Not to rail on the BOK anymore, but I just got to thinking the other day. I'll pose a question to you all:
Name one tier 1 city that does not have a mass transit system in it's core? Answer: None
Now, how many of those have an arena/stadium in their core? Answer: A bunch
Rarely has a big footprint attention grabbing project done what cities actually need it to be doing. To better explain, check this link out.
http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2012/2/22/it-should-be-about-people.htmlThe thing I like about this group is that they aren't the usual off the deep end, gotta stop using fossil fuel zealots you usually find pumping this stuff out. They are just trying to show what is best for communities fiscally and "spiritually" I guess you could say.
While we can't change what we have already done, we can be sure not to repeat the same mistakes that so many other cities are making. OKC in particular is going to build ANOTHER convention center. More than likely it will be at the expense of their proposed street car system. Let's not be like that.
What sort of mass transit do you mean? Rail? Most tier I cities have at 2+ times the population of the Tulsa metro area, and therefore a larger local tax base for funding light rail. I'm assuming Kansas City is a tier I city. Far as I know, they still don't have light rail. I believe they are still doing studies on it according to their web site.
We have mass transit in our core, it's bus service. It doesn't have to be on two rails to qualify as mass transit. I agree we need a downtown circulator and perhaps in the future there would be viability for rail lines from Owasso which would also have a stop at the airport, Broken Arrow, and Jenks/Bixby.
We have the amenities and attractions to make downtown a desirable destination now. Simply putting lines in would not have spurred downtown development, IMO.