Ideas of mine that would make OKC better 

What makes it weird is that I’ve lived 12 years of my life in California and the other 3 in Oklahoma and I just prefer ok over cal although a lot of people would find that weird

​@@-OAK- nah, okc is a great city imo. I actually just stayed in downtown LA, cool place but too expensive and kinda depressing

@@AngelRivera-de1lq I’ve I have spent my 12 years of cali in San Diego, it’s good for retirement but it’s a horrible city to grow up in, it doesn’t have much good food options. And there’s nothing entertaining, it’s just views of the ocean and mountains. And I’ve been to LA a couple times, it’s good for going to a theme park but besides that it’s kinda meh. And I’m a big fan of architecture, and San Diego and LA have some of the worst architecture for a big city I’ve seen, the only ones with worse architecture is Miami.

You should prolly check into a career in city planning or management tho. You would prolly be pretty good at it

Yea, but it will at-least make the city look better, even if it doesn’t really impact it’s growth, either way that legends tower would

@@-OAK- you have vision I’ll give u that. Most city leaders don’t.

What? It has to be next to a ocean for that?? This is just a wide river

​@@-OAK-I just now realized that, I originally thought that because a place was next to water they had the chance of hurricanes other than that though this is a solid idea

@@colemartin4851 😂 bruh Oklahoma even at its furthest southern border is never going to get hit by a hurricane much less OKC 😂

Most projects that are built, buy housing and destroy it. The land I suggested has mostly abandoned buildings and barely any housing at all, OKC built lake Hefner when it was so much poorer than it is now, so if they could do that back then it surely wouldn’t be that expensive to do my idea. Also I said that bigger bodies of water are proven to improve the quality of life, as well as walkable neighborhoods, so the stuff I said would do more than just aesthetic. Oak OKC which is being built rn bought and destroyed housing to build, that’s just how it works, once OKC runs out of parking they will have to resort to destroying suburbs for more stuff, so it’s best to take this advantage of there being almost nothing on this part of land and expanding the river before there’s actual stuff, there’s so much land in OKC and almost no water, it would improve the city so much.

@@-OAK- First of all parking wouldn't be an issue if liberals weren't so obsessed with their hate for cars. Cars made America. Their is more tan enough room to build parking. Also doing everything you said would stifle development long term because it would need to be subsidized meaning higher taxes. The reason OKC is growing is because of low taxes and cheaper housing. Don't turn OKC into another liberal money pit.

@@Bland-79 I don’t know where you got cars from, but this doesn’t mean that it will get too expensive because of something like this, a lot of Texas cities and cities in the south in general are affordable yet they are big. So idk how a simple thing as shaping a river would make it “a expensive liberal city” not only that but expensive liberal cities are growing, like Austin. The only places that would become more expensive are the places next to the river, it’s not going to magically make the entire city more expensive, cost comes from the location not the city boundaries

@@-OAK- Austin is pretty but a playground for the rich and upper middleclass moving away from California. It will become unaffordable soon enough if it isn't already. High taxes and anti car and suburb policies kill cities. You would think people moving away from California would know better than to do the same things that made California unaffordable.

@@-OAK- I'm referring to raising taxes on citizens who prefer suburban car centric lifestyle so they can waste it on things are hardly used and destroying needed highways and parking lots to do it.