's what I think, not saying it just to make me feel good about this city. I'm not from OKC originally either. Ironically, vacant urban lots are what I like about OKC, the city has pretty good core, hopefully those lots will be developed by the right people in the near future. Many other cities are filled with expensive eyesores that are impossible to knock them down for something better.

d

I agree that those developments are moving rapidly, as is OAK. To be clear, my comment was regarding residential specifically. There have been multiple residential developments going back decades that had to compete to win the right to build, and then moved very slowly once they won the right to do the projects. One noteworthy example is The Hill, which has surpassed multiple extended timelines.

And then I have no idea nor do I understand what is happening with Boulevard Place, other than the standard, "construction costs have increased."

Pointing those things out does not represent my position on all OKC development. Generally I'm a glass half-full guy but we have an ostensible housing shortage and one would hope some of our local developers would move as quickly as the people at the Oak are, as well as other out-of-state residential developers like the people who did the Metropolitan, which seemed to move as fast as lightning, to get these residential properties online faster.

I was just using your post as an example of many similar for various projects.

These developers only make money if they get something built with a revenue stream. It's just plain silly to accuse them of dragging their feet when they are the only ones in the world that have financial incentives, and they are huge. At the same time, there are massive financial penalties (sunk costs of time, architecture and engineering fees, etc.) until they open and start making money.

And regarding Broadway Place in particular, this is city-owned land and the current developers won the right to build there through an RFP process which then resulted in a binding contract where they have to meet specific deadlines and if they are missed, the City requires documentation and they can still cancel if they wish to do so. That is yet another massive incentive to get things in gear -- they could invest a ton of money getting ready to build just to have the property jerked out from under them.

Usually, the hold-up is a financial snag, specifically not being able to get a large enough loan to cover the construction. Rising costs fast into that as do a million other things.

You and others should be able to understand that if you aren't seeing progress, it's because they are busy working behind the scenes. You don't have to understand anything other than the common sense around that.


BTW, the developers of the OAK have been working on this for at least five years; and really a lot of the land assembly goes back to Chesapeake which started acquisition around 2005! It's not like this all just started a few weeks ago.

And as far as out-of-town developers somehow being better/faster, you and I simply have no idea who is providing the actual money and expertise on these projects. They are often fronted by a local person but the real investors are behind the scenes and it's impossible to know who or where they are. And you cite the Metropolitan but LIFT was built by Milhaus (huge Indy-based company) and the process was so long and over budget that the company completely withdrew from OKC afterward.

Cities with a lot of empty lots tend to stay empty lots. I.E. Wichita. Oklahoma City has more than our fair share. Those lots will stay empty for a long time to come. Especially when it is so cheap to throw up a dollar general or TGIF at NW expressway and Morgan road. It takes density to build a place where people want to be. Austin is definitly winning in that category. Where is this place youÂ’re taking about where skyscrapers canÂ’t be undone? ItÂ’s a building not a diamond. Im in Charleston SC right now there is a building being torn down and rebuilt 2 blocks from the chair I sit in. Empty lots are bad for cities. Its a sign no one wants to be there. YouÂ’re either a growing city or youÂ’re dying. And I mustve Misunderstood. Sparse CBD are a bad sign. Look at Wichita. It sucks so bad. No one wanted to be there 30 years ago. No one wants to be there now. In 30 years guess what?. If youÂ’re remotely interested in these forums youre reading you should want okc to be as different from Wichita as possible. On different planets. Even I really can’t overstate how much Wichita sucks sorry but not really
Skyscrapers get torn down and rebuilt all the time.

This is true. People in OKC make every excuse in the world for little to no SIGNIFICANT building in the DT core. Always find something wrong with hyper growth and evidence of prosperity and rapid population growth in other cities. OKC for all its progress STILL looks like a snaggle toothed patch work of dirt or parking lots. Everyone knows that projects get cancelled or delayed in other cities but in the ones mentioned above the preponderance of projects being brought forward are being built probably to their original design in spite of the dreaded inflation so often used in OKC as an excuse for substandard or blah structures.

This is true. People in OKC make every excuse in the world for little to no SIGNIFICANT building in the DT core. Always find something wrong with hyper growth and evidence of prosperity and rapid population growth in other cities. OKC for all its progress STILL looks like a snaggle toothed patch work of dirt or parking lots. Everyone knows that projects get cancelled or delayed in other cities but in the ones mentioned above the preponderance of projects being brought forward are being built probably to their original design in spite of the dreaded inflation so often used in OKC as an excuse for substandard or blah structures.

There have literally been many BILLIONS invested in the OKC core in the last few decades.

You really need to find another axe to grind.

This is true. People in OKC make every excuse in the world for little to no SIGNIFICANT building in the DT core. Always find something wrong with hyper growth and evidence of prosperity and rapid population growth in other cities. OKC for all its progress STILL looks like a snaggle toothed patch work of dirt or parking lots. Everyone knows that projects get cancelled or delayed in other cities but in the ones mentioned above the preponderance of projects being brought forward are being built probably to their original design in spite of the dreaded inflation so often used in OKC as an excuse for substandard or blah structures.

This is probably a hard pill to swallow. Inflation here is tame. Like a cuddly golden retriever that warms your feet by the fire. Certainly not the “vicious mongrel that was too violent for michalel Vick” that it is in other cities especially Europe that are still growing their CBD’s

OKC currently has three of its biggest private developments that have all recently started (OAK, Convergence and OKANA).

Anyone saying that we are somehow slower than the past or other cities our size has no idea what they are talking about.

OKC currently has three of its biggest private developments that have all recently started (OAK, Convergence and OKANA).

Anyone saying that we are somehow slower than the past or other cities our size has no idea what they are talking about.
Unpopular opinion. OKANA will be built to spec. I’d be surprised if convergence comes out half as glorious as it was pitched. OAK I think will be nice development. I’d rather okc compete with cities that are not our size.

Unpopular opinion. OKANA will be built to spec. I’d be surprised if convergence comes out half as glorious as it was pitched. OAK I think will be nice development. I’d rather okc compete with cities that are not our size.
Convergence has already been value engineered which is incredibly frustrating.

Unpopular opinion. OKANA will be built to spec. I’d be surprised if convergence comes out half as glorious as it was pitched. OAK I think will be nice development. I’d rather okc compete with cities that are not our size.

This is a great example of how a negative mind works: 1) Everything here is crap. 2) Very cool things start work. 3) It won't end up being as good as claimed. 4) Things turn out great. 5) Well, we don't have as much as Austin, Dallas or some other cities several multiples of our size. Repeat steps 1-5.

Wichita, Little Rock, Memphis, Louisville, New Orleans, Des Moines, Birmingham nor Tulsa has not seen the half of downtown development that OKC has in the last 20 years. Omaha is just now coming around, and Boise is a dark horse no one is talking about.

Nope, just my personal opinion, which is different than yours. I've lived in several cities, including San Fran, LA, and NYC, and that's what I think, not saying it just to make me feel good about this city. I'm not from OKC originally either. Ironically, vacant urban lots are what I like about OKC, the city has pretty good core, hopefully those lots will be developed by the right people in the near future. Many other cities are filled with expensive eyesores that are impossible to knock them down for something better.

When I get to feeling overly pessimistic about Oklahoma City, this is exactly what brings me back down. The city has a respectable core but is also empty enough to not be tied to the mistakes of the 20th century, meaning with the right planning and development, it could really grow at a human level that brings life to a city and lead the way in a new type of urban renewal, ironically.

Unpopular opinion. OKANA will be built to spec. I’d be surprised if convergence comes out half as glorious as it was pitched. OAK I think will be nice development. I’d rather okc compete with cities that are not our size.

Not sure you can at unpopular opinion when you look at this thread. As Pete said, most on here are of the same negative mindset you are (I am guilty of it, at times).

OAK is hitting out of its league right now, and will only get better as more is announced.

When I get to feeling overly pessimistic about Oklahoma City, this is exactly what brings me back down. The city has a respectable core but is also empty enough to not be tied to the mistakes of the 20th century, meaning with the right planning and development, it could really grow at a human level that brings life to a city and lead the way in a new type of urban renewal, ironically.

YES, "human level" is the key term for a welcoming city/neighborhood, we don't want a downtown full of skyscrapers but is pretty much dead at night and on the weekend. Many people want to see the magnificent skyline comparable to those in Denver, Seattle, Austin, but they don't actually live in OKC, or even in downtown OKC.

Unpopular opinion. OKANA will be built to spec.

[More unpopular opinion]
And it will still be disappointing because it is in the wrong place.

I think I see how the City is going come up with money for a new arena.

Give us your take on this Just the facts, because I'm all for the new arena.

Look at Wichita. It sucks so bad. No one wanted to be there 30 years ago. No one wants to be there now. In 30 years guess what?. If youÂ’re remotely interested in these forums youre reading you should want okc to be as different from Wichita as possible. On different planets. Even I really can’t overstate how much Wichita sucks sorry but not really
Skyscrapers get torn down and rebuilt all the time.

I lived in downtown Wichita for two years and loved it. I walked everywhere and there was a charm to the small downtown area. We had favorite restaurants, local pubs, and a great downtown YMCA. Good trails along the Arkansas River. Maybe everyone doesn't have to speak in with such sprawling generalities about how everyone else feels about urban development.

Someone had to stand up to the Wichita slander here! haha

I lived in downtown Wichita for two years and loved it. I walked everywhere and there was a charm to the small downtown area. We had favorite restaurants, local pubs, and a great downtown YMCA. Good trails along the Arkansas River. Maybe everyone doesn't have to speak in with such sprawling generalities about how everyone else feels about urban development.

Someone had to stand up to the Wichita slander here! haha


Wichita, Little Rock, Memphis, Louisville, New Orleans, Des Moines, Birmingham nor Tulsa has not seen the half of downtown development that OKC has in the last 20 years. Omaha is just now coming around, and Boise is a dark horse no one is talking about.

I've visited all these cities except Des Moines and Birmingham recently and I'd say Louisville is the underrated city. Boise was cute, but still very car-centric. Louisville has walkable urban districts that stretch for miles. If you want an under the radar city I'd offer Greenville, South Carolina. Their walkable downtown is impressive. I'd take it over any area in DFW, for example.

[More unpopular opinion]
And it will still be disappointing because it is in the wrong place.

lol

https://twitter.com/oak_okc/status/1630585441232510982


Who's excited about @Arhaus (https://twitter.com/Arhaus) coming to OAK?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FqEAwzMXgAYgDDO?format=jpg&name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FqEAyArWAAE51K3?format=jpg&name=large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FqEAzO3WAAEU3Hv?format=jpg&name=large

Me!!!

This is probably a hard pill to swallow. Inflation here is tame. Like a cuddly golden retriever that warms your feet by the fire. Certainly not the “vicious mongrel that was too violent for michalel Vick” that it is in other cities especially Europe that are still growing their CBD’s

Huh? OKC had some of the highest rent growth in the country last year. Home values went up strongly too. And when it comes to materials costs for new projects, a large HVAC is just as expensive here as it is anywhere else.

This is probably a hard pill to swallow. Inflation here is tame. Like a cuddly golden retriever that warms your feet by the fire. Certainly not the “vicious mongrel that was too violent for michalel Vick” that it is in other cities especially Europe that are still growing their CBD’s

Just because you use graphic imagery and metaphors in your post doesn't make it right...

Just because you use graphic imagery and metaphors in your post doesn't make it right...

Appreciated. But in this case the fact that it is true makes it right. The metaphor just adds pizazz. Inflation is stupid tame .

Huh? OKC had some of the highest rent growth in the country last year. Home values went up strongly too. And when it comes to materials costs for new projects, a large HVAC is just as expensive here as it is anywhere else.

That’s one of those shiny on the outside but contain no substance statistics. Our rents are so so so very much lower than the next city (Pittsburgh) on that list. And I’m not gonna look it up but I’d be willing to die on this hill a downtown apartment in Louisville (another city on that list)) vs similar accomadations here? I say Louisville is several hundred more/monthly. And if you compare us with oh I don’t know “anywhere in Europe” your entire argument falls apart.

That’s one of those shiny on the outside but contain no substance statistics. Our rents are so so so very much lower than the next city (Pittsburgh) on that list. And I’m not gonna look it up but I’d be willing to die on this hill a downtown apartment in Louisville (another city on that list)) vs similar accomadations here? I say Louisville is several hundred more/monthly. And if you compare us with oh I don’t know “anywhere in Europe” your entire argument falls apart.

Why would we compare OKC to say, Brussels, Belgium? That is stupid, and not even a point in your favor. Just proves you like to move goalposts. Comparing OKC to Europe isn't doing anything.

As for downtowns, have a look:

Louisville - https://www.apartments.com/downtown-louisville-louisville-ky/?bb=noyjonng4I1_03xN&so=1

OKC - https://www.apartments.com/apartments/downtown-oklahoma-city-oklahoma-city-ok/?so=1

OKC looks quite well in this comparison, esp our being the larger of the two cities and quite a bit more compact area.

Why would we compare OKC to say, Brussels, Belgium? That is stupid, and not even a point in your favor. Just proves you like to move goalposts. Comparing OKC to Europe isn't doing anything.

As for downtowns, have a look:

Louisville - https://www.apartments.com/downtown-louisville-louisville-ky/?bb=noyjonng4I1_03xN&so=1

OKC - https://www.apartments.com/apartments/downtown-oklahoma-city-oklahoma-city-ok/?so=1
Actually say that to yourself.it was my initial comment. ItÂ’s true. Moving goalposts comes later. The observation is true. Inflation is a global problem and is much worse everywhere else. the truth remains okc is very very affordable compared to everywhere. Since itÂ’s a global issue it would be correct to include cities outside of US. Being the us economy is directly and inextricably related to the world economy. IÂ’m guessing you really donÂ’t want inflation to be a global issue so you can excise a political statement. IÂ’m sort of sure thatÂ’s what youÂ’re doing. But you havenÂ’t mentioned a politician. So maybe not I guess.

Okc is more compact than louisville?

Actually say that to yourself.it was my initial comment. ItÂ’s true. Moving goalposts comes later. The observation is true. Inflation is a global problem and is much worse everywhere else. the truth remains okc is very very affordable compared to everywhere. Since itÂ’s a global issue it would be correct to include cities outside of US. Being the us economy is directly and inextricably related to the world economy. IÂ’m guessing you really donÂ’t want inflation to be a global issue so you can excise a political statement. IÂ’m sort of sure thatÂ’s what youÂ’re doing. But you havenÂ’t mentioned a politician. So maybe not I guess.
Actually, I just got back from Italy. Prices in Rome and Florence were generally better than here. I

Okc is more compact than louisville? Don’t know much about Louisville but their arena is better than Paycom

Don’t know much about Louisville but their arena is better than Paycom

It's also way newer. Hence needing a new arena.

Actually, I just got back from Italy. Prices in Rome and Florence were generally better than here. I

On Italian food maybe. They’re paying under $2.80 gallon? $1100 a month in rent?

Clothes in Florence undercutting us here at Walmart or gap?I mean really maybe for noodles or tobacco but I doubt Rome is cheaper than okc