Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OKC shopping is completely dominated by Wal-Mart and Sam's Club. There's no Costco and there are only a few decent non-Wal-Mart grocery stores in the metro and they are mostly on the suburban fringes. There's still no full-sized downtown grocery store and not even a downtown pharmacy i.e. CVS. There are no modern, upscale mixed-use lifestyle centers in OKC either (there have been some proposed but they all are held-up indefinitely by NIMBYs). Even places like Little Rock and Wichita have better retail than OKC, which is still stuck in the 1980s strip mall era.
Slow down here. I was with you for pointing out that people seem to be overstating Little Rock and it's offerings. I was with you saying that most similarly-sized metros have similar problems...
Where I'll disagree, and only because you brought it up, is that Richmond is in the category of cities with sprawling growth, crumbling infrastructure, or any other measures of poor growth. I won't speak on OKC, not as familiar, but Richmond is definitely set apart from Memphis, Birmingham, and Virginia Beach-Norfolk. Easily; if not in a different tier completely, it is on the complete opposite side of said tier...
Nashville was probably closer to this tier at the turn of the decade, but it has really distanced itself. Still, within the OKC weight class, Richmond, Raleigh, and Louisville are all separating from the pack and have been doing so for several years. There are distinct differences between those three cities, from economic, growth, and health perspectives, than from the other cities in its group, including cities you didn't name. Tulsa seems to be working it's way towards the tier of Birmingham/Memphis/Virginia Beach/OKC, while Richmond and Raleigh are right there with Louisville working their ways out of that class...
I also think Richmond compares very favorably to cities like New Orleans and Milwaukee. Within the last year we've had discussions on here discussing those cities and while popular opinion has yet to catch up, there is little actual data or proof otherwise to suggest Richmond is too far behind those cities, if even at all...
I don't want to turn this into a Richmond thing, just wanted to point out your perspective on Richmond may need updating. Otherwise, I definitely agree that it's very odd how Little Rock has a bloated reputation on this forum...
I put Nashville in there because, while the population has boomed, the MSA is still somewhat comparable and can be used as fairly definitive example of what a jump from this tier looks like. I would definitely put it at the top of this class and towards the middle or bottom of the next (2 million+)
But I was just in Richmond twice last year and it is certainly toward the top of similar cities, and of course it's downtown and historical neighborhoods are wonderfully urban and walkable. I especially enjoyed around VCU and Carytown.
But there are run down parts of the city with terrible infrastructure for sure. And from what I saw outside of the core of the city the neighborhoods were all suburban sprawl. Not knocks specifically on Richmond, like I said, every city around this size has those bad aspects of cities. I'm not saying OKC is better in any of this aspects and I would say it's worse compared to Richmond specifically. I just wanted to point out that common bad aspects of all cities can't be the only thing used to rank a city lower than its peers. Specific problems and areas of excellence should be used as the reasons.
OKC shopping is completely dominated by Wal-Mart and Sam's Club. There's no Costco and there are only a few decent non-Wal-Mart grocery stores in the metro and they are mostly on the suburban fringes. There's still no full-sized downtown grocery store and not even a downtown pharmacy i.e. CVS. There are no modern, upscale mixed-use lifestyle centers in OKC either (there have been some proposed but they all are held-up indefinitely by NIMBYs). Even places like Little Rock and Wichita have better retail than OKC, which is still stuck in the 1980s strip mall era.
Classen Curve is a modern, upscale lifestyle center. Downtown OKC has Native Roots Market, while Tulsa doesn't even have a downtown market yet. There's a Walgreens at St. Anthony and Medicine Cabinet Pharmacy there in the heart of the CBD. I don't see why Walmart should be excluded because it is decent grocery shopping. Other than the Neighborhood Market and Homeland, there's Chinatown Supermarket and Cao Nguyen, and Crest, Winco, Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Uptown, Sprouts, Natural Grocers, GreenAcres, all not far, not "the suburban fringes". With groceries now aside, Little Rock and Wichita still don't have "better" retail.
I put Nashville in there because, while the population has boomed, the MSA is still somewhat comparable and can be used as fairly definitive example of what a jump from this tier looks like. I would definitely put it at the top of this class and towards the middle or bottom of the next (2 million+)
But I was just in Richmond twice last year and it is certainly toward the top of similar cities, and of course it's downtown and historical neighborhoods are wonderfully urban and walkable. I especially enjoyed around VCU and Carytown.
But there are run down parts of the city with terrible infrastructure for sure. And from what I saw outside of the core of the city the neighborhoods were all suburban sprawl. Not knocks specifically on Richmond, like I said, every city around this size has those bad aspects of cities. I'm not saying OKC is better in any of this aspects and I would say it's worse compared to Richmond specifically. I just wanted to point out that common bad aspects of all cities can't be the only thing used to rank a city lower than its peers. Specific problems and areas of excellence should be used as the reasons.
I haven't been to Richmond but I've streetviewed it and honestly, OKC doesn't even come close. One reason I think OKC fights at the very bottom of that tier is because it's by far the least urban. Even Memphis and Birmingham, while they are by no means urban utopias, beat out OKC.
I would personally rank the 1-1.5 million tier like this. I'm not ranking Buffalo, Rochester, Grand Rapids, and Hartford simply because I am not familiar enough with them to do it properly.
Raleigh
Louisville
Richmond
Salt Lake City
Tucson
New Orleans
Memphis
Jacksonville
Birmingham
Oklahoma City
Quote:
Originally Posted by KayneMo
Classen Curve is a modern, upscale lifestyle center. Downtown OKC has Native Roots Market, while Tulsa doesn't even have a downtown market yet. There's a Walgreens at St. Anthony and Medicine Cabinet Pharmacy there in the heart of the CBD. I don't see why Walmart should be excluded because it is decent grocery shopping. Other than the Neighborhood Market and Homeland, there's Chinatown Supermarket and Cao Nguyen, and Crest, Winco, Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Uptown, Sprouts, Natural Grocers, GreenAcres, all not far, not "the suburban fringes". With groceries now aside, Little Rock and Wichita still don't have "better" retail.
I disagree with most of this. The key piece of Classen Curve is currently being blocked by NIMBYs and will likely not be built. It's a shame because there were numerous new-to-market retailers that were involved in it. There were other proposed upscale lifestyle centers in Edmond and north of Quail Springs Mall that were also killed by NIMBYs. As for groceries, Wal-Mart is NOT decent grocery shopping when you've lived in a city that has real grocery stores like Kroger, H-E-B, or even Reasor's up in Tulsa. I also wouldn't consider a 15-20 minute drive from downtown to be "not far."
I think OKC is improving and can grow into its own but it's still 5-10 years away.
I haven't been to Richmond but I've streetviewed it and honestly, OKC doesn't even come close. One reason I think OKC fights at the very bottom of that tier is because it's by far the least urban. Even Memphis and Birmingham, while they are by no means urban utopias, beat out OKC.
I would personally rank the 1-1.5 million tier like this. I'm not ranking Buffalo, Rochester, Grand Rapids, and Hartford simply because I am not familiar enough with them to do it properly.
Raleigh
Louisville
Richmond
Salt Lake City
Tucson
New Orleans
Memphis
Jacksonville
Birmingham
Oklahoma City
What is your basis for tiering? Urbanity alone?
Quote:
I disagree with most of this. The key piece of Classen Curve is currently being blocked by NIMBYs and will likely not be built. It's a shame because there were numerous new-to-market retailers that were involved in it. There were other proposed upscale lifestyle centers in Edmond and north of Quail Springs Mall that were also killed by NIMBYs. As for groceries, Wal-Mart is NOT decent grocery shopping when you've lived in a city that has real grocery stores like Kroger, H-E-B, or even Reasor's up in Tulsa. I also wouldn't consider a 15-20 minute drive from downtown to be "not far."
I think OKC is improving and can grow into its own but it's still 5-10 years away.
Well Wal-Mart must be doing something right to now be the #1 organic grocer in the country.
I haven't been to Richmond but I've streetviewed it and honestly, OKC doesn't even come close. One reason I think OKC fights at the very bottom of that tier is because it's by far the least urban. Even Memphis and Birmingham, while they are by no means urban utopias, beat out OKC.
I would personally rank the 1-1.5 million tier like this. I'm not ranking Buffalo, Rochester, Grand Rapids, and Hartford simply because I am not familiar enough with them to do it properly.
Raleigh
Louisville
Richmond
Salt Lake City
Tucson
New Orleans
Memphis
Jacksonville
Birmingham
Oklahoma City
I disagree with most of this. The key piece of Classen Curve is currently being blocked by NIMBYs and will likely not be built. It's a shame because there were numerous new-to-market retailers that were involved in it. There were other proposed upscale lifestyle centers in Edmond and north of Quail Springs Mall that were also killed by NIMBYs. As for groceries, Wal-Mart is NOT decent grocery shopping when you've lived in a city that has real grocery stores like Kroger, H-E-B, or even Reasor's up in Tulsa. I also wouldn't consider a 15-20 minute drive from downtown to be "not far."
I think OKC is improving and can grow into its own but it's still 5-10 years away.
But, what currently makes up Classen Curve IS already a lifestyle center. I also forgot to add Spring Creek in Edmond. And "real grocery stores", as opposed to what, fake ones?
Very good question, because if it's urbanity, Richmond and New Orleans are 1 and 2, in either order (though I know you and others will say New Orleans is most urban)...
If it's a fuller consideration than only urbanity, I'm inclined to agree that his Top 3 are correct, in any order, and that's even if I include Buffalo, Rochester, and Grand Rapids, as well as Milwaukee, Providence, and Virginia Beach/Norfolk, the last three of which definitely belong in this group of cities than the group/tier ahead of it...
I guess my point to Ryan is, regardless of what you consider the "top" of this tier, I don't think there's a question that Richmond is at or very near the top...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
I haven't been to Richmond but I've streetviewed it and honestly, OKC doesn't even come close. One reason I think OKC fights at the very bottom of that tier is because it's by far the least urban. Even Memphis and Birmingham, while they are by no means urban utopias, beat out OKC.
I would personally rank the 1-1.5 million tier like this. I'm not ranking Buffalo, Rochester, Grand Rapids, and Hartford simply because I am not familiar enough with them to do it properly.
Raleigh
Louisville
Richmond
Salt Lake City
Tucson
New Orleans
Memphis
Jacksonville
Birmingham
Oklahoma City
I disagree with most of this. The key piece of Classen Curve is currently being blocked by NIMBYs and will likely not be built. It's a shame because there were numerous new-to-market retailers that were involved in it. There were other proposed upscale lifestyle centers in Edmond and north of Quail Springs Mall that were also killed by NIMBYs. As for groceries, Wal-Mart is NOT decent grocery shopping when you've lived in a city that has real grocery stores like Kroger, H-E-B, or even Reasor's up in Tulsa. I also wouldn't consider a 15-20 minute drive from downtown to be "not far."
I think OKC is improving and can grow into its own but it's still 5-10 years away.
There are 17 cities between 1-1.7 million (I'm including Virginia Beach in that, as realistically it's a ~1.2 million metro and it's given MSA is more practical to a CSA, reasoning I've described in depth before but will avoid here). I've been to eight of those cities, and will likely experience Hartford before I leave New England in another week or two. Only less than 1% of people actually go "everywhere" or have been to all of those cities, and in life in general, it's possible to form an opinion about something or somewhere without having to have experienced it personally, based on the given data or general information. I've never robbed a bank, but I'm pretty sure I don't want to. I've never jumped out of a plane either--pretty sure I don't need to experience that to know I'm not interested. I've never been to Brazil, but I don't think that precludes me from sayingthe United States is the better and better performing nation...
I don't think you need to have gone somewhere to necessarily form an opinion of it, if your opinion is supported by logical and/or factual reasoning. That said, I agree with your tiering of these cities for the most part, specifically your Top 4. Popular sentiment is to automatically place New Orleans at the top of this tier with little or no actual comparison--because it's New Orleans, why the hell not!!--, and maybe it still is a Top 5 city in this tier, but it isn't running away with anything here other than public perception and popular opinion...
Now I'm not sure how Oklahoma City fits into this, but I have a hard time believing it's dead last. Your views on OKC seem well-reasoned, but is it really dead last in this tier? I'll tell you, Hartford has no great reputation either, neither does Memphis, and all things considered Rochester and Tucson probably don't have more things to do than OKC. Particularly Tucson, where I have a sister but I've never been, I'm under no impression that city is beating any city in this class...
Maybe you're just a tad too hard in OKC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaRaRyan
I put Nashville in there because, while the population has boomed, the MSA is still somewhat comparable and can be used as fairly definitive example of what a jump from this tier looks like. I would definitely put it at the top of this class and towards the middle or bottom of the next (2 million+)
But I was just in Richmond twice last year and it is certainly toward the top of similar cities, and of course it's downtown and historical neighborhoods are wonderfully urban and walkable. I especially enjoyed around VCU and Carytown.
But there are run down parts of the city with terrible infrastructure for sure. And from what I saw outside of the core of the city the neighborhoods were all suburban sprawl. Not knocks specifically on Richmond, like I said, every city around this size has those bad aspects of cities. I'm not saying OKC is better in any of this aspects and I would say it's worse compared to Richmond specifically. I just wanted to point out that common bad aspects of all cities can't be the only thing used to rank a city lower than its peers. Specific problems and areas of excellence should be used as the reasons.
Nashville is definitely in the next tier now. It's near the bottom of the bottom-third, but it's definitely completely separated itself from this tier. I'm happy for its successes, and I understand what you're saying; it wasn't long ago it was in this class of cities...
While sprawl is relative to every city in this country, I'll disagree that Richmond is a city that seems to have it more than anywhere else. Richmond is actually pretty un-sprawl-y, compared to the majority of cities in its tier, including those you mentioned like Nashville and Virginia Beach, and I'm including outside-of-core city neighborhoods here...
The city of Richmond definitely has run down areas, but regarding your initial line of "crumbling infrastructure", that is opposite if which Richmond actually is, which is rapidly improving infrastructure. Virginia in general doesn't have great roads, I'll give you that. But 95 and 64 through Central Virginia are in above average shape; Main Street Station renovation will be finished this year, with even longer-term plans for a greater experience; RIC is the busiest airport in Virginia that isn't right outside DC like IAD and DCA. What's more, RIC is ever-expanding and has grown year-over-year in passenger volume--obviously, airports who aren't growing in their flying experience are contracting, not expanding, and aren't having record passenger increases...
The quality of public transit is improving with the finishing of The Pulse BRT lines by July, and the condensing of other bus lines; Richmond has frequent trains between Boston and Virginia Beach on the Northeast Regional Amtrak, touching every major city, with further discussions at least being had about high speed connectivity between Rich, DC, and Baltimore...Dominion Energy is a Fortune 500 company that provides our electricity and other services, so all in all, if the only reasoning behind a thought of Richmond having "crumbling infrastructure" is run down areas and a few bad roads, I don't think you looked at infrastructure in Richmond, you just saw a few bad roads and run down areas. Infrastructure in Richmond is on an marked upward trend, and not even remotely "crumbling"...
Very good question, because if it's urbanity, Richmond and New Orleans are 1 and 2, in either order (though I know you and others will say New Orleans is most urban)...
Yeah NOLA is the most urban in my book due to the density of its urban area, it has a slight edge on transit with the streetcars, it has a greater mix of uses/destinations within the core, the plethora of tourists in the core gives it a vibrancy that you don't quite get in the core of Richmond, and it actually feels a little bigger than Richmond. Although I think your feelings toward the city will somewhat prevent you from being 100% objective, you still owe it to yourself to actually visit the place. I'm not arguing that there's a huge gap between the two but when you have two historic, urban cities close in size, personal experience goes a long way in making the determination concerning which is more urban.
Yeah NOLA is the most urban in my book due to the density of its urban area, it has a slight edge on transit with the streetcars, it has a greater mix of uses/destinations within the core, the plethora of tourists in the core gives it a vibrancy that you don't quite get in the core of Richmond, and it actually feels a little bigger than Richmond. Although I think your feelings toward the city will somewhat prevent you from being 100% objective, you still owe it to yourself to actually visit the place. I'm not arguing that there's a huge gap between the two but when you have two historic, urban cities close in size, personal experience goes a long way in making the determination concerning which is more urban.
I don't think you need to have gone somewhere to necessarily form an opinion of it, if your opinion is supported by logical and/or factual reasoning. That said, I agree with your tiering of these cities for the most part, specifically your Top 4. Popular sentiment is to automatically place New Orleans at the top of this tier with little or no actual comparison--because it's New Orleans, why the hell not!!--, and maybe it still is a Top 5 city in this tier, but it isn't running away with anything here other than public perception and popular opinion...
Not to get too sidetracked but I personally think New Orleans falls into that category of being an excellent tourist destination but as a place to live I'm not sure it's as strong. Granted I haven't been since before Katrina but from what I remember, I wasn't too impressed by what I saw outside of the French Quarter and other tourist areas. It's definitely on my short list of places to visit in the near future however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock
Now I'm not sure how Oklahoma City fits into this, but I have a hard time believing it's dead last. Your views on OKC seem well-reasoned, but is it really dead last in this tier? I'll tell you, Hartford has no great reputation either, neither does Memphis, and all things considered Rochester and Tucson probably don't have more things to do than OKC. Particularly Tucson, where I have a sister but I've never been, I'm under no impression that city is beating any city in this class...
Maybe you're just a tad too hard in OKC?
I am pretty hard on OKC, largely because I was so much happier in my previous city and was pretty much forced to move here due to a perfect storm of circumstances in my personal life. Actually it was either OKC or Northwest Arkansas and I chose OKC because its at least a decent sized city.
In my opinion, I rank OKC at the bottom because there really isn't anything it does well other than the fact it has a low cost of living (but most cities in this region also do). While it has its liberal pockets, the city as a whole lives up to its Bible Belt reputation. That's not to say it's a boring, sleepy town because it isn't. In fact, I would way OKC itself is underrated and offers a lot more than most people think it does. However, when comparing to other cities in its tier it falls short.
To sum it up I would say that OKC has a "rough" feel to it that natives and some transplants really appreciate but is an acquired taste and isn't for everybody. I think that roughness is a big thing that sets it apart from other cities in its tier and is why some people really resonate with this place while others loathe it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
