Ironically, there are (very) early, tentative rumblings that suggest Oklahoma City may be becoming a more urban, livable place -- and one more open to growth -- than other US cities ... possibly including (cough, cough) the ones that pass laws against shadows, breezes, beetles, excessive sunlight or whatever other ridiculous nuisances busybodies are trying to legislate against.
These two articles caught my eye today:
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/greg-lindsay/aerotropolis/natural-gas-giant-goes-green-oklahoma
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/realestate/commercial/27devon.html
Having never been to Oklahoma City, I wouldn't advocate anyone moving there any time soon (or, perhaps, ever). But they do seem -- oddly, shockingly -- to have a more developed sense of what makes a successful urban place than Boston under Boss Menino and his brain trust at the BRA.
They don't admire the results so much as they admire themselves spouting theories.... whatever other shadow-free geographies our lawmakers, NIMBYs and other non-producing meddlers so admire.
In looking to Indianapolis for inspiration, the Oklahoma City people are clearly well behind Boston to begin with and betray their still-existing yokel sensibilities. But they've got some forward momentum we could learn from ... and Indianapolis is probably a better inspiration than a sprawling, treeless backyard in Topsfield, or whatever other shadow-free geographies our lawmakers, NIMBYs and other non-producing meddlers so admire.
Indianapolis at least has an urban city center. Monument Circle is very impressive, especially filled with crowds gawking at the big, conic, string light sculpture. I mean, Christmas tree.
Boston's City Hall Plaza is very impressive, especially when filled with crowds cheering on a major sports championship, which of course happens nearly every day.
IThe aspiring 'hip' Indianapolitan seems to look to Chicago.