Italians here don't want - or feel the need - to live together in a segregated "district." These ethnic districts are either real - or they are not.

----

I agree. The Italians have not felt they need to be segregated in this city and that is fine. They blend in nicely, BUT this thread is about a WISH LIST of what we would like to see, and that is what I would like to see.

I agree. The Italians have not felt they need to be segregated in this city and that is fine. They blend in nicely, BUT this thread is about a WISH LIST of what we would like to see, and that is what I would like to see.

Point taken, Metro. I would like that too! Something like "The Hill" in St. Louis.

----------------

Thanks for understanding my point of view. That is one thing I wish for although it is probably not going to happen for awhile.

An Irish pub would be cool. I guess we don't have any Irish people here.

There's a legend that claims the Disney co was staking out property for a "mid-America" style Disneyworld somewhere in the midwest, and that a region of land roughly halfway between OKC and the Red River was the choice, but it fell through. I'd love to know if that story was actually true, or was just wishful thinking/urban legend.

It would be great to have something like that in Oklahoma, but given the current dynamics of the amusement park industry of late, I'm not sure it will ever happen...

-SoonerDave

It's in the works NOW. and it isn't disney at all.

An Irish pub would be cool. I guess we don't have any Irish people here.

Not true. I'm part Irish. I know a ton of people full blood Irish. As far as Irish pub's, I'm not sure. I'm not too much into the Irish culture. If I remember right, they had an Irish festival a few months back.

http://www.okctalk.com/okc-metro-area-talk/5449-irish-arts-winterfest.html?highlight=Irish

It's in the works NOW. and it isn't disney at all.

Details?

1. A general realization that Oklahoma City is a BIG city; which means embracing what it means to be an urban area. A realization that this means you will sometimes have to pay to park, and walk a few blocks, to patronize urban neighborhoods with unique shops, resturants. Support great one-of-a-kind places, and grow them. There's always a market for Memorial Road,but don't automatically default to an Applebee's for dinner when independents are struggling. The readers of this forum understand this, but there's a lot of education to be done.

2. As a BIG city, as big as Austin or Charlotte or Portland or Memphis, recruit sophisticated places that exist in cities our size: examples might be Nordstrom, Hyatt Regency, Brooks Brothers, Whole Foods. Don't have a that-can't-be-supported-here mentality. The more of these places that exist in OKC, the more will follow. Nothing against rural OK, but get beyond the mentality we are an overgrown "cow town." This extends to culture: live theater, ethnic neighborhoods, festivals that don't always involve cowboys and indians (not that there's anything wrong with that, in moderation, but we should be looking for inspiration at Kansas City, Dallas, Indy, not Wichita or Abilene)

3. Recruit large corporations that employ well-educated people. Fortune 1000 companies provide prestige and spin-off creative enterprises that attract the "creative class." College graduates need more high-paying job opportunities. Devon and Chesapeake are FANTASTIC but we have to expand beyond the energy industry or we're asking for trouble in the future. And provide real incentives for these companies to locate downtown. DELL is also fantastic but college graduates won't stay in the city for a $10-an-hour call center job.

4. Continue the excellent momentum of downtown housing and retail. Make sure Bricktown/Deep Deuce grows the right way and does not become another outlet for boring chains. If national chains open, as much as possible they should be one-of-a-kind in Oklahoma. IMAX theater, for example or a state-of-the art aquarium as an anchor for a neighborhood between the river and downtown. A Hispanic marketplace to showcase that thriving community. Above all, mixed-use neighborhoods that create real 24-hour neighborhoods.

5. Continue the forward momentum of the excellent health sciences center, support this with science-friendly state policies. Actively promote bio-tech and use our natural location to attract agriculturally-oriented biotechs such as Monsanto, Con Agra, pharmaceuticals, etc.

6. Support mass transit, ideally with a rail network linking the entire metro area. If this is not feasible at the moment, at least realize that more and more highways just invite more and more sprawl, which is not healthy for the vitality of the city.

7. Beautification. The highways in OKC look awful. For a few million dollars, you could lanscape the medians along I-44, I-40, etc. with trees. Realize that for tens of thousands of daily travelers, that's the impression they have of OKC.

This is more than 3, but all these things come to mind. OKC is at a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to leverage momentum and oil money into really being the next great American CITY. (Not the next great American SUBURB)

I'm against planting trees in the medians of the Oklahoma City area Interstate highways. There is a safety issue to consider.

Superhighways are supposed to be designed to have minimal obstructions for drivers to hit if they lose control of a vehicle. This is why we have guardrails around bridge supports and concrete Jersey Barriers separating narrow highways like the turnpike portions of I-44. Even the ground mounted green signs have breakway supports that allow a runaway vehicle to travel through them rather than being stopped suddenly and potentially causing a fatal accident. Some trees will not move when hit at high speed by a car.

And then there's the issue of law enforcement and traffic control. It is sometimes necessary for OHP cruisers to cross over the median to the other direction of traffic. Tree and other stuff may block the view of the opposing lanes and obstruct access to them by police or emergency crews.

I think there's other approaches that can be made to improve the look of area highways. Well maintained grass goes a long way. Decorative bridge supports and sound walls can improve visual quality as well. In the end, highway function and safety must always take precidence.

I'm against planting trees in the medians of the Oklahoma City area Interstate highways. There is a safety issue to consider.

Superhighways are supposed to be designed to have minimal obstructions for drivers to hit if they lose control of a vehicle. This is why we have guardrails around bridge supports and concrete Jersey Barriers separating narrow highways like the turnpike portions of I-44. Even the ground mounted green signs have breakway supports that allow a runaway vehicle to travel through them rather than being stopped suddenly and potentially causing a fatal accident. Some trees will not move when hit at high speed by a car.

And then there's the issue of law enforcement and traffic control. It is sometimes necessary for OHP cruisers to cross over the median to the other direction of traffic. Tree and other stuff may block the view of the opposing lanes and obstruct access to them by police or emergency crews.

I think there's other approaches that can be made to improve the look of area highways. Well maintained grass goes a long way. Decorative bridge supports and sound walls can improve visual quality as well. In the end, highway function and safety must always take precidence.

Bobby, Have you ever been to the Washington DC/Virginia area? Beautiful, tree-lined Interstate highways and I don't know that their troopers have any problem with it. In fact, I think about California and their Oleanders separating the lanes on Interstate highways. The "nanny state," can protect us to death, but risks will always be with us and tree-lined freeways are a part of the landscape that make them acceptable in many cases.

-------------------

Parts of I-40 here in Oklahoma have trees in the median as well. But the difference is those medians are very wide, and some of those medians have drop offs, deep drainage canals and other features which block any emergency or police vehicles from entering.

None of the superhighways in OKC are wide enough to permit the planting of trees.

I've lived in Northern Virginia (even graduated from high school there) and am familiar with the roads there. They pretty much follow the same sorts of rules you see here. In many cases HOV lanes are swallowing up medians of many freeways there. That's also happening in California. And that's another reason not to plant trees in the median. What's the point if they'll have to be dug out or killed a few years in the future?

There's no reason why we couldn't have trees on either side of the interstate. writerranger, I don't think I've ever seen an interstate that had trees in the median.

I think having trees along the freeways would be a nice asset. I-95 in VA is lined with trees, and yes some are in the median at places. It is possible. However, I would still compromise for at least some shrubbery or something that is more than just plain unmowed grass.

we should be looking for inspiration at Kansas City, Dallas, Indy, not Wichita or Abilene)

I'm telling you, we are under-estimating Wichita (and Omaha!) at our own peril. I have detailed why in this and other threads. Today, CNN/Money Magazine released their annual "Best Places To Live" issue. This year, you had to have a population of under 300,000. But, they had a, "Ten Best Big Cities" section and here is the Top Ten:

1 Colorado Springs, CO 369,800
2 Austin, TX 690,300
3 Mesa, AZ 442,800
4 Raleigh, NC 341,500
5 San Diego, CA 1,255,500
6 Virginia Beach, VA 438,400
7 Omaha, NE 414,500
8 Columbus, OH 730,700
9 Wichita, KS 354,900
10 New York, NY 8,143,200

Complete Details on this year's rankings:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2006/index.html

------------

It's kind of funny that Colorado Springs is at the top of the "big cities" list.

I just drove back to Oklahoma from there today (my parents and a few other relatives live there; I was up there visiting my grandmother after she had a close call medical situation). After 600 miles and nearly 10 hours of driving I'm punchy and ready for bed.

Colorado Springs is really nice. But it's pretty expensive to live there. I'd move there if I could land a job paying me at least triple what I'm making now. To accept anything less would mean me taking a significant step down in living standards. I don't care how nice the scenery is in anyplace. I'm not taking a backward move just to move somewhere more pretty.

My parents live in the Black Forest area and its a pain to do all that driving just to get some little things done. I really have to seriously fault the 'Springs on its road infrastructure. It's the biggest city I can think of which doesn't have any freeway loops. US-24 should be a six lane Interstate-class facility from I-25 to I-70 in Limon. Instead, it is a hellish two lane blacktop with lots of grisly, fatal accidents.

In the end, I can't help but wonder if the folks at Money Magazine donned some rose colored glasses from all that scenery and overlooked some other glaring problems.

OK, I did not mean necessarily that the landscaping had to be trees in the medians. You could have nice plantings, shrubberies at the bridge supports and the exit ramps. The most important thing is that along the highways, the grass is mowed and the trash is picked up. Also, look at the buildings that are visible from the highways and try to keep them in good shape. Easier said than done.

As far as comparing us to other cities, Wichita and Omaha and Colorado Springs are all making progress. Every city is investing in their downtowns and in corporate relocation. The only way for any city to get ahead is to do it faster and smarter than the competition.

My question, and maybe this is a topic for another thread, or maybe it's decided and I just haven't heard (I am an OKC ex-patriate living in St. Louis)is: What is Maps 3 going to be? The Maps for Kids tax has to be winding down. OKC is used to paying that tax. What is the next initative? What is the next great civic undertaking? (OKC is miles ahead of STL when it comes to rallying citizens around big-thinking goals) I would think it should be some combination of continuing downtown's progress and true economic development, identifying clusters and recruiting companies. Biotech/medical would be an excellent start.

1. A Major league football team

2. COLD, 6 point Beer,wine and all alcoholic beverages available.

here here to STLOKC's list.

My top 3 are:

1) a business/political climate in OKC that does not bow to the rural OK and Tulsa all of the time when it comes to or prohibits development and urban ness of Oklahoma City. This state should have taken a 1 big city approach to begin with, then we wouldn't have the problems we have with WRWA, lack of perm major league team(s), downtown skyscrapers, and urban amenities.

2) OKC residents to continue to build "true" pride in their city. I mean that found in NO, Seattle, STL, Chicago, heck any other major city in the nation. All of those citizens stick up for their city and make it like it is the centre of the universe (Chicago has a true legitimate claim actually). Too often, OKC gets chomp'd on by smaller cities and we just sit and let it happen (if not agree with them). While I know we have made significant improvement, we are still a long way to go as a city - just as long as we are still disconnected between suburb and downtown, north and south; so on. How about OKLAHOMA CITY pride!!! And that goes for the OKC suburbs as well, stand up for your central city!!

3) Additional world class companies locate in the city. Now that it is 'assured' that OKC shall have a major league team (finally, given the SONICS/STORM and Hornets situation), hopefully this will keep OKC on the radar of hip/expanding companies worldwide and we will continue to get business/(and residents) from it. This will only make things better for OKC, get our Congressperson BACK, more revenue for the city, more income/economy for the city, so on. And all of this from exposure of the sounds of "your Oklahoma City SONICS!!!" and "Oklahoma City STORM", heck even "New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets" has given us tremendous momentum of publicity - you can't even account for it.

If my 3 were to take place (2 and 3 are already happening, 1 still needs some help tho), I'd see OKC rising to the status of big cities like Seattle, Minneapolis, Tampa, and San Diego. Perhaps not so much in history but moreso on its cultural offerings, urban sophistication, corporate stability/power, and substantial ecomomy of a large urban center.

Will we every be Chicago? No, but I think Denver is very reachable, even without the Rockies being next door!!!

You can do it, OKC. Continue the Renaissance!!!

I'm telling you, we are under-estimating Wichita (and Omaha!) at our own peril. I have detailed why in this and other threads. Today, CNN/Money Magazine released their annual "Best Places To Live" issue. This year, you had to have a population of under 300,000. But, they had a, "Ten Best Big Cities" section and here is the Top Ten:

1 Colorado Springs, CO 369,800
2 Austin, TX 690,300
3 Mesa, AZ 442,800
4 Raleigh, NC 341,500
5 San Diego, CA 1,255,500
6 Virginia Beach, VA 438,400
7 Omaha, NE 414,500
8 Columbus, OH 730,700
9 Wichita, KS 354,900
10 New York, NY 8,143,200

Complete Details on this year's rankings:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2006/index.html

------------

Im sorry, and no offense, but I have to question any list/ranking that has the likes of Wichita/Omaha/Raleigh/the Springs in the same universe as New York city, not to mention ahead of it. One immediate clue is look at the populations, I think they should have had ranking of cities based on a more appropriate population measure:

small >49,000
medium 50,000-499,999
large 500,000-1.49M
major >1.5M

Im sure, the Wichita/Omaha/Raleigh/Springs would be much more appropriately called medium sized cities, while New York would be more appropriately called major. For that list to mean anything, NY should be compared to Chicago and LA and Houston and Phila; not cities that dont even make up a neighbourhood in NY like Wichita or Omaha.

And OKC (532,000) would be in the large city comparison along with Portland, Seattle, Denver, and Columbus OH, and the city probably would fare in the top 20, i bet.

Actually, OKC did horribly in these rankings.

Crime, median income, education, lower-than-average job growth - many reasons. Sonics, Hornets, or not, we still have MANY problems.

Examples:

Crime:
Personal Crime Risk OKC: 227
Best Places Average: 45

Property Crime Risk: 237
Best Places Average: 74

Personal Crime Incidents: 823
Best Places Average: 228
Almost tripled!

Education:

Poor reading and math scores

The rankings are explained in the methodology section. It was greater than 300,000 and less than 300,000. That's how Wichita ended up competing with NYC. Remember, these were "Best Places To Live" rankings and placed a lot of emphasis on livability and less stress. It's actually a very interesting section in MONEY.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2006/index.html


-------

I just think those same quality of life issues differ greatly from Wichita (one of the nations' smallest legitimate cities) and New York (the nations' largest).

Wichita should be compared with similarly sized cities and New York should be compared similarly respectfully.

Those positive issues in Wichita Im sure were big negatives in NY, while there is so much to do in NY and very little in Wichita that it made up for NY being unsafe, rather not educated, and so on.

NY should have been compared with peer cities like Chicago, LA, and Phila to get any prospective on the scale/score. Comparing it to Wichita (with Wichita winning).... Im not sure what it's saying.

Sorry to be so blunt, but colorado springs is by far the ugliest, worst maintained city i've ever been to. Wichita might come in next. As a sidenote, i'm a grad. student in urban planning so i'm not just throwing out an unthought opinion.

Well, having grown up in Wichita I can give a perspective on that.....

When I first saw it on the list I literally laughed out loud. Wichita has a couple of things that will forever doom it's growth.

First, is that the airport is doomed to never grow. See usually the airport in a gowing city will be prodded by the local businesses and rich people that need a vibrant airport to fill their travel needs. But, in Wichita all the important and rich people/businesses are aircraft companies. They already have their own airplanes so the airport is really not a concern for them.

Second is the city mentality. They have resisted growth for decades in Wichita. A large casino company wanted to come into the downtown riverside area and build a casino and pay for a luxury high-rise hotel attached to the convention center. This would have spurred a really good downtown revitalization and the impact to tax-payers would have been minimal. While Wichitans realized they needed a luxury high-rise, they didn't want the help from the "immoral" gambling trust, so instead they voted down the measure but did decide to pay for part of the Hyatt Regency with tax money. But there was still little reason to go downtown anyway, so it didn't really matter.

Then there is the "arena" issue. Wichita wanted an arena for years and years, but the tax payers kept voting it down. Now, after the benefits of a decent downtown arena have been proven to them by the likes of OKC, Omaha, etc. they finally voted for an arena so they could bring in the big concerts and athletic events. Then what do the brilliant city leaders do? They decide to build the arena with bigger seats so people will be comfortable, but it brought the capacity down to around 15,000. So now they won't even get a sniff of the big concerts or athletics events they are building it for in the first place.


Now, what Wichita does have is a decent amount of rich folks. But they tend to stay in their own little cocoon that is the East side of town and they could really care less if Wichita does any type of civic based economic growth. The rich people are trying to build up their cocoon while the city leaders see the value of the downtown riverside area, but can't get the big money down there.....

Just my opinions....