You know OKC development is slow when we are discussing freeway signage, wow....
You know OKC development is slow when we are discussing freeway signage, wow....
Continue the Renaissance!!!
That sounds right. As I explained in my post earlier, Texas has switched to doing control cities like most other states rather than simply pointing to the next sizable town whether its important or not. My guess is the newer signage in DFW, in Clearview font, shows Denton and Oklahoma City as the control cities while the old signage shows only Denton.
In St. Louis, the signs on I-44 West reference Tulsa. I always thought this was weird - it should have been Oklahoma City or maybe Springfield.
I was recently in St. Louis. The signs on I-44 show Tulsa, on I-55 show Chicago/Memphis, on I-70 show Kansas City/Indianapolis and I-64 show Louisville. No small cities. Though in Tulsa I-44 shows Joplin instead of St Louis. That would be like having Ardmore instead of Dallas on the I-35 signs in OKC.
I-40 with Amarillo/Ft Smith, I-35 with Dallas/Wichita and I-44 with Lawton/Tulsa all make sense to me. Or be like Chicago and have the signs just show Texas, Kansas or Arkansas (their signs north and eastbound show Wisconsin and Indiana).
while that doesn't mean development in OKC is slow because we're discussing freeway signage. They were discussing freeway signs in the Dallas forum earlier this year, and development isn't slow in Dallas.
I agree with Bcrhis though, there has been some sh*tty news lately.
Tulsa is probably the right choice being that its a prominent urban area and the next one you'll hit if you leave St. Louis on I-44 westbound. Springfield is pretty much just an excuse to stop for gas and Mickey D's on your way to somewhere else. Branson is the real destination in that part of Missouri. I do believe the signs in St. Louis point to Tulsa but along most of that stretch Springfield is the control city followed by Joplin going westbound.
I'm not sure what sh*tty news you are referring to. The boulevard?
Seems to me like there's progress all over downtown.
BLVD, Producers Coop, AICC, NIMBY's idiots trying to stop awesome developments like Guyutes, and not to mention the capitol pretty much countering everything nice we try to do for ourselves in Oklahoma. The tower news on Reno and Walker seemed to fizzle. The Stage Center Tower will likely be small.
It isn't all that bad and I mainly hate the news about the COOP, that really sucks. There is a lot going on and obviously the population stats are good news. I don't know... just seems like a slew of bad news has come out lately. Doesn't mean development is slowing down, just some big hampers in development to overcome now.
Do you know how many real estate deals and other projects fall through in other cities?
With the exception of the AICC nothing you mentioned is any more than just the normal churn of proposals and developments.
The title of this discussion thread is: "Population Growth for OKC".
Where is it written that a simple increase in population is a good thing? (or vice-versa)
At some point doesn't the quality of life, for "the pre-survey population" suffer?
At least without a firm commitment to a real, non-partisan, viable vision for the future--one that isn't centered, simply, on how much [imaginary] money can be gleaned from uncontrolled "de-velopment" (and sprawl/etc.)? (vis-a-vis Population Growth without proper infrastructure maintenance and improvements) . . ?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there was ever an announcement of a possible tower at Reno and Walker? The poster of the same name said that there would be "bigs news for Reno and Walker", but then he followed that up with "see you all in the funny papers". So FWIW, I don't think that post was meant as legitimate news.
Agreed. Perhaps I misread the actual Subject implied by the Title. Perhaps "Population Growth" didn't refer to more People, rather, it referred to Growth within the existing Population. (e.g.--for example--a general agreement to stop watering pet lawns, walk more and/or ride bicycles or buses. =)
In other words . . . Growth Within the Existing Population is Preferable to More People With and/or For No Reason At All.
(well . . . ain't it? =)
p.s. There are few things more Debbie Downerish than a Fizzling Tower. Especially a Fizziling Mystery Tower. =)
Isn't there a main and Hudson tower in the horizon? Pretty sure Steve said talks are pretty hot right now for that development.
That is being heavily rumored.
I came here to read about population growth...
In case anyone is curious, OKC ranks 7th in population growth compared to the top 50 largest cities.
#OKC Boxscore for Monday, May 26, 2014 | News OK
Oklahoma City makes the top 10 in a new list of the fastest-growing large American cities. According to U.S. Census estimates, Oklahoma City added 10,934 residents between July 2012 and July 2013. The growth rate was 1.8 percent, good for seventh on the list. Seattle’s growth rate tops the list of large cities:
•Seattle: 2.8 percent
•Denver: 2.4 percent
•Charlotte, N.C.: 2.4 percent
•Austin, Texas: 2.4 percent
•Washington, D.C.: 2.1 percent
•Fort Worth, Texas: 1.9 percent
•Oklahoma City: 1.8 percent
•San Antonio: 1.8 percent
•Phoenix: 1.7 percent
•San Jose, Calif.: 1.6 percent
In the Oklahoma City metro area, Norman was the fastest-growing suburb, ranking first in Oklahoma and 20th nationally among cities with 100,000 or more residents with a growth rate of 2.2 percent. Norman added an estimated 2,554 residents to reach a population of 118,197. The nation’s fastest-growing city was Frisco, Texas, north of Dallas. Frisco grew 6.5 percent in a year.
There are currently 14 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 14 guests)
Bookmarks