Hey, I'm curious about peoples thoughts on the cover story in this weeks "Urban Tulsa Weekly" about the rivalry between the two large metro areas in OK. The article, by Mike Easterling, is a lengthy review of the history of the 2 cities, the vision of the 2 mayors, and the possibilities for the future. I thought it was very even handed and brought up some very fine points about both.

Here's a link - A Tale of Two Cities - Tulsa and Oklahoma City have a great deal in common, but has competition helped or gotten in the way? - Cover Story - Cover Story - Urban Tulsa Weekly (http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A28080)

The Wrath of Grapes.

Like that, a lot.

Easterling was once with The Gazette. Great writer. Good piece.

Great article. Oklahoma has 2 great metropolitan cities.

Fantastic article.

it does have quite a bit of a Tulsa slant and some "equalization" of OKC's attractions to allow Tulsa to appear not have such a backward stand.

I would argue that OKC is definitely 15-20 years or more ahead of Tulsa and I don't see Tulsa ever catching up - unlike what the article says.

I also find it interesting they failed to mention Devon's new skyscraper or OKC's new rail transit projects (NE commuter rail/tourist train, MWC-Downtown commuter rail, AND Downtown OKC's streetcar) - all of which will surely pass and be built decades before anything Tulsa is discussing.

And yes, Bricktown is a much larger scale draw than the intimate Brady District, but they failed to mention downtown OKC's other neighbourhoods that rival or are better than theirs - like Midtown, AAlley, Deep Deuce, Triangle, and the upcoming Core 2 Shore.

OKC has a renaissance synergy about it that has taken OKC to the next level and actually OKC really no longer considers a rivalry with Tulsa, but now looking to rival Denver, Dallas (in some respects), and Seattle. Im not sure Tulsa could compete with that club, but OKC can and will even moreso in the coming years.

That said - I am very pleased with the bulk of the article, it does give a Tulsa prospective to the rivalry. It did show that OKC didn't care about segmentation of people in the past (and still doesn't) but that same anti-segmentation attitude actually helped OKC with civic projects and getting funding whereas Tulsa's arguments left them falling behind.

I also liked the ideas of cooperation - because frankly, Tulsa can not survive any longer unless they get on OKC's coat-tails. This is all the more frank and true if you look at their sports options; all copies of OKC or building on OKC.

but that's ok, because I think the state as a whole will be much more successful with OKC leading the development and Tulsa following, than the state did when Tulsa was the 'leader' and only cared about Tulsa and OKC cared about nothing.

As we move into the 2010 and beyond, I see Oklahoma City and Tulsa becoming more and more like Philadelphia and Pittsburg in the sense of sibling rivalries; both quite successful but moreso in one or more areas that the other lacks (and OKC being more open/diverse [which is cosmopolitan] like Philadelphia and Tulsa being more 'sophisticated' like Pittsburg; in their rivalry).

In fact, Pittsburg used to have their state's tallest skyscraper for the longest time, iirc, despite Philadelphia being much larger - yet this has recently changed. Also, Pittsburg once had a 'steel city' success swagger to it that 'common folk-immigrant' Philadelphia had a complex; yet now Pitts is in a decades long slump looking NOW to recover and Phila has reinvested and reinvented it's city (and status).

See something similar going on here in OK?

HOT ROD, I tend to agree with you about the article. They seriously slanted it to act as if Tulsa has plans to equal or "one up" OKC. The author is dilusional if he thinks that is the reality. As you mentioned, he forgot to mention numerous other cultural things in OKC that Tulsa doesn't have a comparison to, as well as things on the boards that will or are likely to go through very soon here.

As for we are competing with Dallas, Denver and Seattle, you're kidding yourself. You live in Seattle and should know we're not 1/4 of what Seattle has or offers. Those are all Tier 1 cities. We're competing with the San Antonio's, Sacremento, Austin, Des Moines, Omaha, Charlotte,Louisville, Memphis, and other Tier 2 cities, we're just now starting to cross the line into a Tier 2 city, where some of these other cities already have been. We won't even be to the top half of this tier until we get our streetcar going.

Guys, I don't know that the article was really that skewed. I think there may be some overkill going on here on downtown Tulsa's plight. If you've not been there recently, your impression may be outdated.
That said, looking at the article, Mike is off with his story in one big area - the idea that Tulsa is somehow far ahead of OKC in planning for light rail/streetcars. I suspect he's not current on what's going on here in that subject.

Steve, I was in Tulsa less than a month ago, in no way does Brady District come close to topping Bricktown. Again with your point in mass transit issues. You know I love your work, but you have to be kidding yourself if you didn't see the skewness in that article.

As for we are competing with Dallas, Denver and Seattle, you're kidding yourself. You live in Seattle and should know we're not 1/4 of what Seattle has or offers. Those are all Tier 1 cities. We're competing with the San Antonio's, Sacremento, Austin, Des Moines, Omaha, Charlotte,Louisville, Memphis, and other Tier 2 cities, we're just now starting to cross the line into a Tier 2 city, where some of these other cities already have been. We won't even be to the top half of this tier until we get our streetcar going.

I'd say SA, Sacremento, Austin, Memphis and Charlotte are the cities we should realistically hope to be. The rest you listed seem very minor league.

I agree some of them seem minor league, however keep in mind those "minor league" cities have more amenities than we do on several fronts. Basically if we don't at least match them, it's quite possible those "minor league" cities will pass us.

I was in Tulsa last week. It's awesome the Mayo is opening, but otherwise, their downtown is hurtin' compared to OKC, not that ours doesn't need more improvement -- which is coming.

Metro, I'm not saying Brady comes close to having Bricktown's buss. But I do see a lot of progress taking place in downtown Tulsa. What they have that we don't: Arnies (great dive bar that simply doesn't exist downtown OKC), Cain's, the Tulsa Press Club, and some great Art Deco architecture. They've still got a long ways to go. So do we. At least half the space in Bricktown is vacant.

The overall tone of that article seems to be that Tulsa was once way better than OKC and its citizens rightfully and unanimously sported an air of superiority; and now things are more equal and Tulsans have less right to feel this way (although many still do).

But of course, the real truth is that OKC is well beyond where Tulsa is now and keeps doing things that reach further out and farther ahead. Frankly, Tulsa flatters itself with these comparisons to OKC.

A simple objective measure is how OKC is often listed as a model for other communities -- has that happened once with Tulsa?

Every single city in the U.S. is trying to revitalize and there is a nationwide urbanization trend. What Tulsa is/has been doing is not outstanding in any way when you look at other cities, and the reality is they are very late to the game. Yes, they are making progress but they've started behind others and I don't see anything they are doing that is above average for similar communities.

On the other hand, I think OKC continues to move in bold and visionary ways and although there is a lot of work still to be done, much more progress has already been made, there is more positive momentum, and the plans for the future are much more aggressive and real.

It’s not just a matter of Tulsa being 10-15 years behind, it’s that OKC continues to move forward at an accelerating rate. I see the gap continuing to widen for the foreseeable future.

Well, all of this is completely subjective. I mean, if there was a unit of "good" so we could do a comparison of x units good to x units good, it would be different, but it isn't that way. The fact is that for a long time Tulsa was better than OKC in many ways (before I am crucified allow me to point out I have lived in OKC my whole life). But, it is on a completely different scale, and has different priorities. I was in Tulsa at the time this article came out. The fact remains that despite us OKC folks thinking we are blowing them out of the water, Tulsa still has a great many strong suits. The Brady district might not out do us on quantity and economic contribution, but I'd say it is much cooler. If it ever does reach the level of Bricktown we would have good reason to be scared. Bricktown, while being a good money maker and a decent place to hang out is completely inorganic and really feels that way. The Brady may take a LONG time to get there but when/if it does I think it will feel much more like a real part of the city, with people living there, making art there, etc. I also am very impressed with the area around the Mercury Lounge (15th and Boston), the neighborhood has never looked better, and they now have a great strip of restaurants and bars that is getting to the level of Cherry Street or Brookside only with a more "edgy" feel. I mean there are a great number of things in Tulsa that we just have NOTHING to compare to (i.e. - Philbrook, walkable neighborhoods, better bar scene, AWESOME antiques district, etc.) that to many residents are just as important as a Basketball team, new hotels, new skyscrapers, new central parks etc. Yes, we are currently the economic power house, and have the lions share of funding and good leadership (Tulsa has had very bad luck in that department for sure). But, to think we are just flat out better than them will do nothing but make us look like jerks and cause us to grow complacent.

I think the important point made in the article is that it isn't about one up man ship, it's about seeing the best in both communities. Tulsa is really a fantastic city, and for certain people, it offers much "more" of what they are looking for. The same is true for Oklahoma City. I think the article was trying to make the point that the closer the relationship between the two communities, the better the state as a whole will be.

OKC has a renaissance synergy about it that has taken OKC to the next level and actually OKC really no longer considers a rivalry with Tulsa, but now looking to rival Denver, Dallas (in some respects), and Seattle. Im not sure Tulsa could compete with that club, but OKC can and will even moreso in the coming years.


I completely disagree that OKC can compete with the likes Denver, Seattle, and especially Dallas. Aspiring for OKC to be on the level of cities like Austin or Charlotte is more reasonable, but frankly even those cities are years ahead of OKC and are progressing more rapidly than OKC, too. Although I agree that OKC has decidedly surpassed Tulsa, it's not totally unreasonable to call it a "rival" city--but it's completely ridiculous to claim Dallas or Seattle as such. Let's be more levelheaded in assessing where OKC stands amongst the nation's cities.

Metro, I'm not saying Brady comes close to having Bricktown's buss. But I do see a lot of progress taking place in downtown Tulsa. What they have that we don't: Arnies (great dive bar that simply doesn't exist downtown OKC), Cain's, the Tulsa Press Club, and some great Art Deco architecture. They've still got a long ways to go. So do we. At least half the space in Bricktown is vacant.

Where's the comparison to our Paseo, Plaza District, Stockyards City, Asian District, and of course they leave out Edgemere Park/Jefferson Park /MestaPark /Heritage Hills / 23rd street coming to life/ HSC center ever expanding/Spanish districts ala Capitol Hill, Auto Alley, MidTown, Arts District, National Memorial, Adventure District, Theme Parks, etc. There just isn't enough comparisons in Tulsa. Sure they have 2-3 nice districts, but OKC's list is ever expanding and evolving.

I think I'll leave this one of our Tulsa members. But they've got some pretty nice districts... This whole discussion, however, is beginning to become that old cliche...

This whole discussion, however, is beginning to become that old cliche...

HAHAHAHA, indeed.

I think I'll leave this one of our Tulsa members. But they've got some pretty nice districts... This whole discussion, however, is beginning to become that old cliche...

nah, it's much more entertaining when a journalist gets in the middle of discussion

Good article, but the part that bothered me is when Oklahoma is considered the Midwest. Pretty sure Oklahoma doesn't have a Midwestern feel, isnt historically a Midwestern state, and sure isnt one geographicaly. I know many people consider is Midwest, but I believe they are mistaken.

Well, all of this is completely subjective. I mean, if there was a unit of "good" so we could do a comparison of x units good to x units good, it would be different, but it isn't that way. The fact is that for a long time Tulsa was better than OKC in many ways (before I am crucified allow me to point out I have lived in OKC my whole life). But, it is on a completely different scale, and has different priorities. I was in Tulsa at the time this article came out. The fact remains that despite us OKC folks thinking we are blowing them out of the water, Tulsa still has a great many strong suits. The Brady district might not out do us on quantity and economic contribution, but I'd say it is much cooler. If it ever does reach the level of Bricktown we would have good reason to be scared. Bricktown, while being a good money maker and a decent place to hang out is completely inorganic and really feels that way. The Brady may take a LONG time to get there but when/if it does I think it will feel much more like a real part of the city, with people living there, making art there, etc. I also am very impressed with the area around the Mercury Lounge (15th and Boston), the neighborhood has never looked better, and they now have a great strip of restaurants and bars that is getting to the level of Cherry Street or Brookside only with a more "edgy" feel. I mean there are a great number of things in Tulsa that we just have NOTHING to compare to (i.e. - Philbrook, walkable neighborhoods, better bar scene, AWESOME antiques district, etc.) that to many residents are just as important as a Basketball team, new hotels, new skyscrapers, new central parks etc. Yes, we are currently the economic power house, and have the lions share of funding and good leadership (Tulsa has had very bad luck in that department for sure). But, to think we are just flat out better than them will do nothing but make us look like jerks and cause us to grow complacent.

I think the important point made in the article is that it isn't about one up man ship, it's about seeing the best in both communities. Tulsa is really a fantastic city, and for certain people, it offers much "more" of what they are looking for. The same is true for Oklahoma City. I think the article was trying to make the point that the closer the relationship between the two communities, the better the state as a whole will be.

I honestly don't think OKC is better than Tulsa, I just like OKC better than Tulsa, but that is not saying Tulsa is a bad city.

I think what many in OKC are trying to get across is the article not surprisingly missed some attributes in OKC that deserves credit where credit is due. For instance, you point out that Tulsa has walkable neighborhoods. But then, so does OKC, from Heritage Hills to Crown Heights. The bar scene is subjective. That is really a matter of taste, but then again, OKC offers what suits me... places like TapWerks, Bricktown Brewey and McNellies. The momentum in MidTown is phenomenal, as well as Western Avenue. Western Avenue has really carved a niche for itself.

Please understand, I don't disagree with your assessment of Tulsa. The city has always maintained its quality in its most distinct neighborhoods. But I feel that Oklahoma City has been and continues to clean itself up, especially aesthetically, and that point continues to be missed. I mean... the darts don't even hit the board on that one. We are not where we want to be, but we are definitely ahead of where we were 16 years ago!

I agree benman... Oklahoma is more Western or Southwestern than Midwestern IMO. In fact, Oklahoma is only fringe territory when it comes to the South, Southwest, and Midwest... so I guess we are just on our own.

For instance, you point out that Tulsa has walkable neighborhoods. But then, so does OKC, from Heritage Hills to Crown Heights. The bar scene is subjective.

I'd say OKC and Tulsa are equally walkable given the simple fact that every 10th North-South block in Tulsa is a mile and it's every 15th in OKC (usually). Every 15th street East-West in Tulsa is a mile, and every 10th East-West block is a mile.

I couldn't agree more okcpulse, I've always preferred my home town and still do. I just meant it as a "Jack for every Jill" kind of thing. That, given they are both big, prosperous, and have their own individual feel to them, some folks born in either will always end up in the other. The important thing is to make both of them strong so that OKC may loose a few to Tulsa and Visa Versa, but that they at least stay in Oklahoma.

I think they did leave out the importance of the fact that Tulsa has a history of strong racial segregation. I've always thought that one of OKC's strongest assets was that it has historically been kind of a melting pot. My neighbors right here on 16th are a perfect example. One family is Guatemalan, one is Vietnamese, one interacial family, a white single guy, and an African American family, and then us (white married couple) all right next to each other. It makes our neighborhoods what they are and keeps the city very dynamic.

To Platemaker's point about walkability, in terms of pure geometry I believe that is true but Tulsa has more than double our population density meaning that you can go a lot more places on a shorter walk, on average of course. We have a few swatches of town that are very walkable, but I have to admit my old neighborhood in Midwest City was far more walkable than my neighborhood in inner city OKC. It is set up to be walkable (NW16th and May Ave) but because of spotty development over here, its a pretty long hike to a grocer and the rest. However, on a bicycle it is quite manageable.

Good article, but the part that bothered me is when Oklahoma is considered the Midwest. Pretty sure Oklahoma doesn't have a Midwestern feel, isnt historically a Midwestern state, and sure isnt one geographicaly. I know many people consider is Midwest, but I believe they are mistaken. I agree. Geographically speaking, if you look up in the dictionary Oklahoma is classified as a South Central others say Southwest US.

To Platemaker's point about walkability, in terms of pure geometry I believe that is true but Tulsa has more than double our population density meaning that you can go a lot more places on a shorter walk, on average of course.

Again, this OKC is less dense than Tulsa thing is a myth. Take this image into consideration. The yellow line is the city limits of OKC. The red line is the MSA boundary for the OKC metro. The blue are contains the vast majority of OKC's population (approx 3000 per square mile). The image is over a satelite image of the city lights at night to put things into perspective.

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/UrbanOKC.jpg

Platemaker, out of curiosity, are you in the printing business?

Where's the comparison to our Paseo, Plaza District, Stockyards City, Asian District, and of course they leave out Edgemere Park/Jefferson Park /MestaPark /Heritage Hills / 23rd street coming to life/ HSC center ever expanding/Spanish districts ala Capitol Hill, Auto Alley, MidTown, Arts District, National Memorial, Adventure District, Theme Parks, etc. There just isn't enough comparisons in Tulsa. Sure they have 2-3 nice districts, but OKC's list is ever expanding and evolving.

This is very true. Whenever I hear comparisons between the cities from a Tulsan, they usually list a couple of their districts as unique to their city. However, if I mention districts like Paseo, Midtown, Uptown, etc. I usually get a blank stare or a "what's that"?

Point is, I think that a lot of people in Tulsa just don't really even know what there is in Oklahoma City enough to make an objective comparison. I don't really fault them for not knowing. I mean, why should they? But it does strike me as funny when they are trying to say Tulsa is better when they don't even know what they are comparing it to...

Point is, I think that a lot of people in Tulsa just don't really even know what there is in Oklahoma City enough to make an objective comparison. I don't really fault them for not knowing. I mean, why should they? But it does strike me as funny when they are trying to say Tulsa is better when they don't even know what they are comparing it to...

I think they know what they're comparing it to. The Capitol Complex.

I just don't think people realize what else there is. I lived in Edmond for many years and even I didn't know about many of these parts in OKC.

That said, looking at the article, Mike is off with his story in one big area - the idea that Tulsa is somehow far ahead of OKC in planning for light rail/streetcars. I suspect he's not current on what's going on here in that subject.

To be somewhat fair, the article was published the day before the actual announcement of Maps 3, so the official streetcar info wasn't out there.

From an outsider's perspective, moving from Michigan 4 years ago without having spent any time here until the year I moved, I've never sensed any rivalry from OKC. I never hear co-workers, friends, or people in general mention things that resemble rival statements.

Talk about it just feels manufactured, which is why I think Dr. Blackburn had a hard time doing his research (and he basically admits) about a rivalry.

Mike used to be at The Gazzette (as Steve noted) and he was a two years ahead of me in the same high school and was the editor of the school newspaper, so he grew up in the West OKC area. One thing is, I think he wrote it for his audience, Tulsa...that would tend to lead to a slanted article. I saw it more as a wake up type article for his audience with a gentle nudge instead of a bullhorn and whip which is what many in OKC try to do with Tulsans, let them know they have been passed but give them hope that things are "in the works" to bring Tulsa up. It is very accurate about the East/West attitudes, it is the same as the old/new money attitudes just like anywhere else. I know Tulsans who have lived in both cities who have stated the same thing.

Everything will be great once The American opens in 2007.
:dizzy:

Very funny Steve!

As a former Texan thats only mildly familiar with this so-called rivalry, I find the charges that OKC isn't urban compared to Tulsa a little odd. I've always found OKC to remind me a lot of Houston. And before you consider that an insult, I'll explain. Both are sprawling and kinda flat, and may not have the best reputations in the past, particularly by their rival cities (trust me when I say the OKC/Tulsa rivalry is peanuts compared to Dallas/Houston), but both have booming energy based economies and large medical centers, are surprisingly diverse and open even while being somewhat politically conservative, and are seeing their urban cores reborn.

One thing in that article that is spot on is the differing socioeconomic climates in each city. Tulsa can be very nice, but it is incredibly segregated, not so much racially as it is by income level. The old money element has separated itself probably allowed for a historically nicer city appearance wise with more culutral amenties supported by deep-pocket donors. The people tend to be a little "showy", but the fact is that Tulsa is very much a "who you know" kinda town. I learned that very quickly while doing an internship up there in the summer of 2008. Of course OKC has its own good-ol-boy group, but this place is pretty open and very "new-money." Even still OKC is generally laid back and unpretentious despite a higher household income here (according to City-Data anyway).

If T-town can get over some of its cultural quirks the city will take off. They have a great slate to start with, considerably better than when OKC started to reinvented itself. The problem is that social trends are hard to turn around overnight.

How many here have actually lived in both cities? I lived in Tulsa from 1989-2002 before moving to Norman. Living in Norman while attending OU I went to OKC quite a bit but didn't really experience the city before working in OKC and living close to downtown for a year. Then I moved to Denver for a year, and now live in Norman again to go to grad school at OU but still work in OKC. That being said I have experienced both cities and enjoy and dislike parts of both. The article is very true, and very interesting.

How many here have actually lived in both cities? I lived in Tulsa from 1989-2002 before moving to Norman. Living in Norman while attending OU I went to OKC quite a bit but didn't really experience the city before working in OKC and living close to downtown for a year. Then I moved to Denver for a year, and now live in Norman again to go to grad school at OU but still work in OKC. That being said I have experienced both cities and enjoy and dislike parts of both. The article is very true, and very interesting.

I have said this before, but I grew up in Tulsa. I moved to Oklahoma City in 2001 and have not looked back. The only reason I visit is to see my family. Tulsa is a great city, but the problem I had was the size, I lived in midtown and everybody knew everybody, it never felt like a big city to me. Everyone lived in the surburbs and not in the city. When I moved to okc it was a much different feel. My Tulsa friends almost just don't even like to acknowledge okc, they say to me all the time "when are you moving back to the "real city"?
I just laugh.

I travel a lot and see a lot of different cities. There's just no way to make comparisons between different cities that would satisfy any two people on any given day. The OKC-Tulsa rivalry seems silly to me and I find both cities have many things to offer. I've said it before and I'll always believe Oklahoma is lucky to have two great cities. Tulsa is a great city and Oklahoma City is a great city. It's clear if you take off the homer glasses.

Hot Rod, Oklahoma City competing with Dallas? Seattle? Are you serious? I have a place in Plano and now spend about a third of the year there. Do you realize that in population alone, the (approximate) square of I-35 on the west, 75 on the east, LBJ on the south and SH380 on the north, essentially Collin County plus a little, is bigger than the entire population of Metropolitan Oklahoma City? Read that again...the northern suburbs of the Dallas portion of the DFW metroplex has more people than the entire MSA of Oklahoma City. Throw in minor league baseball, MLS soccer, and we're still talking just the northern burbs of Dallas. Saying we are anywhere close to competing with Dallas on the Tier One stage is homerism gone crazy. Fort Worth, alone? Maybe. But even that's debatable. There is no question OKC is a great city and continues to make huge strides. But, it isn't happening in a vacuum, other cities are revitalizing and on the move as well. Many of them, as Metro said well in his post, are smaller than Oklahoma City in population but offering amenities that rival bigger cities than us.

I travel a lot and see a lot of different cities. There's just no way to make comparisons between different cities that would satisfy any two people on any given day. The OKC-Tulsa rivalry seems silly to me and I find both cities have many things to offer. I've said it before and I'll always believe Oklahoma is lucky to have two great cities. Tulsa is a great city and Oklahoma City is a great city. It's clear if you take off the homer glasses.

Hot Rod, Oklahoma City competing with Dallas? Seattle? Are you serious? I have a place in Plano and now spend about a third of the year there. Do you realize that in population alone, the (approximate) square of I-35 on the west, 75 on the east, LBJ on the south and SH380 on the north, essentially Collin County plus a little, is bigger than the entire population of Metropolitan Oklahoma City? Read that again...the northern suburbs of the Dallas portion of the DFW metroplex has more people than the entire MSA of Oklahoma City. Throw in minor league baseball, MLS soccer, and we're still talking just the northern burbs of Dallas. Saying we are anywhere close to competing with Dallas on the Tier One stage is homerism gone crazy. Fort Worth, alone? Maybe. But even that's debatable. There is no question OKC is a great city and continues to make huge strides. But, it isn't happening in a vacuum, other cities are revitalizing and on the move as well. Many of them, as Metro said well in his post, are smaller than Oklahoma City in population but offering amenities that rival bigger cities than us.

..and the Dallas Metroplex has nearly TWICE the number of people than the entire STATE of Oklahoma. DFW is a massive metro and one of the largest in the country, up there with NYC, LA, Chicago, etc. OKC, and Tulsa, will always be in the shadow of DFW. OKC has the huge advantage of having OU in the metro which is a big long term advantage over Tulsa.

I have said this before, but I grew up in Tulsa. I moved to Oklahoma City in 2001 and have not looked back. The only reason I visit is to see my family. Tulsa is a great city, but the problem I had was the size, I lived in midtown and everybody knew everybody, it never felt like a big city to me. Everyone lived in the surburbs and not in the city. When I moved to okc it was a much different feel. My Tulsa friends almost just don't even like to acknowledge okc, they say to me all the time "when are you moving back to the "real city"?
I just laugh.

Maybe it's where I work but it seems like no one I know that works in OKC actually lives in OKC. I ask where they live and it's all Norman, Yukon, Moore, Edmond, etc. I'm always amazed because OKC has over 500,000 people in the city but it seems like no one I know actually lives there..? When I worked for the same company in Tulsa I knew a few that lived in BA, Owasso, Jenks, etc. but most lived in Tulsa, south or midtown.

HOT ROD, I tend to agree with you about the article. They seriously slanted it to act as if Tulsa has plans to equal or "one up" OKC. The author is dilusional if he thinks that is the reality. As you mentioned, he forgot to mention numerous other cultural things in OKC that Tulsa doesn't have a comparison to, as well as things on the boards that will or are likely to go through very soon here.

As for we are competing with Dallas, Denver and Seattle, you're kidding yourself. You live in Seattle and should know we're not 1/4 of what Seattle has or offers. Those are all Tier 1 cities. We're competing with the San Antonio's, Sacremento, Austin, Des Moines, Omaha, Charlotte,Louisville, Memphis, and other Tier 2 cities, we're just now starting to cross the line into a Tier 2 city, where some of these other cities already have been. We won't even be to the top half of this tier until we get our streetcar going.

Hi Metro

Thanks for the agreement on the Tulsa article. I just thought it read as though they were ignoring reality and trying to say that OKC has come to the level of Tulsa, when OKC passed Tulsa back in the 1990's already and is now competing with larger PEER markets. Tulsa is no longer a Peer, except at the state level. (that's not to put them down, but it IS reality)

As for the other comment, yes, I do live in Seattle but it is NOT a Tier 1 city. It looks like it might be, due mostly to our geography. It might be perceived to be, given the rather healthy skyline, again - mostly due to hills instead of OKC's flat (even decline elevation) downtown area. But Seattle is NO Chicago. No comparison. We only have about 4 or 5 Tier 1 cities in the USA (really we only have 3), and Seattle isn't in the top 10.

But Seattle is the premier US city in the isolated Pac NW, so it gets a lot of exposure. Seattle is a great place to live, for the most part. We had great civic leadership when I first moved here in the early 1990s but that has all changed. Now, we have all of the half baked plans and attempts to become more like Vancouver - yet they fail to realize what Vancouver has and we don't. In many ways, Tulsa is a lot like Seattle - Beautiful on the outside and more impressive LOOKING than reality is.

You all believed that mumbo jumbo stuff Seattle posters said about it being a Tier 1 large market, but really it is only 14. I know OKC is in the 30's, my point is Seattle is really just another mid-sized city that just so happens to be somewhat isolated from a US prospective. In fact, Seattle would be MUCH larger if Vancouver were not so big and important.

But sorry, I digressed.

My primary point was, OKC is competing with Tier 2 cities now and is becoming one. I think OKC can compete with Denver, Seattle, and Indy - and the new convention centre, rail transit downtown, central park, and other city improvements will greatly assist in making OKC a "member of the club". When you are a member, you compete. ... Plain and simple.

OKC became a competitor with the Ford Center and Bricktown. Sure, it may be the ONLY big city things OKC had in the early 2000's, but it was enough to LURE 2 NBA teams to Oklahoma City. (Remember the New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets - they wanted to stay. Of course, now we have the relocated Seattle Supersonics; as the OKC Thunder ---- YES, Seattle).

I call competition anything where one city is trying to gain something against another. Sure, OKC can't compete with Seattle on beauty - but really, that's about it. And MAPS 3 and the other OKC improvements will surely even the playing field for OKC even more.

Don't get me wrong, there is a reason I live in Seattle (mostly due to the climate and my current job - which is moving to Chicago by the way so I may very well also); but if it weren't for the heat/humidity - I would surely move back home to OKC; especially in 5-10 years. I do visit OKC at least once a year and I do more than just meet with family. .... :dizzy:

Well, all of this is completely subjective. I mean, if there was a unit of "good" so we could do a comparison of x units good to x units good, it would be different, but it isn't that way. The fact is that for a long time Tulsa was better than OKC in many ways (before I am crucified allow me to point out I have lived in OKC my whole life). But, it is on a completely different scale, and has different priorities. I was in Tulsa at the time this article came out. The fact remains that despite us OKC folks thinking we are blowing them out of the water, Tulsa still has a great many strong suits. The Brady district might not out do us on quantity and economic contribution, but I'd say it is much cooler. If it ever does reach the level of Bricktown we would have good reason to be scared. Bricktown, while being a good money maker and a decent place to hang out is completely inorganic and really feels that way. The Brady may take a LONG time to get there but when/if it does I think it will feel much more like a real part of the city, with people living there, making art there, etc. I also am very impressed with the area around the Mercury Lounge (15th and Boston), the neighborhood has never looked better, and they now have a great strip of restaurants and bars that is getting to the level of Cherry Street or Brookside only with a more "edgy" feel. I mean there are a great number of things in Tulsa that we just have NOTHING to compare to (i.e. - Philbrook, walkable neighborhoods, better bar scene, AWESOME antiques district, etc.) that to many residents are just as important as a Basketball team, new hotels, new skyscrapers, new central parks etc. Yes, we are currently the economic power house, and have the lions share of funding and good leadership (Tulsa has had very bad luck in that department for sure). But, to think we are just flat out better than them will do nothing but make us look like jerks and cause us to grow complacent.

I think the important point made in the article is that it isn't about one up man ship, it's about seeing the best in both communities. Tulsa is really a fantastic city, and for certain people, it offers much "more" of what they are looking for. The same is true for Oklahoma City. I think the article was trying to make the point that the closer the relationship between the two communities, the better the state as a whole will be.

EBAH - your points are very well written and I totally agree; Tulsa is a great (especially for being a small city) and probably is the country's best Tier 3 city. No doubt about that. Can Des Moines or Colorado Springs match Tulsa? NO.

And I do agree with you wholeheartedly that Tulsa has many urban things that OKC doesn't yet have. Very very true.

But, as you said - OKC is by far the powerhouse for Oklahoma and NOW can carry the torch as the perceived and real leader for the state. That does not mean Tulsa doesn't have a roll to play though. There are a few two large city states (Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota (right next to each other), Washington, Arizona (to some extent)) - and those states who are successful; the two cities realize their roles.

Philly is by far the largest and iconic city for Penn, but Pitt focuses on its role being a cultural and industry leader. In fact, I correlate Oklahoma with Pennsylvania - in that both states have two overwhelmingly large cities compared the the rest of the state and the cities have the same strengths and weaknesses. Penn is what, 4 times as large and how many years OLDER than OK; but nevertheless - I can see the similarities from an civic/city/urban metaphorical way.

I hope that my comments didn't offend anyone from Tulsa, it wasn't meant to. I only wrote the REALITY, and furthermore - I think Tulsa is due for a little OKC boasting given all of the decades of abuse OKC has gotten from them.

Guys, you may be misunderstanding me when I say OKC is now competing with Dallas, Denver, and Seattle.

Sure, OKC is smaller than all of those cities in Metro population - but OKC has and WILL HAVE most everything those cities have and therefore is and should be considered for things.

Think conventions mostly. :D

I know Dallas/Ft Worth is #5 in America but Seattle is not. Yet, Seattle has the perception by many to be a much larger city due to it's somewhat isolation.

Also guys, I think we/OKC needs to get off of the complex of people equating to greatness. It seams every time somebody makes a point that OKC competed with Dallas, some other person brings up the population disparity. Yet fact is, OKC competes with these cities more often than you think - it's just we used to LOSE; but now are starting to win.

I have visited Dallas before, as well as Houston, and lived in Denver and Seattle and DC, soon to live in Chicago. All of these places have metro populations higher than OKC and are much older - but that doesn't mean OKC can't compete with them and sometimes BEAT them. ....

I think some of you are saying "compete" but thinking in your minds COMPARE - two different train of thoughts there. ....

OKC does not compare well to many of those larger/older cities in many ways, 'except Houston - I agree; OKC is a smaller Houston in many fronts'. ...

but you can't deny that OKC can and will COMPETE with those cities and surely OKC city hall has it's eyes squarely on that fact with MAPS and all of the civic improvements. (otherwise, why are we doing all of this?)

I also disagree with the comments made earlier that OKC should try to be more like Charlotte and Indy, ect. OKC should be OKC, but be at the level of those other cities. OKC should not just be another this place or that - but use the best of OKC to make a stand and compete for jobs/people with those other cities.

Again - think conventions here when I say compete, or sports teams/events. Not necessarily population or economic contribution. YET! :D

Sorry to write so many different posts, but it is helping my contribution status. haha./lol

Platemaker, out of curiosity, are you in the printing business?

I am.

Sure, OKC is smaller than all of those cities in Metro population - but OKC has and WILL HAVE most everything those cities have and therefore is and should be considered for things.

Think conventions mostly. :D


As I'm sure you're aware, the hotel space near the convention center (i.e., in downtown) is critical to attracting conventions. OKC has about 2,000 hotel rooms downtown according to the CVB, and the Cox center has about 100k sq ft of floor space.

By contrast, Charlotte has over 4,000 rooms downtown with 32k in the city, Austin has more than 5,500 rooms downtown and 26k in the city, and Seattle has over 12,000 rooms downtown with 32k in the city; moreover, all have at least double the amount of convention space of the Cox center. Dallas isn't even worth comparing. How can OKC compete with these "Tier 2" cities when it comes to luring large conventions?



Also guys, I think we/OKC needs to get off of the complex of people equating to greatness. It seams every time somebody makes a point that OKC competed with Dallas, some other person brings up the population disparity. Yet fact is, OKC competes with these cities more often than you think - it's just we used to LOSE; but now are starting to win.


People continue to bring up population figures because they are one of the principal reasons that Dallas continues to attract new business and investment. How is OKC starting to "win" over Dallas? Can you be specific?



but you can't deny that OKC can and will COMPETE with those cities and surely OKC city hall has it's eyes squarely on that fact with MAPS and all of the civic improvements. (otherwise, why are we doing all of this?)


I think it's more a question of simply getting OKC "caught up" with many other cities across the nation. Bricktown, in the overall scheme of things, isn't a novel idea--many cities of OKC's size have such entertainment districts downtown or elsewhere, and a lot of them, frankly, are further along than Bricktown. Also, Hot Rod, I disagree that OKC city hall has its eyes on the likes of Dallas or Seattle in light of these improvements. These large scale projects can only go so far towards overcoming a population difference of two million or especially five million (again, bringing up that inconvenient statistic).



I also disagree with the comments made earlier that OKC should try to be more like Charlotte and Indy, ect. OKC should be OKC, but be at the level of those other cities. OKC should not just be another this place or that - but use the best of OKC to make a stand and compete for jobs/people with those other cities.


I agree, and by "be at the level of," I mean OKC should seek to offer the same selection of shopping, dining, events, entertainment, transit, etc. as these cities I mentioned. Of course, OKC should maintain its identity. I'm not suggesting OKC needs to truly imitate these cities but rather learn from their successes (and their failures--e.g., Austin voters narrowly defeating a light rail proposal in 2000 and the current commuter rail debacle).

Maybe it's where I work but it seems like no one I know that works in OKC actually lives in OKC. I ask where they live and it's all Norman, Yukon, Moore, Edmond, etc. I'm always amazed because OKC has over 500,000 people in the city but it seems like no one I know actually lives there..? When I worked for the same company in Tulsa I knew a few that lived in BA, Owasso, Jenks, etc. but most lived in Tulsa, south or midtown.
I have known many people who said they lived in Edmond, Moore, Yukon, Mustang, Midwest City, etc. who really lived in OKC. They lived in an area near those communities and many had mailing addresses out of those communities, like most of West "Edmond" it was also easier to tell someone else the general area rather than specifics.

From an outsider's perspective, moving from Michigan 4 years ago without having spent any time here until the year I moved, I've never sensed any rivalry from OKC. I never hear co-workers, friends, or people in general mention things that resemble rival statements.

Talk about it just feels manufactured, which is why I think Dr. Blackburn had a hard time doing his research (and he basically admits) about a rivalry.

That is because most of the rivalry is from the Tulsa side.