OKC's Image Issue

[JohnH_in_OKC]

In todays DOK editorials, a little blurb about OKC, Tampa and Indianapolis gaining big league status in the latest issue of World magazine.

World Magazine is a Christian news site. Here's the link to the story "Joining the Big Leagues": http://www.worldmag.com/articles/19209

[gamecock]

I am a regular churchgoer, but this is the kind of story that contributes to our "image" issues (and, as others have noted, OKC's image is connected to the state's image):

The Oklahoma House has adopted a resolution declaring “Oklahoma - In God We Trust!” as the state’s official motto.

http://normantranscript.com/new/x111...or-state-motto

[jedicurt]

The Oklahoma House has adopted a resolution declaring “Oklahoma - In God We Trust!” as the state’s official motto.

well i do trust God more than our Oklahoma legislators...

[MDot]

well i do trust God more than our Oklahoma legislators...

Even atheists trust God more than our legislators.

[bchris02]

I know this is an old thread, but this is something I've seen quite a bit on other forums and in the comments section of national headlines any time OKC is mentioned so I want to chime in.

OKC's image problem is still very much alive and well. Some things can't be helped such as the tornadoes and people's fear of severe weather. Other things, such as the perception that this city is backwards, boring, and doesn't offer much for young single people can be changed. Most people on OKCTalk know those stereotypes are outdated, but people that primarily go to other forums or get their info on OKC from other sources don't know that. Living in far NW OKC myself, a part of town where the stereotypes are mostly accurate, only recently have I really branched out to discover what this city really offers in its core and it really is surprising me in a good way. Many of the things I enjoyed in Charlotte are also offered here, I just didn't realize it. It seems to me the stereotype is largely based on what OKC used to be in the late 1980s and early 1990s. My question is, what is it going to take to really show the nation that this city has changed? The national attention this city is getting with the Thunder is helping, but a lot of people still cling to old stereotypes. Friends of mine back in Charlotte really like to make fun of OKC on a frequent basis when we talk. On the flipside, the one friend of mine who actually came and visited OKC from Charlotte was very impressed and said it was nothing like what he envisioned.

Personally, without getting too political, I think its going to take Oklahoma County going blue on a Presidential election map or at least electing a social progressive to a high office. Like it or not, it's not popular in 2013 to be a Republican (and I lean Republican myself). I am not a fan of Shadid and won't vote for him, but the one thing I can say if he wins is having such a social progressive as mayor will help this city's image. In addition to that, it may just take more time. Stereotypes take a long time to develop and they usually last far beyond their truthfulness. Thoughts?

[adaniel]

Glad to see you warming up to OKC finally. It generally takes some time, and the best this area offers can sometimes take some exploring.

As far as the "image" of OKC changing, the only thing that will change that is time. And lots of it. The Thunder do help. But little things as well. The Forbes/Fortune/Money Magazine lists for "best of" by themselves are pretty shallow but you'd be surprised how many in the masses get their information from low-data sources like these. And OKC consistently being on them helps a lot. And then there's the constant BLS reports that show OKC as having the lowest unemployment rate of any big city right now. Those are published by newspapers all over the country. Those things add up.

At the same time you will NEVER irradiate stereotypes of places. Everyone judges everywhere. Ever hear the story of the warm, friendly New Yorker or the humble, down-to earth Texan? Likely not. Its a waste of time to try and convince these people that OKC is anything other than their preconceived notion. Frankly most people who view OKC negatively probably are the types that hate all of "flyover county." Oh well, their loss...

I say this as a registered Democrat, but electing someone like Shadid will not change anything about how OKC is viewed just based on the fact he is a social progressive. Yes he's liberal, but he's also bumbling and poorly spoken and will likely just piss everyone off. At this point political affiliation doesn't matter. OKC (and Oklahoma) just need a politician who will be a good public face and won't ramble about Agenda 21, abortion, Obama, etc. The type of gov OKC is allows for the mayor to act as a consensus builder and ambassador, and it is here where Cornett shines, independent of his political persuasion.

[bchris02]

Glad to see you warming up to OKC finally. It generally takes some time, and the best this area offers can sometimes take some exploring.

True. I have found OKC to be the kind of place where a lot of people live in their own bubble so I think that makes it a little more difficult to branch out sometimes and therefore makes it more difficult to adjust especially if moving from somewhere with a more cohesive scene. For instance, if you live in Edmond or NW OKC and hang out with people who also live in those areas, its very rare that you will ever go downtown unless its for a concert or a Thunder game.

As far as the "image" of OKC changing, the only thing that will change that is time. And lots of it. The Thunder do help. But little things as well. The Forbes/Fortune/Money Magazine lists for "best of" by themselves are pretty shallow but you'd be surprised how many in the masses get their information from low-data sources like these. And OKC consistently being on them helps a lot. And then there's the constant BLS reports that show OKC as having the lowest unemployment rate of any big city right now. Those are published by newspapers all over the country. Those things add up.

Agreed. Those lists are important because a lot of people rate cities based off them. It's very nice to see OKC starting to make some of them. 10 years ago, there is no way this city would appear on any lists for anything positive at least.

At the same time you will NEVER irradiate stereotypes of places. Everyone judges everywhere. Ever hear the story of the warm, friendly New Yorker or the humble, down-to earth Texan? Likely not. Its a waste of time to try and convince these people that OKC is anything other than their preconceived notion. Frankly most people who view OKC negatively probably are the types that hate all of "flyover county." Oh well, their loss...

OKC has a much worse perception issue than even most of flyover country and in fact its hard to think of any major city that has a worse image problem. People view places like Kansas City, Omaha, Wichita, Des Moines, and even Tulsa much more positively than they do OKC. The only reason I can think of that OKC gets so much dislike from outsiders is A) the conservatism and B) the outdated perceptions that hail from the late 1980s/early 1990s.

I say this as a registered Democrat, but electing someone like Shadid will not change anything about how OKC is viewed just based on the fact he is a social progressive. Yes he's liberal, but he's also bumbling and poorly spoken and will likely just piss everyone off. At this point political affiliation doesn't matter. OKC (and Oklahoma) just need a politician who will be a good public face and won't ramble about Agenda 21, abortion, Obama, etc. The type of gov OKC is allows for the mayor to act as a consensus builder and ambassador, and it is here where Cornett shines, independent of his political persuasion.

Completely agree here. That's why I hope Cornett runs and will vote for him if he does. I am just saying that OKC really needs more outspoken social progressives to help dispel the myth that if you aren't a religious conservative extremist you can't make it here.

[Bunty]

Personally, without getting too political, I think its going to take Oklahoma County going blue on a Presidential election map or at least electing a social progressive to a high office. Like it or not, it's not popular in 2013 to be a Republican (and I lean Republican myself). I am not a fan of Shadid and won't vote for him, but the one thing I can say if he wins is having such a social progressive as mayor will help this city's image. In addition to that, it may just take more time. Stereotypes take a long time to develop and they usually last far beyond their truthfulness. Thoughts?

But in Oklahoma, never in history has it been so dang popular to go for the Republican agenda. Being pro God, pro gun and anti gay still highly crucial to get out the vote. So OKC is fortunate to still have at least a couple of state legislators, Democrats, who are at least somewhat on the progressive side and to name two of them: Sen. Connie Johnson and Sen. Al Maffrey.

[soonerguru]

For what it's worth, I'm pro-God and pro-Gay, pro-legalization of pot, and pro-gay marriage. So where does that put me?

To add to your post, we have a few more progressives besides the two you mentioned but I hear you loud and clear and agree 100%.

[soonerguru]

I say this as a registered Democrat, but electing someone like Shadid will not change anything about how OKC is viewed just based on the fact he is a social progressive. Yes he's liberal, but he's also bumbling and poorly spoken and will likely just piss everyone off.

I agree with your premise, but Shadid is not "liberal." I'm not even sure he would refer to himself as a "progressive" at this point. He straddles the line somewhere between social justice issues and extreme tea party views. It's hard to characterize his politics but he's far too anti-institutional to be classified as liberal.

[Bunty]

For what it's worth, I'm pro-God and pro-Gay, pro-legalization of pot, and pro-gay marriage. So where does that put me?

Well, out in front of the sloping foreheaded neanderthals at the State Capitol.

[zookeeper]

I agree with your premise, but Shadid is not "liberal." I'm not even sure he would refer to himself as a "progressive" at this point. He straddles the line somewhere between social justice issues and extreme tea party views. It's hard to characterize his politics but he's far too anti-institutional to be classified as liberal.

Has he changed a lot? He was very active in the Green Party and is, or was, buds with Ralph Nader.

[soonerliberal]

When it comes to politics, Oklahoma isn't going to be a bastion of progressive values anytime soon. However, logical conservatives like Mick Cornett who are not afraid to go on shows such as Real Time with Bill Maher and talk up our city help the reputation tremendously. Those who disagree with his politics still respect the fact that he's not Palin-esque - trying to out conservative everyone out there. I think the Wolf Blitzer episode demonstrates that many have a very specific perception of the state.

The image problems go waaaaaayyyyyyy beyond politics and in many areas it is improving dramatically. Thank you Thunder and MAPS.

[traxx]

I think OKC just needs to keep doing what they're doing. We're slowly changing perceptions and the living standard here. To constantly be worried about what others thinks of us reeks of being desperate. It makes OKC seem like the unpopular kid who changes who they are depending on who their talking to at the moment because of the intense desire to want to be liked and accepted. Don't worry about what everyone else thinks of OKC. If we cotinue on this path we're on, the rest will take care of itself.

As far as politically; OKC is OKC. If you want OKC to be like Boston then you best just move to Boston. Imagine if all our cities were a carbon copy of Seattle. Or San Francisco. Or NYC. Or any other bastion of liberalism. How boring would that be? The country needs different types of cities for different types of people. We're not all the same and never will be. Look at Dallas. It's still viewed as conservative but that doesn't seem to have slowed them down any. Not being viewed as liberal and/or progressive is not a death knell for a city.

[bchris02]

^^^Good points, traxx.

One thing I want to add though that I should have already mentioned is that I think if/when the liquor laws are ever changed that will help tremendously in improving the image of this city. If there is one area where the conservative mindset really has a huge impact on quality of life its this. Grown adults don't like being told they can't buy cold beer or buy it after 9PM. Other red states are far more liberal in that area than Oklahoma is.

[Just the facts]

This should help - not.

DreamWorks, Steven Spielberg Plan To Bring Back Tom Joad With New Version Of John Steinbeck's 'The Grapes Of Wrath' - Deadline.com

DreamWorks is in talks with the estate of author John Steinbeck to make a new version of The Grapes Of Wrath.

[HangryHippo]

This should help - not.

DreamWorks, Steven Spielberg Plan To Bring Back Tom Joad With New Version Of John Steinbeck's 'The Grapes Of Wrath' - Deadline.com

Oh for gods sake.

[soonerguru]

I think OKC just needs to keep doing what they're doing. We're slowly changing perceptions and the living standard here. To constantly be worried about what others thinks of us reeks of being desperate. It makes OKC seem like the unpopular kid who changes who they are depending on who their talking to at the moment because of the intense desire to want to be liked and accepted. Don't worry about what everyone else thinks of OKC. If we cotinue on this path we're on, the rest will take care of itself.

As far as politically; OKC is OKC. If you want OKC to be like Boston then you best just move to Boston. Imagine if all our cities were a carbon copy of Seattle. Or San Francisco. Or NYC. Or any other bastion of liberalism. How boring would that be? The country needs different types of cities for different types of people. We're not all the same and never will be. Look at Dallas. It's still viewed as conservative but that doesn't seem to have slowed them down any. Not being viewed as liberal and/or progressive is not a death knell for a city.

I largely agree with this. OKC has gotten more good press in the last five years than it seems it ever has in history. Cornett serving on the US Council of Mayors really helped us. He used the sounding board to get OKC good -- and even flattering -- attention. It seems like he views representing our image as one of his chief concerns, and I believe he's right. It's just not easy to find someone with the media skills to represent us as well as he has.

Even things some might say are gimmicky, like his "this city is going on a diet" did so much to improve our public image, and raise our city's profile.

Also, because he doesn't have to worry about constantly propping up his conservative bona fides, he has brought many progressive issues to fruition, without controversy. As a person in leadership among all US mayors, he has worked with many people who are far more liberal, but has built bridges with them. Last week, he had Ed Rendell in town to discuss investment in public infrastructure at a Chamber luncheon. I do believe Mick is conservative, but he is also very pragmatic (his is a more nuanced conservatism) and is not afraid to try something deemed "progressive" if he things it's a good idea for our city. That is what I want to see in an elected public official.

It may be a bit early to proclaim this, but Cornett is probably the best mayor we've had in my lifetime. He certainly is the right mayor at the right time.

[bradh]

I think the image problem is more centered around the state as a whole, not OKC. Oklahoma City's national image is greatly improved, and if we keep doing what we are doing it'll only improve even more.

[Snowman]

Yea, I remember in a similar discussion a while back someone arguing Tulsa was in a far better position than OKC but after looking at some of the responses to the Olympics in Tulsa it looks like there national image is not significantly different.

[adaniel]

Yea, I remember in a similar discussion a while back someone arguing Tulsa was in a far better position than OKC but after looking at some of the responses to the Olympics in Tulsa it looks like there national image is not significantly different.

Yeah, saw some of the comments on Deadspin and kind of cringed LOL.

[hoya]

Tulsa might be able to host the Olympics. In 2052 or so. It's not that Tulsa necessarily has a bad reputation, they're just out of their league here. It's like me saying I'm going to try to date Jessica Alba. Even if I'm only kind of goofy looking, she's out of my league.

[bchris02]

Yeah, saw some of the comments on Deadspin and kind of cringed LOL.

Here in Oklahoma, Tulsa frequently tries to assert itself as the cultural capital of the state. The fact cool retail, restaurants, and bars usually end up in Tulsa before OKC kind of backs up that perception. The reality though is outside of Oklahoma people love to hate both cities about equally. People don't associate Tulsa with an arts or hipster culture, they associate it with Oral Roberts.

[hoya]

Here in Oklahoma, Tulsa frequently tries to assert itself as the cultural capital of the state. The fact cool retail, restaurants, and bars usually end up in Tulsa before OKC kind of backs up that perception. The reality though is outside of Oklahoma people love to hate both cities about equally. People don't associate Tulsa with an arts or hipster culture, they associate it with Oral Roberts.

People don't love to hate either one unless you're in a surrounding state and rivalry issues come up. Get away from this area and people just don't think about either city at all. When I think Buffalo, NY, I think "cold". When I think Montpelier, VT, I think "that's the capital of Vermont". When I think Boise, ID, I think "potato". These are not really negative perceptions, it's just that I spend about zero minutes of my week thinking about them. The positive spin that OKC has been receiving just means when people here about us, they think "oh yeah I think they have a basketball team, guess they have a lot of oil companies".

[bchris02]

I think the one thing OKC is really lacking is a strong cultural/musical legacy or anything that makes it unique, and that stems simply from how OKC developed. Austin being the 'live music capital of the world' is one of the things that really helped it get the reputation it has. Memphis has the blues and Nashville has country. Dallas had the 1980s soap opera, Houston has the space program. Oklahoma City isn't really known for much except for tornadoes and the occasional right wing politician who says something embarrassing.

The one thing OKC does have which it should capitalize on more that is unique is the Native American heritage. That's why I believe it will be great for the city if/when the Native American cultural center opens.