Will Oklahoma City become a top 10 city in America?

[craigs]

Obviously nobody knows, but I suspect that in order for Oklahoma City to hit the top ten most populous cities in America, it would have to have a really big economic draw that the city currently does not have.

[MolsonExport]

No.

Next question: Will Yellowknife become the world's largest city?
Yes or No and why?

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I haven’t been there in 20 years, but I’d have to say that Oklahoma City is easily in the top ten of the least appealing large US cities in which I’ve ever spent time.

However, I dated a hot waitress chick for a few months who worked at the Spaghetti Warehouse by the baseball stadium there. She was very appealing and the loveliest thing about that city by far.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I just did a bit of Google Earth / Streetview exploration and... wow. Wichita plus 3x3 blocks of highrises...

Yeah, I don't mean to pile onto OKC, because it does have some lovely historic highrises, and they've done some great things over the last decade or so with their MAPS program, BUT I do have to concur that it is probably the most vanilla 'large-ish' American city I've been to.

Also, when in gods name are the Thunder going to get a new logo? It looks like it was made by a high school graphic design student. A basketball and the letters "OKC" inside of a generic shield is really the best they could come up with?

[mrnyc]

you know going back to the mid century no one would have predicted texas cities becoming such big cheeses, so you never know, okc could get the spillover effect someday. and its not like generic places dont boom.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by BG918

A lot has changed in 20 years. Lots of urban growth has happened since then and continues. Outside of downtown there are some cool neighborhood districts like the Plaza and Paseo. Norman is also nearby and is a great college town.

I’m sure it has much improved, like all cities have in the past couple decades. Norman... umm, ok I guess, but very FAR from “a great college town”, in my opinion, when compared to many places that are widely considered to be just that.

Originally Posted by mrnyc

you know going back to the mid century no one would have predicted texas cities becoming such big cheeses, so you never know, okc could get the spillover effect someday. and its not like generic places dont boom.

I guess if Dallas experiences continued burgeoning growth for the next half century, then maybe it could connect northward with OKC... but that’s a real fantasy at this time. But I think we’d have to see a lot of loss from other major cities in order for OKC to become top ten, not just due to its own growth.

I just can’t see that many people wanting to live there. And if you didn’t have to for work, then why would you you want to live there? Ugly terrain/setting, blah weather that gets extremely hot and very cold and smack dab in the middle of “tornado alley”, Great Plains location, regressive politics... There’s just nothing too attractive about it to me.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

you know going back to the mid century no one would have predicted texas cities becoming such big cheeses, so you never know, okc could get the spillover effect someday. and its not like generic places dont boom.

The big Texas cities were growing way faster in the mid 20th century than OKC ever has, then or now.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I guess if Dallas experiences continued burgeoning growth for the next half century, then maybe it could connect northward with OKC... but that’s a real fantasy at this time. But I think we’d have to see a lot of loss from other major cities in order for OKC to become top ten, not just due to its own growth.

I just can’t see that many people wanting to live there. And if you didn’t have to for work, then why would you you want to live there? Ugly terrain/setting, blah weather that gets extremely hot and very cold and smack dab in the middle of “tornado alley”, Great Plains location, regressive politics... There’s just nothing too attractive about it to me.

Dallas/Ft Worth 200 miles to the south is one of the fastest growing metros in the U.S. and has a similar geographic setting and climate on the southern Plains/tornado alley. If there are jobs people will live there, and as much as we don't like it flatland sprawl keeps housing affordable. Tulsa is the more attractive city from a geographic standpoint with its hills, river and forests. There is a big difference between the Plains and the eastern hills of Oklahoma.

[pj3000]

^ you don’t need to run down the bullet points for me... I lived in Dallas and worked throughout Oklahoma for over 4 years. I’m glad I got to live there for a bit, had fun there, and made some good friends, but I have no compelling interest in ever living there again, nor even visiting really.

Yes, Tulsa has a nicer setting than OKC. Kinda like the Austin of Texas... it’s nice for Texas. Tulsa is nice for Oklahoma.

I don’t see OKC pulling that many people away from the DFW area 200 miles away, in order for it to become one of the ten largest cities.

[JManc]

Austin is nice for anywhere. It's more popular outside of TX than in TX.

[mousquet]

As a farseeing prophet faithful to Christ, I can tell!

Oklahoma state will be the trendiest spot on Earth, with the sexiest fashion, plenty of great looking sweet women, fanciest restaurants and hotels and all!

Uhh, wait... But then, in something like 500 years from now.

No kidding, if you believe in persistence beyond death (that no one can seriously attest, that's why you're all so scared of death on here), you'll witness Oklahoma as being the center of the whole universe!

More seriously, I believe glory is something shared through ages. So, anybody or any place gets their turn at some point.
Haha, then you be yelling - it's my turn! This is my fucking turn, goddammit!

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by JManc

Austin is nice for anywhere. It's more popular outside of TX than in TX.

In some ways, I’d definitely agree. I really like Austin, don’t get me wrong.

I guess when I lived in Texas (1998-2001), friends, acquaintances, and colleagues who were native Texans seemed to act like it was the greatest, most beautiful city on Earth. I definitely enjoyed the whole overall vibe there... quite different and much more laid-back and fun and exciting than other Texas cities; and the hills rising to the west of the city provided some nice scenery and fun outdoorsy stuff to do (especially in comparison to DFW and Houston areas).

Though, when you come from an area of the country that has mountains and hills and forests and lakes and rivers and beaches and creeks and fishing and camping and hiking and biking and boating and skiing all over the place... well, it’s tough to be as impressed with the natural surroundings of Austin as people who don’t grow up with that level of natural beauty and outdoor activity offerings so readily available.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The big Texas cities were growing way faster in the mid 20th century than OKC ever has, then or now.

the big texas cities got into the top ten decade by decade after 1960, and austin could be next to join at some point, you never know, so why not okc?

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

the big texas cities got into the top ten decade by decade after 1960, and austin could be next to join at some point, you never know, so why not okc?

At some point, yeah I guess the possibility is there... particularly given the fact that OKC covers over 600 sq miles. Like the big Texas cities, the city limits are huge... which has a lot to do with the Texas cities getting into the top ten over the years.

So "top ten" city population is really a meaningless stat anyway, given the huge land area that is considered "city" for a place like OKC.

That's roughly 3x the size of Chicago, 2x the size of NYC, 5x the size of Atlanta, 10x the size of DC, 12x the size of Boston, and 16x the size of Miami...

Overlay a 600 sq mi footprint on those cities and see what the "city" populations figure out to be.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Though, when you come from an area of the country that has mountains and hills and forests and lakes and rivers and beaches and creeks and fishing and camping and hiking and biking and boating and skiing all over the place... well, it’s tough to be as impressed with the natural surroundings of Austin as people who don’t grow up with that level of natural beauty and outdoor activity offerings so readily available.

The appeal of Austin is that it is a laid back and relatively livable and affordable city surrounded by a natural beauty (not like New England or California) but one that offers a good combination of factors you can't get from the coasts be it cost of living, climate or accessibility. I loved living in NY and NH and being near all the natural beauty but you can only enjoy 4-5 months a year. You're really one with nature in CA as there are about a million of your closest friends clogging every state and national park and scenic spot.

[MolsonExport]

Everytime I hear Oklahoma City mentioned, this guy immediately comes to my mind.


• Video Link

[homebucket]

The only way OKC becomes a top 10 city is if the rest of America collapses and there's only 10 cities left. And even then it would probably occupy the 10th spot.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by JManc

The appeal of Austin is that it is a laid back and relatively livable and affordable city surrounded by a natural beauty (not like New England or California) but one that offers a good combination of factors you can't get from the coasts be it cost of living, climate or accessibility. I loved living in NY and NH and being near all the natural beauty but you can only enjoy 4-5 months a year. You're really one with nature in CA as there are about a million of your closest friends clogging every state and national park and scenic spot.

Yeah, though the “surrounded by natural beauty” part is a bit tenuous of a description for Austin. When you have to call something “Hill Country”, well that doesn’t say a whole lot for the natural relief of the land in the region. Again, I really like Austin, but people who grow up in the eastern US, where mountains, hills, huge forested lands, and river valleys are commonplace, might be a little let down if they’re expecting too much of Austin’s natural beauty. In that aspect, I’m definitely in the camp of Austin being overrated.

And only 4-5 months of outdoor enjoyment? What?! Fall and winter are wonderful seasons to camp (cabin in winter of course) and hike and bike, not to mention ski, obviously.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yeah, though the “surrounded by natural beauty” part is a bit tenuous of a description for Austin. When you have to call something “Hill Country”, well that doesn’t say a whole lot for the natural relief of the land in the region. Again, I really like Austin, but people who grow up in the eastern US, where mountains, hills, huge forested lands, and river valleys are commonplace, might be a little let down if they’re expecting too much of Austin’s natural beauty. In that aspect, I’m definitely in the camp of Austin being overrated.

And only 4-5 months of outdoor enjoyment? What?! Fall and winter are wonderful seasons to camp (cabin in winter of course) and hike and bike, not to mention ski, obviously.

I'm not saying Austin is Vermont but it's a vibrant city set in a prettier area compared to Houston or Dallas and people are more connected to local natural amenities...unlike Houston and Dallas. Even Denver which is known for the Rockies is actually flat and bland and quite a bit away from the actual mountains.

As for up north, I grew up pretty close to the Adirondacks and the vast majority of people who went up north during the warmer months hunkered down for the winter. Skiing is obvious a huge attraction but nothing on the scale of camping or spending a day on the lake in July. Pretty much after peak leaf season (right about now), people retreat indoors.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Everytime I hear Oklahoma City mentioned, this guy immediately comes to my mind.

That makes me think of Port Townsend, WA, and the former Fort Worden -- where it was filmed. It's worth a visit along with Port Townsend itself.

As for OKC, it's hard to imagine it getting beyond the top #30-40 or so, unless it has some reason to grow faster than it has lately.

[dubu]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

In terms of population maybe, but not otherwise. OKC is VERY nice, but there are ten very solid cities ahead of it.

1. NY
2. LA
3. SF
4. Chi
5. Boston
6. DC
7. Philly
8. Miami
9. Seattle
10.Dallas
11.Houston
12.Atlanta
13. Denver
14. New Orleans

in the top 9 if you take out SF, Chi, Boston, DC, and Philly. its very evenly laid out. if la and ny were on the same coast that would have been weird.

8 and 9 (seattle and miami) the furthest they can get apart, 1 and 2 (new york and la) the furthest they can get apart. then adding the other 5 back in it becomes uneven and those are all on the east coast/ midwest, except for sf.