Oklahoma City - Big League City? (Gore, Washington: crime, houses, unemployment)

[Howest2008]

Originally Posted by bchris02

That's interesting because Tulsa used to be the state's more liberal metro.

That was before OKC "woke up" and past the MAPS and (Core To Shore) Urban Renewal Taxs increase somewhere around 1993 to 1995, then doing what it takes to get themselves out of the gutter.

[Libsk]

Originally Posted by bchris02

YouTube - Oklahoma City - A Better Living, A Better Life

Agree or disagree? Is OKC ready to join ranks with the NYCs, LAs, and Dallas' of the nation?

i fixed it for ya; deleted Houston and added Dallas. And not yet, but OkC is doing great!

[bchris02]

Originally Posted by Libsk

i fixed it for ya; deleted Houston and added Dallas. And not yet, but OkC is doing great!

Agree. When I left OKC in 2001, it was more on the level of a Little Rock or Knoxville as far as things to do (not population). From everything I've seen, its changed so much for the better since then! It's great to see OKC catching up to what other cities its size offer. Plus, the economy there right now would be considered good even in good economic times nationally, let alone during a recession.

[Libsk]

Originally Posted by bchris02

Agree. When I left OKC in 2001, it was more on the level of a Little Rock or Knoxville as far as things to do (not population). From everything I've seen, its changed so much for the better since then! It's great to see OKC catching up to what other cities its size offer. Plus, the economy there right now would be considered good even in good economic times nationally, let alone during a recession.

I too think OkC is a city on the RISE. Good job you're doing there folks.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by MrIndependent

Fair enough. I still think to say OKC is nothing like Dallas is inaccurate (regardless of the obvious size difference). But opinions and perceptions differ from person to person. To me, OKC feels like a smaller, more "anglo" version of Dallas.

It's more accurate to say that OKC is like Fort Worth than it is Dallas. I don't really find many similarities between Dallas and OKC.

[o_4]

If okc had dallas's population it would be the exact same city. I have lived in both cities also kc and chicago. Okc, with its growth, is now more comparable in size to kc, memphis,sac,nashville,etc but as far as culture and the way the city moves you might as well call it little dallas.

[Howest2008]

Originally Posted by o_4

If okc had dallas's population it would be the exact same city. I have lived in both cities also kc and chicago. Okc, with its growth, is now more comparable in size to kc, memphis,sac,nashville,etc but as far as culture and the way the city moves you might as well call it little dallas.

Or little Fort Worth TX mainly because Dallas is much too Liberal to be a " big OKC "

[brajohns81]

Originally Posted by pw72

I am probably unique in that I lived in both Seattle and OKC. Seattle is borderline "world-class", and OKC is not even close. I understand why the new owner of the Sonics moved the team, (lack of political will and lack of taxpayer support to bail them out). but in the long run I truely believe it was a mistake. I would say that the liklihood the Thunder is still in OKC a decade from now is about 50-50. OKC is a nice, thriving, inexpensive city that may attract new companies and residents. And frankly, the climate is much better than Seattle (if you don't mind a few destructive tornadoes every now and then), but there is no comparison with Seattle among attributes of a major city. I understand this thread wasn't meant to be Seattle vs. OKC, but it was implied with the title, and the fact that is was placed in city vs. city. One big difference, Seattle is not crying as loud about a lack of an NBA franchise, as OKC is boasting about it. I think that says a lot.

Actually yes they are. The Thunder has been doing great in OKC, it isn't going anywhere. On top of that, Seattle isn't too good at sports anyway because it is such a liberal city.

[brajohns81]

Originally Posted by bchris02

The problem with Bible Belt conservatism is when the religious right gets political power, whether its city, state, or national they ALWAYS use it to be the moral police of their citizens and to stifle economic growth in the name of a good-ole-boy network. Consequently, though they think they are doing a good thing for families and quality of life, what they are really doing is driving away the creative class, intellectuals, young people, etc which causes a given conservative city/state to not have the kind of amenities truly "big league" cities have, greatly lowering the quality of life for those who don't subscribe to the area's dominant faith. The best cities in the country always lean left on social issues.

And about forcing your view on people, you may not do it directly but if you vote for people who want to legislate their religious values it makes you just as guilty as those churches standing on the street corner with hateful picket signs. As long as people like Sally Kern are in power over OKC it will never be "big league" in my book.

Oh yes, because liberalism has done so great for Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, etc. Those cities have moved down substantially in the last 50 years while conservative OKC has moved up. LA is not too far off from falling down that way if they don't stop giving the city away to illegal aliens.

[dvxhd]

Originally Posted by brajohns81

Oh yes, because liberalism has done so great for Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore, Cleveland, etc. Those cities have moved down substantially in the last 50 years while conservative OKC has moved up. LA is not too far off from falling down that way if they don't stop giving the city away to illegal aliens.

That's not skewed at all...

You left off liberal strongholds like New York (with an economy larger than all but a handful of countries,) Boston (which has maintained a low unemployment rate through this recession,) Atlanta (which has boomed into an Alpha city,) Washington (with a dynamic, fast-changing city scene) and others.

You also left off conservative cities like Phoenix (where home values are still far below their peak, and will stay for some time,) Birmingham (which saw its last population increase in the 1960 census,) Salt Lake City (which has fewer than 5,000 more residents than it did in 1950,) Pittsburgh (which, like Detroit, invested too heavily in one industry and is paying for it now) and others.

What's more important to cities than being liberal or conservative is how they are run. Whether you want to admit it or not, the bulk of Oklahoma City's growth is internal (i.e. births or people moving from other parts of Oklahoma.) If Oklahoma City were "moving up" then I would think they would improve the quality of roads and infrastructure, and do more to attract and retain out-of-state residents. North Dakota is facing a similar problem: low unemployment rate and an influx of workers who go where the work is, but might leave when economic conditions improve. When the economy recovers and the smoke clears (and people stop using illegal immigrants as economic scapegoats the way Hitler did to the Jews,) it's possible that not everyone who moved here for work will stay, especially if they were used to having certain standards Oklahoma City won't meet in their lifetimes.