I've lived in high-rises the last decade in OKC, I don't know what everybody is griping about

:-P

I've lived in high-rises the last decade in OKC, I don't know what everybody is griping about

:-P

Most of the high-rise developments that are here, like the Regency and the Park Harvey, are on the dated side. There are a few others but nothing really large scale. They aren't comparable to this.

http://www.rivermarkettower.com/gallery

Hopefully the 4th and EKG development helps bring more of this to OKC and also proves that it can work here.

I don't care, I still enjoy the highrise life. And 6.5 of those years was at the Classen which was pretty darned good. If it's really the life you want, you make it happen and make the best of it.

I don't care, I still enjoy the highrise life. And 6.5 of those years was at the Classen which was pretty darned good. If it's really the life you want, you make it happen and make the best of it.

I haven't been in the Classen, but I've heard it's one of the better high-rise living structures in OKC.

I thought this was interesting as it relates to New Urbanism.

As a current St. Louis resident, I often check out www.nextstl.com (STL's urban design blog). This was a recent article. There are all kinds of projects going on in St. Louis and this really only struck me as notable because of the reaction to it. This is a fairly distressed neighborhood in which this foundation is proposing a new headquarters. One might suspect for revitalization purposes the reaction would be positive. Instead, it is uniformly negative because of the way it will harm the streetwall (which would appear to be currently vacant). Just an interesting comment on the priorities of the group of urban enthusiasts that are drawn to this site. Would be curious if the reaction in OKC would be similar under similar circumstances.

https://nextstl.com/2017/03/missouri-foundation-health-plans-new-home-columbia-iron-works-grove/

We seem to have gotten off topic and gone political as tends to happen a lot here. State politicians have little effect on design and building standards that either contribute or are counter to new urbanism in OKC.

People in Oklahoma have to drink that koolaid in order to stay sane. However, for the outside world, nobody really wants to live somewhere that requires brainwashing and delusion to not go crazy.

To be honest, every city that matters has new urbanism right now because it's just simply the trend in 2017. OKC needs to have urbane development, but that's a baseline, not a difference-maker. On the flip side, the first thing anyone thinks of when they think of Oklahoma is repulsive politics. That's the state's brand right now, and the voting populace shows no signs of putting that banner down.

Compare to Omaha: Same new urbanism, same decent historic neighborhoods, same overwhelmingly suburban layers after that, and a slightly less repulsive social brand with Ben Sasse. Omaha undeniably benefits from a slightly more moderate outside perception. Same as Des Moines, Albuquerque and Kansas City.

Compare to Little Rock or Wichita: Fledgling new urbanism, a solitude decent historic district in each, kind of dumpy suburban surroundings beyond that, and the same repulsive social environment as Oklahoma. However, if you ask someone on the street in a coastal city, is OKC going to be perceived as that much better than Wichita or Little Rock? Probably not despite the reality.


OKC did miss the high-rise condo boom during the 2000s which I think contributes to the perception of the city being behind. Most other markets the size of OKC and even smaller had at least a few mid-rise or high-rise condo towers built last decade. Little Rock had three condo towers built and they are pretty impressive. To be fair, Tulsa also lagged in this aspect as well. This decade, the focus has shifted more towards apartments, which OKC and Tulsa have seen quite a bit of.

For a long time, Tulsa has been ahead of OKC in terms of having vibrant, urban neighborhoods with critical mass. OKC had Bricktown but not much else until recently. Today, that is changing and I don't think the case that Tulsa is ahead of OKC is near as strong as it once was.

Yeah, Oklahoma just didn't have a good decade in the 1990s through 2000s. But we're going to pretend that had nothing to do with the state's firebrand politics.

People in Oklahoma have to drink that koolaid in order to stay sane. However, for the outside world, nobody really wants to live somewhere that requires brainwashing and delusion to not go crazy.

To be honest, every city that matters has new urbanism right now because it's just simply the trend in 2017. OKC needs to have urbane development, but that's a baseline, not a difference-maker. On the flip side, the first thing anyone thinks of when they think of Oklahoma is repulsive politics. That's the state's brand right now, and the voting populace shows no signs of putting that banner down.

Compare to Omaha: Same new urbanism, same decent historic neighborhoods, same overwhelmingly suburban layers after that, and a slightly less repulsive social brand with Ben Sasse. Omaha undeniably benefits from a slightly more moderate outside perception. Same as Des Moines, Albuquerque and Kansas City.

Compare to Little Rock or Wichita: Fledgling new urbanism, a solitude decent historic district in each, kind of dumpy suburban surroundings beyond that, and the same repulsive social environment as Oklahoma. However, if you ask someone on the street in a coastal city, is OKC going to be perceived as that much better than Wichita or Little Rock? Probably not despite the reality.



Yeah, Oklahoma just didn't have a good decade in the 1990s through 2000s. But we're going to pretend that had nothing to do with the state's firebrand politics.
Overkill?!?!?

Overkill?!?!?

Come on, since when has Spartan ever flown off the handle and made ridiculous unsupported claims?

Come on, since when has Spartan ever flown off the handle and made ridiculous unsupported claims?

Well, in reality, since most outsiders probably draw a blank when asked about Oklahoma and Oklahoma City, then they better be warned, unless they nabbed great jobs, to avoid Oklahoma, due to the insanity going on at the State Capitol, along with the threat from the earthquakes. Nobody knows if a 5.0+ earthquake will eventually center in the OKC Metro. If such fears, though, are overblown, then outsiders might as well go ahead and dare come, grab some popcorn, and watch the show of governmental insanity along with the seismometer. Maybe a few people move to Oklahoma just to do that. It doesn't require getting brainwashed and becoming delusional to enjoy the show and not go crazy. Just take a break from the show sometimes to go admire the new urbanism in Oklahoma City.

We seem to have gotten off topic and gone political as tends to happen a lot here. State politicians have little effect on design and building standards that either contribute or are counter to new urbanism in OKC.

True, the topic is on new urbanism in OKC with some veering toward politics going on at the State Capitol. It might as well veer off in that direction, because every year legislators seek to pass new laws banning or restricting what cities can do. Some, if passed, could discourage new companies from wanting to build in Oklahoma CIty and fewer opportunities for new urbanism.

A reminder that lots of well paid people in OKC can't afford to buy anything in our downtown.

What are we considering well paid and what is considered the range of affordability?

It's not fair to group Denver in with OKC ^ Denver is twice the size of OKC and has several advantages both natural and man made.

I definitely agree with this.

People in Oklahoma have to drink that koolaid in order to stay sane. However, for the outside world, nobody really wants to live somewhere that requires brainwashing and delusion to not go crazy.

To be honest, every city that matters has new urbanism right now because it's just simply the trend in 2017. OKC needs to have urbane development, but that's a baseline, not a difference-maker. On the flip side, the first thing anyone thinks of when they think of Oklahoma is repulsive politics. That's the state's brand right now, and the voting populace shows no signs of putting that banner down.

Compare to Omaha: Same new urbanism, same decent historic neighborhoods, same overwhelmingly suburban layers after that, and a slightly less repulsive social brand with Ben Sasse. Omaha undeniably benefits from a slightly more moderate outside perception. Same as Des Moines, Albuquerque and Kansas City.

Compare to Little Rock or Wichita: Fledgling new urbanism, a solitude decent historic district in each, kind of dumpy suburban surroundings beyond that, and the same repulsive social environment as Oklahoma. However, if you ask someone on the street in a coastal city, is OKC going to be perceived as that much better than Wichita or Little Rock? Probably not despite the reality.



Yeah, Oklahoma just didn't have a good decade in the 1990s through 2000s. But we're going to pretend that had nothing to do with the state's firebrand politics.

I really don't think that our state politics is what people think of when they hear OKC. Most people probably think of the Thunder when they hear OKC. And it's not unique to Oklahoma. Most states have politicians or politics that they don't like or they think causes their state to look foolish.

This thread started off with potential. Discussing design, new urbanism ideals, what developers are doing right and what they're doing wrong wrt new urbanism, what they need to do or should be doing. But like so many other threads on here it devolves into people taking pot shots at state government. So many people just like to blame everything on state politicians. If it rains at your outside wedding; blame the clowns on 23rd street. It must be their fault. It's ridiculous.

You know, there is a politics forum on this site. It would be wonderful if we could keep politics to that forum for the most part instead of derailing nearly every other thread on this board into politics.

I'm not sure this is the right spot for this post, but I was flying from Denver to OKC yesterday and the SW ticket agent saw we were going to OKC, and said she is thinking of transferring to OKC . She said she has researched it and really likes the progress OKC has made, the cost of living is fantastic compared to Denver and she wouldn't mind the milder winters and can handle the hotter summers. She also said that OKC residents are the most friendly she encounters (very scientific poll I'm sure). Despite a line behind us she was wanting to chat about OKC. Probably need to line her up for an OKC commercial spot when she moves to town.:)