Yeh, I got a little carried away with that one. Next time I will offer a response sans espresso.

But in most cases, urban quality of life, reflected in semi-concrete terms in cities we all name and love (NYC, Seattle, Boston, SF, Chicago, etc.) is a fluid combo of history (which we have but not as long as many big-name cities), infrastructure, cultural distinctives, services, etc. Usually it involves options in mass transit and personal, parks, plenty of office space, natural reserves, and commercial investment. Small living, big living, cheap rents, luxury-for sales. Developing that diversity seems to be something that comes from working to ease infrastructure and public space into something people can and do use. Locating folks (which means having anywhere for folks to locate) near these services builds the density we so keenly lack here to uphold neighborhoods with a fuller array of goods and services.

Yet starting from a convention center on down seems to be planning by way of trickle-down only, and while we might have a world class conv. ctr, we won’t have any reason for folks to come visit it. We have no natural beauty in the immediate area (save for the river, which is gaining ground) like Denver, no status as NYC/Boston etc. does, nor even the specific cultural draw of an Austin, Seattle, Portland, etc.

Developing these things is mostly a work of the people anyways, but MAPS can waste money that could help repair some daft decisions in our past in terms of urbanity.

All that blah blah (sorry for the rant, it’s late) to say, I probably will vote yes too, because I do know the good that can come, and I do trust voices like yours, and even some on the councils involved, who know way more than I do. And every other thing besides the convention center is valuable to OKC, even the lame cosmetic trolley. starting somewhere I guess.

Meanwhile, I will work diligently on our OKC Lonely Planet book. Or a Not For Tourists book. or something.