Re: Some negative observations on OKC (warning: negative)
In Oklahoma, it's hard to have anything good that's free and public, because of people complaining it shouldn't be free, because they are not interested in participating in it. So their tax dollars shouldn't be spent in such ways. And we do have some municipal gulf courses in some towns in Oklahoma, but they tend to lose money with people who don't play golf complaining they should be sold to the private sector.Originally Posted by Spartan
Re: Some negative observations on OKC (warning: negative)
This is utterly the most ignorant and one of the more offensive things I have ever read. I also find that you make some pretty half-assed assertions about who I am, but I don't even care enough to actually inform you what my political ideology is. I just find it offensive that you've made an assumption that's actually pretty far from the truth. But where to begin...
Have you ever been to OKC actually? I think that there are some realities you're not aware of, or are oblivious to. I don't know if you live in OKC, the Bay Area, or elsewhere, or what area of OKC you are most familiar with, but the questions and assertions you've made are pretty far off, which do seem to suggest a relatively low familiarity with actual OKC, and not just the person you're making indignant responses toward (which can go both ways, evidently).
"One, doesn't the traffic in the area or landmark you reference add to the enhancement of the shot? Two, unless it was located on a highway, there's usually a break in traffic that would allow you to capture the shot."
Um, wow. Yes, traffic, whether cars or people, is actually very desirable to me in my photos. This is well-documented and you can see that if you saw some of my photo threads. Some people like to get out of the way of people, I like to wait until people get in my way...it creates an impression that a scene is active. What I'm referring to is the inner south side where traffic counts are really high and there is no break that you can get out in. Also, you overlook the obvious here: THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS IN OKC. OKC DOES NOT HAVE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PEOPLE ON THE STREETS. Hence, it is very dangerous, and completely impossible to safely get a shot, or even down the street. People get ran over on the streets of OKC every week and it is very sad.
"but I would ask you -- do you really feel that an obscure sport that not one person from Oklahoma has been recognized for in the short history of our state should garner the majority of attention of our public parks? Is there a problem with you actually joining a dedicated club or location that excels in the type of environment that you are looking for? "
Obscure sport? I don't know if you're aware, but there is an obesity epidemic in America, and OKC is at the epicenter of it, winning the dubious designation of being the most fast food addicted city in America 3 of the last 4 years. Also, tennis is not an obscure sport. Maybe lacrosse. Maybe badminton. Calling tennis obscure is like calling running obscure. You would be surprised at the number of people who have that hobby, or try to at least. Furthermore, I'm frequently in and out of OKC. Obviously you don't really know that about me, but I normally go to school uh, out of state, and come home for holidays and summers. So why would I join an OKC club? What about people who are just in OKC for a few months? And furthermore, why should you have to have a certain income level or be a part of a well-off family to have access to tennis? I'd argue that it should be a public right for someone to have access to usable, decent public parks.
"In your post, you mention that courteous, gracious and genuine people offered you to play with them or share their court, yet your need to 'own' something or desire to completely disregard the whole idea of a public park and think that you're so enlightened that you should have the courts to yourself? You essentially said that people were more than gracious to you, but your belief in the fact that you should have your own court overrode your understanding of the definition of 'public facility'."
Wow. You completely overlooked the point I mentioned (if you must nitpick like this) that the person's husband showed signs of being clearly less than thrilled with the idea that she proposed, and I didn't want to intrude on him (who clearly wanted to just hit with his wife) or have anything be awkward. I actually share courts with little children all the time, some whom could use some help with their swing or other technique. I don't see where you actually ever address the fact that OKC's parks are lacking, besides you're defensiveness to the idea of the public realm, which I hate to break it to you, but OKC already has a public realm and public services. Why not make them usable and passable if we taxpayers are using them?
"You sat in your car pining for something 'fresh and healthy' and the names, "Cool Greens", "Nihnja" and several other healthy businesses never crossed your mind?! I mean, I've read your praises on here about being so "forward thinking", did you never consider Googling or using a Y! Search app on your smartphone to find out what healthy restaurants might be around you? I mean for such a 'forward thinking' guy, you seem to be locked into a Yellow Pages mentality. Healthy restaurants complete with reviews and distances are just an iPhone app away..."
Trust me, I know where things in OKC are. How do I have a Yellow Pages mentality?? Do you even know who I am? I don't mean to sound presumptuous, but if you gave someone a test on where businesses/developments/streets are, I'd probably score the highest in the entire city. I'm not like the rain man of OKC development like metro, but I have followed this as close as anyone for 6-7 years now. I'm also privy to a fair amount of development deals that a lot of people aren't, so I have no choice but to scoff at you suggesting I'm not familiar enough with OKC. And by the way, Cool Greens is on Memorial. OKC ends at 63rd for me, I reside (in OKC) around SW 134th and May. Cool Greens is coming downtown (possibly in City Place), but that's not even a done deal yet.
"If you're so worried about the commercialization of "Farmer's Markets", here's an idea -- grow your own in your backyard. I mean, I've lived in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle and I can tell you -- I can grow the same carrots, cucumbers and tomatoes that a subsidized farmer can grow, and I don't even have to use fossil fuels to go get them. If you want to play 'enlightened, above it all, elitist', at least be willing to offer a solution instead of a whiny "this city doesn't cater to my needs" eco-terrorist."
You're implying a lot of things that are politically charged, not to mention offensive. Eco-terrorist? Wow. I would question if you've really lived all over the West Coast with your mentality, and I don't think that's much of a stretch. You certainly do seem to represent a very abrasive, extremist political ideology, and I'd say that's a fairly safe point. I agree that being able to grow stuff is awesome. I don't see where you address my point in any way about the lack of farmer's markets that are decent. There is a farmer's market every day on Kungsholmen in front of the Koncerthusen in Stockholm, and the blueberries and raspberries I bought were absolutely yummy and made me feel better about how cold and snowy it is here. And yes, it's winter. Like I said, they have these things elsewhere.
"The fact that you spent an entire day in your SUV was your complete lack of vision, not the shortcomings of the city. Is the city spread out? Absolutely. The reality is, short of about 12 major metropolitans, most towns and cities don't have the Utopian tree hugger layouts and public transportation solutions that the granola's think they're entitled to, but never can offer a solution to make happen. You don't get to have it both ways; you don't get to slag the city that offers a great future to talk about another city that you're being 'liberated' to."
I don't know what the hell you're talking about here. The city that offers a great future is...OKC? Is that OKC's nickname or something? Is that a phenomenon unique to OKC? Does OKC offer a great future? Also, that's not true that there are 12 metros that would meet my standards. Sidewalks and tennis courts, a good start, are almost universal everywhere else. It's not a revelation that OKC's infrastructure discourages active lifestyles compared to other cities. It's not a revelation that OKC is dangerous for pedestrians and has crappy parks. Also, but "Utopian tree hugger layouts" you mean....well-planned cities? I'm sorry that you are so opposed to planning, which is ironic, because it's not really an intrusive institution, but I guess for some people who are so politically passionate, perhaps city planning does work best when you don't notice it at work! (But I would argue people should be involved.) Also, what do you mean by not proposing solutions? I do nothing but propose solutions. I have been up and down City Hall countless times, I have written countless articles, I have a well-respected blog in town, I have met many of the movers and shakers, and you're right that I'm decently respected by the people I care about. What is a solution to you? Ironic coming from such a negative message.
"If a 'crappy built environment, unsafe streets, decent weather and absolutely pathetic green spaces with virtually zero healthy eating options' is the benchmark of your preferred city, might I suggest visiting the city in your mind. I don't know your age, but your continual whining about 'green' this, and 'healthy living' that, says that you've read one too many books about what the 'proper' living conditions should be. "
Arrgh, damn those books, isn't it annoying when people read? LOL, but anyway..I don't know what you're talking. I don't see where you're addressing anything in my post, or posts, or anything OKC-specific. The person you are railing against does not seem to be me. Continually whining about my continual whining? Ooookay. You seem to be enraged by some ideology that you are addressing, and you seem to be releasing lots of pent-up emotions, perhaps from living on the west coast. I would even encourage you to get to know some Okie urbanists, and you might see that we're not that bad. We're actually, you know, good people, worthy of mutual respect...like a uh human being. I guess I am sort of becoming more and more liberal as I get older, but I was once further to the right than Attila the Hun. I guess everyone becomes kind of moderate as they mature. Some things are just reality, you know.
As for the city in my mind, that is none other than OKC, always will be.
"I'll guarantee that I've experienced a life much broader than a throwaway city in Canada, and if you think that your prayers will be answered by heading north to free healthcare and 'greener' living, you're sorely mistaken."
Health care? I don't see where I mention anything about that whole matter. Red herring? Or some more insidious intent? Damn.
"The way I see it, is that you're a victim of 'short timers disease' -- you think you're enlightened because you've got a ticket out of here so you now get to sit back and say the most negative things that you've held in your head -- because now, you don't skin in the game. You're a short timer -- it's only a short time until you get to live in your land of Utopia so this is the best time to release all of your small barbs that are basically saying, "Look at what you don't have" while subtly saying, "I'm more enlightened than you, because I'm going to a place that is more forward thinking than OKC.""
Um...coming from someone who's practically bragging everywhere about living in LA, SF, Seattle, et al? Um...
"Good luck on your adventure, but I think if you really look inside of yourself 4-months into your 'kick butt, forward thinking, eco-friendly' paradise that you're portraying, you'll find that when it comes to the things THAT REALLY MATTER (raising a family, cost of living, etc.) you'll drop the rose colored tree hugger glasses you seem to have purchased and see the world for what it really is."
Man, chill. Holy crap. By the way, those are not the things that really matter in life. How cheap things are, and conforming to the stereotypical American family? Some people don't want a family, what's wrong with that? What does cheapness have to do with what matters in life? Again I don't see where you address anything substantive in my post with something that is also on the same level. Also, nowhere is paradise, and even though I realize you're using that term rather uh...in my face, I might suggest you be more willing to even accept that someone else might ask the tough questions you clearly are not.
By the way, if cheapness really mattered, why are we borrowing so much from China and causing the dollar to be absolutely worthless in Europe? The Kronor has literally jumped 25% in the last few months against the dollar and the Euro is even making gains despite what an idiotic nightmare that whole setup has proved to be as all the loose ends in Europe unravel. Oh yeah, it's because we're a nation addicted to debt because we gotta mortgage the sprawl and the wars... I mean holy crap, Sweden would actually be a decently affordable country if it weren't for the worthlessness of the dollar which will soon be equal to the Peso probably.
Re: Some negative observations on OKC (warning: negative)
Golf is hardly athletic compared to tennis (perhaps compared to sitting and watching TV though), and we do have a ton of public golf courses that you can play with a group or by yourself. So it's interesting that even golf is much more publicly accessible than tennis, which probably has more players. Actually, despite the small fee for a round of golf at a public course, the city still loses more on that than it would if it provided decent tennis courts. A golf course is obviously much much larger than a tennis court.
But you bring up an interesting point, Bunty. It's interesting for me because I'm sure you brought it up knowing where I stand on golf course privatization. It's not because I don't play golf either, because I do, I just don't see it as something that can help Oklahoma. Plus Oklahoma is literally bloated with golf options. Kids aren't going to grow up playing golf like many do playing tennis. It's not going to be the cornerstone of a healthy lifestyle because tons of fat guys still play golf, obviously, and do so without breaking a sweat actually. Golf is also not really something that you're going to do depending on how available it is and if you can just grab a racket and walk over to the park in your neighborhood. And then you're not just building a healthy body, but also a healthy neighborhood. So that's a public asset that's truly coming full-circle in that respect.
Re: Some negative observations on OKC (warning: negative)
Spartan, calm down. Please. I strongly suspect you have no idea how your post came across and if you did, you'd the the first person to say that wasn't what you meant. I think you are being a bit hard on people who were a bit put off and said so. Right now, it seems like you are feeling picked on but some of the nicest people who responded to you also suggested you sounded like you were having a bad day. Going on the attack might make you feel better but I have to tell you, it makes it sound less like you had a pity party day, originally, and more like you just are spoiled. I don't think you are necessarily spoiled - I think you believe as a matter of philosophy that a city is supposed to cater to its citizens' entertainment, welfare or whatever. A lot of people feel that way and it is a great attitude to motivate changing things in that direction. I think where you lost some people was more the tone and the sitting in the car because you had nothing good to do on such a gorgeous day. That was a day to rave about, even if all you did was sit of the ground and stare at the clouds.
Participating Member
Re: Some negative observations on OKC (warning: negative)
That's so true, Penny. Or, another - what happened to being entertained by sitting in a park and becoming absorbed in a good novel? I think there is a little bit of a generational thing going on here. Young people today seem to need constant stimulation and many look for things to entertain them rather than find entertainment - two entirely different things. I think Nick had a bad day and maybe is really conflicted right now and hence, that last post. But deep down, I think he's a good person who has a bright future. It's a difficult age anyway, but Nick wants to hurry up and "be there" rather than enjoying the journey.
Re: Some negative observations on OKC (warning: negative)
I think he is a good person, too. And it sure is a difficult age. I hope when it is all said and done, he comes back. But I hope more that he finds a place he really, really, really loves, even if it isn't our beloved OKC. Loving (and being in love with) your home is a blessing.
Participating Member
Re: Some negative observations on OKC (warning: negative)
I'm a lurker who has followed this board for years but never really posted. Familiar enough with the posters that I had actually placed Spartan on ignore, because I was annoyed with the self righteous sense of entitlement and "I'm so enlightened because I love Europe!" braggadocio oozing from each of his posts. So I clicked on this thread, only following what Spartan had said through quotes from other posters. Although I think BayAreaOkie goes to the jugular once too much, I don't disagree with the premise of his post.
It is only self absorbed ignorance to suggest that Oklahoma City, which is 125 years old, should have the density and character of ANY European city that has had centuries if not thousands of years to build a rut of an infrastructure. Stockholm Sweden has had alot of time to rework its concept of urbanity, and decide that year round tennis courts provided by the public is a necessary good. That is so far down on the list of governance that such a concept could only occur to a city that has had GENERATIONS to work out the more important civic priorities and infrastructure.
Comparing OKC to any city in the United States that achieved its "critical mass" of downtown population before the invention of the automobile is foolish. OKC is a late comer, and as such, does not have the benefits of the "ideal urbanity" bestowed upon cities formed before, say, 1850. The reason why all these European and colonial US cities are so walkable and eclectic and energetic is because, at one time, they HAD to be. It wasn't because of enlightened city planning, an anachronistic term shoved backwards through time to describe politicians and bureaucrats who would have no understanding of the concept. You walked to work because...how else would you get there? You built office buildings right next to each other because it was easier to get from one to the other. If you were lucky, you rode a horse and buggy for a couple of miles. Sidewalks were a necessity of daily travel, not a luxury for hip 20 somethings looking for a free tennis court that matches their peculiar tastes conveniently within walking distance of an organic fruit stand. With the dense infrastructure in place, its easy for later generations to rework it for their own use and, for lack of a better term, amusement (ie, "night life").
In other words, the vibrant downtowns and practical community parks were created ORGANICALLY, by the technological and thus geographic limitations of their time. There was no noble motive of enlightened urbanism on city planners living centuries ago. Just as there was no inherently ignoble motive of practical city planners living decades ago that led to urban sprawl, in an era of cheap cars, cheap oil, and cheap land. In addition, Thomas Jefferson's Land Ordinance plan completely reshaped the way Western towns would be structured, and mitigated the idea of the "city square", which encouraged consistent stream of daily migration to one part of the city--work, commerce, and church, centered within walking distance. European and colonial American cities are like hearts, with veins and arteries leading up to the city square. Western American cities--with a few exceptions--are literally square mile grids on a map, which led to flattened ownership of acreage and a greater distance between points A and B.
OKC and Tulsa are unfortunate insofar as they were built during the explosion of the car culture, which in turn structured the density (or lack thereof) and character of our cities. If OKC and Tulsa were built in the 1840s, we might have more walkable streets and exciting downtowns of condos and San Fransisco style townhouses and public parks and respectable downtown schools. But they aren't that old, and thus we don't have the ORGANIC infrastructure for it. Cities aren't built in a day, and it takes generations to filter through the options--vis a vis infrastructure and efficient land usage. With this in mind, it should be obvious that what we are trying to do in OKC and Tulsa is MANUFACTURE density. We are trying to create what older cities inherited through time of origin. With this understanding, one should have much more patience in dealing with the reality of turning the tide of our organic creation--which we don't like (car culture inspired urban sprawl), in favor of an inorganic future--which we do want (walkable cities and a sense of urban "community").
I hope we have more sidewalks, classic storefronts with parking lots hidden from the street, streetcar and light rail for the entire metro area, and greater ease of access to a variety of activities in a relatively dense location--but it must be manufactured in a way that is, essentially, new to the history of urbanism. Most cities are formed by the needs of the people and the capabilities of the technology--which is why most cities were built on rivers. Intentionally trying to retrofit OKC's dull urbanness for a new urbanness is possible, but not easy, and most importantly--it isn't natural. And even then, OKC has a small ceiling it can reach--we don't have the generations of history that other cities have, we don't have mountains or coasts to draw those wanting scenic views, we aren't located near another country for trade benefits or stopovers by international travelers. Our ceiling is Indianapolis. Kansas City. Austin. That doesn't mean some creativity and planning won't go along way to make our city a great city, but--again--there are limitations as to what we can offer. What we can be will have to be MADE, not inherited, whether from generations or geography.
Acceptance of this reality should be so obvious that is jarring when people assume differently, and come across completely ignorant of history. It's tantrum throwing and hilariously immature when someone expects a free (not pay to play, but free as in tax payer supported) tennis court (an obscure dying sport in this day and age) in Oklahoma City (a historical victim of car culture that prefers lake activities over park activities) in January (when whatever outdoor tennis structure facilities that might exist are closed down for the season). I play racquetball, and I know I have to get a membership, somewhere, in order to play it (like the YMCA, which is what most normal hobbyists do--fund their own activities and don't expect others' taxes to cover it). Whoopty doo. I also know that if I want fruit after a work out, I'm going to have to plan for it, buy some at the grocery store, put it in a mini-cooler bag, and take it with me to the gym--like most sane grown ups living west of the Mississippi. If you don't plan for this, you're intentionally planning to have a bad day--probably so you can brag about your disgust in some pretentious act of cyber-martyrdom, threatening us with a Seattle rapture for not believing in the sacred wisdom of Swedish civil governance. Good riddance, we need practical problem solvers to deal with the reality of OKC as it is, not people ignorant of history and economics.
There are big ideas, new ideas, for parks, universities, skyscrapers, monuments, statues, transportation options, that can transform our city and help it leapfrog larger and established cities. Retrofitting OKC into a millenia old European city isn't one of them.
Re: Some negative observations on OKC (warning: negative)
Penny:
I didn't have a bad day. I've had a great week, although it's been interesting. I actually wasn't even in a bad mood when I wrote my last post. You guys should actually read the drivel I was responding to instead of just letting my response characterize me. In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have even justified it with a response because of how uninformed and ignorant the person was, but I felt compelled at the moment to correct a few points lest someone else pick it up and run with the idea that I'm some tree-hugging granola-type and attach that to everything I say. I just respond to people in-kind, and I feel like I adequately satisfied that post with the kind of response it was deserving of, and then I completely moved on to address a good point brought up by Bunty.
I'm the last person to take it personally if someone starts childishly calling names or saying really foolish things, like BayAreaOkie was...I mean lord knows, on this site just in the process of being who I am has certainly led to a fair amount of criticism, and I get a whole inbox full of ridiculous attacks and threats. I even get attacking blog comments all the time. I don't think anyone can say that I have an anger problem or that I take things personally, especially from ridiculous anonymous internet figures. Maybe when I first got on here like 7 years ago I took things personally...
Now I do think some of you all have gotten caught up in a tangent in this thread, in directions that I didn't even go. I do think perhaps some of you are frustrated over back-and-forth with other posters in this thread.
Sid, I just don't think OKC ever gets there (because "the journey" must lead somewhere) unless people start asking questions and facing realities, and there is a reality when it comes to OKC parks and sidewalks. There's a reality when it comes to healthy lifestyles in OKC. It's not a reality that any of us should be accepting of, and certainly not defensive about. Save the defensiveness for people from outside, it shouldn't be something that enters our own dialogue and prevents us from having useful discussions that lead to improvements. That's my feel on the problem at least, that locals talking to each other should have free reign to be as critical as needed. Yes, I get annoyed myself when some people that I know who are predisposed to hate OKC are constantly critical, and I assure you all, there are people out there who see me as just constantly blowing smoke up people and pumping sunshine about OKC all day long. There's an appropriate place for every method of conveying ideas.
And thanks Sid. I see you as someone for us all to look up for, who has so quickly assumed roles of leadership within the community and is putting good ideas to use. Keep up the good work man.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks