Oklahoma City, In the Press

[Jake]

Don’t know much about them. While jonny boy wants to be an ass, I’m simply saying I don’t trust WalletHub’s rankings. That article you posted is just a positive article about OKC and nothing to do with the best place to start a business, so you’re just trying to start a flame war with me.

Genuinely not "trying to start a flame war" with anybody, just wanted to know if CNBC is a good source or not.

[gopokes88]

I guess it’s the inferiority complex, but this board just can’t seem to handle the slightest bit of anything doesn’t give OKC the greatest orgasm ever, that means better than the last one. Geeze. I didn’t even say anything negative either, just said I don’t trust WalletHub’s ranking. Oh well.

It’s actaully just you and the other stooge.

[Laramie]

I guess it’s the inferiority complex, but this board just can’t seem to handle the slightest bit of anything doesn’t give OKC the greatest orgasm ever, that means better than the last one. Geeze. I didn’t even say anything negative either, just said I don’t trust WalletHub’s ranking. Oh well.

Some on the board can't handle it. You probably recognized the nay-sayers who are quick to bash any ideas one might have for progress along with those who would like to see more of a boost in growth.

Thank God for Mayor Ron Norick, who recognized the significance of taking a project like MAPS I underground before it was released to the meat grinders who he knew would butcher every hint of progress for our city be it a new arena & baseball sports venues, a river canal, river developments or some mystery project that would make Kansas City or Dallas jealous that we didn't get. We've managed to receive 5x more in private development than our initial public sales tax investment; that initial booster did help the MAPS momentum...

These are the same non visionaries who will be screaming to the highest heaven in the next 5 to 10 years about progress not being made in Oklahoma City; yet they spend their money in neighboring cities like Dallas, Kansas City & Denver then wonder why their own city doesn't measure up or look as aesthetically pleasing or have all the upper echelon quality retail establishments anchored here that you find in big league cities.

We have some things on the horizon, Plutonic Panda like the new convention center, hotels, infill projects and riverfront developments that will make OKC a better place over time. Progress is not for everyone--just think of what our city might have become WITHOUT MAPS; NO riverfront development, Riversport Rapids, Chesapeake Energy Arena, NBA Thunder, Bricktown Canal or Ballpark and let's not forget the aging structures of our city like Civic Center Music Hall and the 3 Dams to hold water in a river we mowed 3-times a year. Our city would have become one of the biggest raggediest towns in the U.S.

Devon Energy's 50 story, 844 ft., tower would be another feather in Houston's cap; therefore the BOK Park Plaza Tower probably wouldn't be among our skyline features. G. E. certainly wouldn't have chosen OKC for its oil & gas global research center.

I'm pleased to live in our city that hasn't tapped into its full potential; however as we continue to promote slow to moderate growth we won't attract the a bigger fish or corporation that could really make an impact on our community.

[dcsooner]

Some on the board can't handle it. You probably recognized the nay-sayers who are quick to bash any ideas one might have for progress along with those who would like to see more of a boost in growth.

Thank God for Mayor Ron Norick, who recognized the significance of taking a project like MAPS I underground before it was released to the meat grinders who he knew would butcher every hint of progress for our city be it a new arena & baseball sports venues, a river canal, river developments or some mystery project that would make Kansas City or Dallas jealous that we didn't get. We've managed to receive 5x more in private development than our initial public sales tax investment; that initial booster did help the MAPS momentum...

These are the same non visionaries who will be screaming to the highest heaven in the next 5 to 10 years about progress not being made in Oklahoma City; yet they spend their money in neighboring cities like Dallas, Kansas City & Denver then wonder why their own city doesn't measure up or look as aesthetically pleasing or have all the upper echelon quality retail establishments anchored here that you find in big league cities.

We have some things on the horizon, Plutonic Panda like the new convention center, hotels, infill projects and riverfront developments that will make OKC a better place over time. Progress is not for everyone--just think of what our city might have become WITHOUT MAPS; NO riverfront development, Riversport Rapids, Chesapeake Energy Arena, NBA Thunder, Bricktown Canal or Ballpark and let's not forget the aging structures of our city like Civic Center Music Hall and the 3 Dams to hold water in a river we mowed 3-times a year. Our city would have become one of the biggest raggediest towns in the U.S.

Devon Energy's 50 story, 844 ft., tower would be another feather in Houston's cap; therefore the BOK Park Plaza Tower probably wouldn't be among our skyline features. G. E. certainly wouldn't have chosen OKC for its oil & gas global research center.

I'm pleased to live in our city that hasn't tapped into its full potential; however as we continue to promote slow to moderate growth we won't attract the a bigger fish or corporation that could really make an impact on our community.

+1000

[Plutonic Panda]

Some on the board can't handle it. You probably recognized the nay-sayers who are quick to bash any ideas one might have for progress along with those who would like to see more of a boost in growth.

Thank God for Mayor Ron Norick, who recognized the significance of taking a project like MAPS I underground before it was released to the meat grinders who he knew would butcher every hint of progress for our city be it a new arena & baseball sports venues, a river canal, river developments or some mystery project that would make Kansas City or Dallas jealous that we didn't get. We've managed to receive 5x more in private development than our initial public sales tax investment; that initial booster did help the MAPS momentum...

These are the same non visionaries who will be screaming to the highest heaven in the next 5 to 10 years about progress not being made in Oklahoma City; yet they spend their money in neighboring cities like Dallas, Kansas City & Denver then wonder why their own city doesn't measure up or look as aesthetically pleasing or have all the upper echelon quality retail establishments anchored here that you find in big league cities.

We have some things on the horizon, Plutonic Panda like the new convention center, hotels, infill projects and riverfront developments that will make OKC a better place over time. Progress is not for everyone--just think of what our city might have become WITHOUT MAPS; NO riverfront development, Riversport Rapids, Chesapeake Energy Arena, NBA Thunder, Bricktown Canal or Ballpark and let's not forget the aging structures of our city like Civic Center Music Hall and the 3 Dams to hold water in a river we mowed 3-times a year. Our city would have become one of the biggest raggediest towns in the U.S.

Devon Energy's 50 story, 844 ft., tower would be another feather in Houston's cap; therefore the BOK Park Plaza Tower probably wouldn't be among our skyline features. G. E. certainly wouldn't have chosen OKC for its oil & gas global research center.

I'm pleased to live in our city that hasn't tapped into its full potential; however as we continue to promote slow to moderate growth we won't attract the a bigger fish or corporation that could really make an impact on our community.

Laramie, that is a great post and is 1000% true. Posts like these seperate you from a lot of other posters who I won’t mention, but I agree with all of this. OKC is on its way to becoming a great city and I’m so impressed every time I’m there. I was up there for about a month and couldn’t believe how much the culture has changed for the better and how more big city it felt. Great things are coming my good man!

A big pet peeve of mine that for whatever reasons seems to be more prevalent in OKC(mainly just certain posters on OKCTalk) is that they can’t the slightest ounce of criticism. The standard response always seems to be “look at this this other state that has this problem too” or “this place is worse than US.” Always easy to put OKC’s best up against the worst of other cities. I am very optimistic about OKC but that doesn’t mean I won’t bash the hell of it when I see the need to.

[TheTravellers]

.... I am very optimistic about OKC but that doesn’t mean I won’t bash the hell of it when I see the need to.

[Thomas Vu]

@plutonic panda while I generally agree with your points, I think there's a misinterpretation in the initial premise.

I don't see it as much as people "just can’t seem to handle the slightest bit of anything doesn’t give OKC the greatest orgasm ever", as much as you have a reputation for discrediting anything that anybody posts that puts OKC in a good light. I find the timing hilarious. It's more confirmation bias than anything.

[Plutonic Panda]

@plutonic panda while I generally agree with your points, I think there's a misinterpretation in the initial premise.

I don't see it as much as people "just can’t seem to handle the slightest bit of anything doesn’t give OKC the greatest orgasm ever", as much as you have a reputation for discrediting anything that anybody posts that puts OKC in a good light. I find the timing hilarious. It's more confirmation bias than anything.

Oh come on now, I don’t discredit everything positive that posted about OKC. If you look at my post history, you’ll find I contributed in posting several articles that shine OKC in positive light.

[mugofbeer]

@plutonic panda while I generally agree with your points, I think there's a misinterpretation in the initial premise.

I don't see it as much as people "just can’t seem to handle the slightest bit of anything doesn’t give OKC the greatest orgasm ever", as much as you have a reputation for discrediting anything that anybody posts that puts OKC in a good light. I find the timing hilarious. It's more confirmation bias than anything.

+1 I have looked at it several times, and I don't see where Jonnyd was trying to be argumentative at all. He just showed a 2nd article backing up the 1st.

FWIW, I get a huge amount of my information from CNBC because it is what is available for the stock market that is relatively non-biased. Unfortunately, they are slowly moving towards the typical left wing hum-drum because of their New York bias but now have opened a 2nd studio in San Francisco (due to the concentration of high tech business in the region). When interviewing some of the CEOs out of the San Francisco studio, you sometimes get nothing but an anti-Trump diatribe and not answers to what the host asks. These CEOs have a right to opinion just like anyone else, but CNBC does not hold them to business and will not ask tough response questions when some of the CEO's are obviously spattering ****.

I do NOT trust the hosts of CNBC to be non-biased when it comes to other subjects such as politics. Carl Quintenilla and Becky Quick hosted one of the Presidential Debates and were horribly biased - to the point the audience was booing. They are still NBC and of the mainstream media, IMO, NBC is still the most biased and has stooped to altering recordings and video segments to further the side of their bias. It is not worth trust. On the other hand Fox Business is too much like Fox News (meaning, too much Fox News within the business network) and not enough business. Bloomberg has good data but the hosts are awful.

[Plutonic Panda]

Not sure how the CNBC article backed up the first. They weren’t even related.

[mugofbeer]

One ranks cities that are supposedly the best of larger cities in the US to start a business (of which one major measurement is affordability and cost of living) while the othe measures affordability and cost of living? If I'm starting a business, affordability and cost of living (and therefore, disposable income) will be a kind of important consideration.

[Plutonic Panda]

Still two different things.

[Rover]

What inane bickering. If you want to believe OKC is crap, fine. If you want to believe it is great, fine. Just because somebody publishes a list doesn’t make it gospel. As long as they let you know the criteria and data used you can take it for what it’s worth. OKC is a great city to start a business in if low cost is important. If it is proximity to lots and lots of people it isn’t. Etc., etc., etc. pick you criteria and then carp away.

[HOT ROD]

good point plu. but I remember the days when NOBODY defended OKC, at ALL.

I, for one, am very elated to see people stick up for Oklahoma City - even if we've become a bit thin-skinned. MUCH much better than before when OKC residents agreed with those putting the city down. ....

That said, I believe most are open to constructive criticism, you know - the kind where a solution to a critique is offered.

[jerrywall]

Oh come on now, I don’t discredit everything positive that posted about OKC. If you look at my post history, you’ll find I contributed in posting several articles that shine OKC in positive light.

Unfortunately, you tend to get grouped in with another poster who I won't name, who never posts anything positive and lives for the chance to jump in and trash OK... mainly because he tends to agree an comments on your posts. It's not your fault, but I can see why the perception exists.

[TheTravellers]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e0ffb8c45558

This is interesting, thought OKC would be at least not tied for 6th-to-last, but I'm guessing the wind and high humidity knocked us down, since those are pretty constant here.

[jonny d]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e0ffb8c45558

This is interesting, thought OKC would be at least not tied for 6th-to-last, but I'm guessing the wind and high humidity knocked us down, since those are pretty constant here.

So OKC's high humidity counts against it but Atlanta's even worse humidity and very very similar temperatures don't? Hmmm....

[jedicurt]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e0ffb8c45558

This is interesting, thought OKC would be at least not tied for 6th-to-last, but I'm guessing the wind and high humidity knocked us down, since those are pretty constant here.

so they don't really tell us the temperature range they are looking at, or what is the cut off point to make a day "too windy", as well as how much cloud cover is too much... this whole thing is a crock.

[Jake]

"Cities with the Least Nice Days:"

Honolulu.

*closes laptop*

[bchris02]

So OKC's high humidity counts against it but Atlanta's even worse humidity and very very similar temperatures don't? Hmmm....

Atlanta is warmer in the winter and not quite as hot during the summer, wetter with rainfall evenly distributed throughout the year, experiences less extremes and temperature swings, and experiences less severe weather.

[Rover]

so they don't really tell us the temperature range they are looking at, or what is the cut off point to make a day "too windy", as well as how much cloud cover is too much... this whole thing is a crock.

I think all that is in the article. Your point is good though... is 35% cloud cover a bad day vs 30%. Is extreme temperature over 80 degrees, or 90? Is too much wind 20 mph or 25? Changing a few parameters makes a HUGE difference.

[gopokes88]

I think all that is in the article. Your point is good though... is 35% cloud cover a bad day vs 30%. Is extreme temperature over 80 degrees, or 90? Is too much wind 20 mph or 25? Changing a few parameters makes a HUGE difference.

Plus it’s a matter of opinion. I really love wide open sunshine and generally despise clouds.

[TheTravellers]

so they don't really tell us the temperature range they are looking at, or what is the cut off point to make a day "too windy", as well as how much cloud cover is too much... this whole thing is a crock.

From the article:

Methodology
Using automated weather stations with relatively complete data between 1998 and 2018, we systematically evaluated every daily and hourly observation for 373 stations around the country for all 365 days of the year and computed the number of days per year that met all of the following specific criteria:

High temperature between 65 and 85 degrees
Maximum dew point temperature less than or equal to 65 degrees
Peak daily wind (including gusts) less than 25 mph
Average daily cloud cover less than or equal to 65 percent
No measurable precipitation

[TheTravellers]

"Cities with the Least Nice Days:"

Honolulu.

*closes laptop*

"Perhaps most surprising is the low number of nice days for Hawaii. Isn’t Hawaii a weather paradise? Since we are looking at days with moderately warm temperatures and low humidity, Hawaii dropped way down the list based on the humidity (and wind) criteria. This nicely highlights that no index is perfect."

[TheTravellers]

I think all that is in the article. Your point is good though... is 35% cloud cover a bad day vs 30%. Is extreme temperature over 80 degrees, or 90? Is too much wind 20 mph or 25? Changing a few parameters makes a HUGE difference.

See post 1023.