I just did an exhaustive post detailing all of DT Tulsa's development from an OKC perspective..it's pretty amazing. It kept me up all night tracking down, too.

Here's the link:
A Downtown ontheRange: Downtown development: OKC v. Tulsa (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2010/03/downtown-development-okc-v-tulsa.html)

Because it's written from an OKC perspective, it's intended to give you an idea of what it's like. I just think it's ironic how the development lull has been so convincingly attributed to the economy. Well, here's a city that's subject to the exact same economic conditions as us, that's got tons, and tons of active development right now.

I don't think it's an "OKC problem" -- I just think it has more to do with the fact that Tulsa is in the middle of their first wave, and their second wave isn't going to be separated by a year or two--whereas OKC is just in between the first and second waves of downtown development and a lot of people are waiting to see what happens with some things.

But it should be obvious that financing/economic concerns shouldn't still be holding back development and hindering progress and much as it seemingly is.

Check out the Mayo Hotel renovation, my favorite DT Tulsa project:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L3gtvb8usg4/S68s0Wuf03I/AAAAAAAAAfQ/QZ9oeOZLSqk/s400/mayohotel1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_L3gtvb8usg4/S68s62n3C6I/AAAAAAAAAfY/2Wx3kLWGHXA/s1600/MayoHotel.jpg

Ahead? Ummmm, this is largely in the "catching up" column if you ask me.

I'm not sure what we have to do to convince some people that OKC has done a lot more and will do a lot more downtown than Tulsa has done or has planned. The Skirvin, Ford Center (on phase 2 of renovations), several bricktown projects, triangle developments, Devon tower, total overhaul of downtown streetscape, revamping of myriad gardens, core to shore park, street car, new convention center, OKCMOA, automobile alley, bricktown ballpark, various midtown projects, and the list goes on and on.

I'm not saying OKC hasn't made mistakes or that what Tulsa is doing isn't exciting. It's great and that city really needs to make more out of its assets in the core and it is great to see them starting to do this. But Oklahoma City is a generation ahead in this respect. Now, it may have been farther behind when it started, but it's not even close right now. Oklahoma City has already made significant improvements and has had a more vibrant downtown for at least ten years and it's about to get started on projects that are even more significant in some ways. I'm rooting for Tulsa and love what they are doing, but it seems that when people get into these petty comparisons, they always seem to lack real perspective and things happening locally are discounted just because of familiarity.

But, I guess if building the largest building in the state, redoing the whole of street scapes downtown, and revamping our center most park is what is considered a development lull as people wait "to see what is happening", then I guess that really does show how far the city has come in 20 years.

BDP, you're right about discounting things due to familiarity, and I'm guilty of that--especially when I ask people to look beyond our big projects. The point I'm trying to make is that downtown OKC is shockingly lacking in the infill department at the moment, and the economy as culprit argument is bunk. OKC's actually has more economic growth than Tulsa and we haven't lost near the jobs that Tulsa has over the last few years with Whirlpool, Citgo, IBM, SemGroup, and others. OKC has done the opposite, adding jobs and major employers, such as AAA, Dell, SandRidge, among others and outstanding growth at Devon, CHK, Paycom, and many others. Not to mention that the OHC has grown by 50% recently. What we're seeing with all of this growth in OKC is that Downtown OKC, despite the huge buzz, reality is not living up to the fantasy because downtown growth has not kept up with metro growth..in fact in the last two years it's lost ground it seems. Interesting enough.

Now I'm not dissing on OKC for no reason, I don't do that..I usually have a point I'm getting at about something OKC could do a lot better. The Tulsa developments aren't catching up in my opinion because DT Tulsa still has more residents than DT OKC--and the 2000s did see some development in downtown, such as the Philtower Lofts, just a TON of new loft buildings between Cherry Street and the BA Expwy, the initial conversions that made the Brady Arts District appear on the map..and don't forget that the original, even cooler McNellie's is in Tulsa's Blue Dome District. It's not like on Friday and Saturday nights people in Tulsa just go out to Applebee's and then go home, wishing they had something like Bricktown. The truth is that they don't let not having a Bricktown Canal with yellow watertaxis and boarded up buildings come in the way of having a really cool scene that's just as vibrant and resurgent as OKC's.

What Tulsa has done in order to keep the economy from stifling their momentum is simple..the city of Tulsa has been fronting developers the loans that they need to secure other financing. The developers are doing a service to the city and the public by developing downtown, and Tulsa gets the money back after a 10 year repayment schedule and no interest which will allow them to turn around and reinvest the money again in more developments 10 years from now. It's an ingenious plan. If OKC had a program like that, there's no telling what we could do. The Skirvin wouldn't have had to be nearly as complicated of a deal, Bricktown would be easier to develop and the city could chose preference over Bricktown projects with retail, we'd be able to control projects like SandRidge by offering loans if they be pro-urban and not anti-urban, and projects such as The Flatiron and the Cotton Exchange would have been able to go forward with city assistance.

Tulsa's east end (Blue Dome) is in a way much cooler than anything OKC has downtown. That said, OKC has more life downtown than Tulsa, and for now at least, more happening with downtown housing (though Tulsa has several projects in that regard in the works).

First, these are always silly types of threads. The two really aren't in competition.

That said, there is plenty of vacant property and undeveloped sites in and around downtown Tulsa. Retail has failed over and over in downtown Tulsa. In the core of Tulsa there is little apartment/condo existing. And, outside of a couple of hotels, there isn't much hotel life there either. So I wonder what leads anyone to believe Tulsa is ahead of OKC. Tulsa hurt themselves for years by voting down initiative after initiative while OKC citizens invested in growth. Tulsa finally has been trying to take OKC's example and create a little life in their downtown.

That's a very self-congratulatory version of events, wouldn't you say? Of course the two aren't in competition, there is an unlimited supply of 2x4s and other building materials for urban development in both cities. But we're not above looking at the examples and developments in other cities, even in *gasp* Tulsa..Realism will get us a lot further than inflated ego.

As for vacant property, undeveloped sites, failed retail, little existing condo options, not much hotel life.. I'm confused, you pretty much described both of Oklahoma's cities.

I really don't see a comparison either. You even said it yourself. Tulsa is just in the middle of their first wave of projects and OKC is in between it's first and second waves. So according to that logic. Isn't OKC ahead? :P

But really. What Tulsa is doing is great and I actually follow their developments on Tulsanow, but it's still not on the level of OKC. And that's not ego talking. It's truth. Who knows how the situation might be flipped in ten years. However, right now if you do want to compare the two cities, Downtown OKC has more momentum than Tulsa. But it's not a bad thing.

Architect, I'm glad you also follow their development.

Maybe this is a failure to communicate. I'm not looking at this in the context of which city is "better." I'm looking at this in the context of Sunday, March 28, 2010--why the downtown Tulsa is expanding and OKC isn't. I admitted it has something to do with OKC just finishing its first wave, but I'm arguing that it has more to do with the City of Tulsa's ability to front developers the financing they need to pull their projects off. This is a solution instead of hearing the same tired excuse that's driven me crazy about our development, "it's the 'economic 'times.'" (what are "economic times" anyway?)

I actually think OKC is in the middle of the third round of downtown investment with the start of the fourth round.

the first round was back in the middle/early 1990s, with Maps 1. There we saw the rise of Bricktown and initial investment of Deep Deuce. We also saw plans for the other downtown districts; AAlley, Flatiron, and Arts District.

the second round was in the early 2000's with the spin-offs from private investment that occurred because of earlier Maps 1. We have seen the rise of Automobile Alley, Midtown, and lower bricktown; and the maturation if you will of Bricktown and Arts District. Also we saw the OKC national memorial mature and the new Federal Building.

this third round had started in mid 2007ish, and is really in 'preparation'/anticipation if you will of MAPS III, mostly with plans for Core to Shore being finally began to materialize and the maturation of other downtown districts (deep deuce, flatiron, aalley, arts district, cbd, lower bricktown) and Midtown. We also saw the rise of the boundary area of downtown to Oklahoma Health Center, we've also seen the rise of Film Row and 'plans' for Bricktown two. So far, Bricktown has more or less been in a lul as has the boundary between BT and DD and along the canal.

Really, I think we're in the beginning fourth phase of downtown development - with Devon Tower/Myriad Gardens, Project 180, Maps III, SandRidge, OCU Law and other projects being started. To me, Bricktown did not get the huge injection that was planned in the 3rd phase; but I think that is over now as we have moved on.

And not to start a fight or anything, but I think Tulsa is probably beginning their 2nd phase of downtown development, with the first being BOK and the new ballpark.

Again, when you consider OKC's investment and addition of amenities - it blows away anything else in the region save Dallas. As others have said, I dont think Tulsa can match it given their political and economic climate but then again - why do they NEED to try? They can just be themselves and OKC can be who it is.

Why does it need to be a competition?

Hot Rod

Think you are missing Spartan's point which was: "but I'm arguing that it has more to do with the City of Tulsa's ability to front developers the financing they need to pull their projects off. This is a solution instead of hearing the same tired excuse that's driven me crazy about our development, "it's the 'economic 'times.'" (what are "economic times" anyway?)"

It is a valid point. The economy has been cited for many of the announced/planned OKC development to, at best, be put on hold, if not canceled completely. My only question might be how is Tulsa "fronting" the money to the developers? Is it through long term bond debt (which by my understanding ends up at least doubling the cost of anything using this method).

The claims made in this thread by Spartan sure are a stretch, and besides even if Tulsa is "loaning out money", Spartan doesn't mention at what price? Look at cities who do this, they are bonded out to the max right now, and levereged their futures. Many of the rust belt cities are maxed out with bonds and can't invest during downtimes like this. I see OKC ahead of the game in so many ways. We haven't gone into debt and we have the ability to do so if we absolutely wanted to. Furthermore, who is the ultimate authority on deciding if the City "loaning out money for private development" is a good thing? Isn't it KC that is struggling with debt on the Power and Light district?

Hot Rod

Think you are missing Spartan's point which was: "but I'm arguing that it has more to do with the City of Tulsa's ability to front developers the financing they need to pull their projects off. This is a solution instead of hearing the same tired excuse that's driven me crazy about our development, "it's the 'economic 'times.'" (what are "economic times" anyway?)"

It is a valid point. The economy has been cited for many of the announced/planned OKC development to, at best, be put on hold, if not canceled completely. My only question might be how is Tulsa "fronting" the money to the developers? Is it through long term bond debt (which by my understanding ends up at least doubling the cost of anything using this method).

Maybe I am misssing the point as well, but I don't know anywhere in this country right now where projects are being put on hold or cancelled, and that includes Tulsa. Its not a "tired" excuse, its the cold hard reality. For 30 years in this country, we've had a building boom that was fueld by cheap money. Now all of a sudden developers actually have to show a viable business model on which their plans actually generate some revenue. And the sad truth is that despite all of the progress we've made here in OKC over the past decade, somewhat weak demographics and and a lack of a "track history" here makes banks very skittish. Yes I'm sure there are other factors at play as well, many of which have been explained very well here. I just don't think some of you know how hard it is to line up adequate financing these days.

Also, to respond to Spartan's post about Tulsa loaning money out to developers, I'm not entirely sure about that, but I have a feeling that a city that is in such dire financial straights that it had to lay off 1/3 of its police force simply does not have the kind of money to be cutting checks to developers. It may help with infrastructure improvements and tax breaks like those you see under the TIF program. I know that the city did give some money and grants to the people behind the Mayo, but that was in much more prosperous times. Again, I could be wrong, but Tulsa city government simply does not have the financial capacity to be supporting any substantial development. Remember, the city has a huge future obligation in the road program they passed a few years back. And ONEOK Field was financed by some really shady tax deals that could easily be ruled down if someone made a legal challenge that was strong enough. Then what will the city do?

I read the blog post and while I appreciate the time it took to compose, I think it really glossed over a lot of points. Devon Tower it not a small deal. It is probably the biggest single privately funded constuction project to be done in this state since the oil boom days of the 70's. It is probably keeping this area's construction industry afloat in a time when many cities are seeing general contractors filing for Chapter 7 left and right. And Project 180, MAPS 3, and Sandridge are not as big, but not small either. Tulsa has lots of small projects going on, but based on dollar amount, anything going on in OKC blows them away. Its not like there's anything wrong with that. Tulsa does lots of small projects, OKC does a few big ones. And so far it works well for each respective city.

I would be curious to see what the total $ of development in downtown of both cities is. I have seen that there is about $3.4-4 BILLION of investment going on in OKC. That includes OMRF tower, completion of the hospitals at OU center, Proton Cancer center at OU, Eye Institute expansion, Blood Institute, etc., etc., the TIF street and infrastructure development, Devon, Ford Center, Maps, two Bricktown hotels, School of Music growth, OCU move to downtown and expansion, Native American Heritage Center, 4 boathouses, and many smaller private projects still on the board and awaiting the up-tic in the economy. Of the total, its seems a great deal of investment is private money. OKC has reached a great balance of investing public money for creating areas where private money wants to invest in.

What $ total is going on in Tulsa now?

Maybe I am misssing the point as well, but I don't know anywhere in this country right now where projects are being put on hold or cancelled, and that includes Tulsa. Its not a "tired" excuse, its the cold hard reality. For 30 years in this country, we've had a building boom that was fueld by cheap money. Now all of a sudden developers actually have to show a viable business model on which their plans actually generate some revenue. And the sad truth is that despite all of the progress we've made here in OKC over the past decade, somewhat weak demographics and and a lack of a "track history" here makes banks very skittish. Yes I'm sure there are other factors at play as well, many of which have been explained very well here. I just don't think some of you know how hard it is to line up adequate financing these days.

Also, to respond to Spartan's post about Tulsa loaning money out to developers, I'm not entirely sure about that, but I have a feeling that a city that is in such dire financial straights that it had to lay off 1/3 of its police force simply does not have the kind of money to be cutting checks to developers. It may help with infrastructure improvements and tax breaks like those you see under the TIF program. I know that the city did give some money and grants to the people behind the Mayo, but that was in much more prosperous times. Again, I could be wrong, but Tulsa city government simply does not have the financial capacity to be supporting any substantial development. Remember, the city has a huge future obligation in the road program they passed a few years back. And ONEOK Field was financed by some really shady tax deals that could easily be ruled down if someone made a legal challenge that was strong enough. Then what will the city do?

I read the blog post and while I appreciate the time it took to compose, I think it really glossed over a lot of points. Devon Tower it not a small deal. It is probably the biggest single privately funded constuction project to be done in this state since the oil boom days of the 70's. It is probably keeping this area's construction industry afloat in a time when many cities are seeing general contractors filing for Chapter 7 left and right. And Project 180, MAPS 3, and Sandridge are not as big, but not small either. Tulsa has lots of small projects going on, but based on dollar amount, anything going on in OKC blows them away. Its not like there's anything wrong with that. Tulsa does lots of small projects, OKC does a few big ones. And so far it works well for each respective city.

Outstanding post.

It basically sounds as if Spartans blog post should have been just about downtown housing becuase it does sound like Tulsa has some good housing projects in the works while OKC has but a few small projects going on.

It also should be noted that the existing, recently-completed housing projects in and around downtown OKC are not fairing well at all -- with the exception of the Centennial.

Lots of unsold units in projects that were started just the last couple of years.

So, how the heck to you finance a new condo development? There are plenty on the drawing board with money already invested in land but the developers simply can't get them funded.

I still believe the right project could sell units, but even in that case, how do you convince a lender YOUR project is different than several others that are languishing??

It's a combination of having some over-priced projects coming on line just as times got tough (and hence a bad recent local track record) and lenders getting very, very convsevative. The latter is not unique to OKC but the former definitely is.

None of the planned residential projects in Downtown Austin that were not financed prior to the bust are being built. The only projects being constructed at the moment had significant financing (many steps into their step financing) already in place. There are a bunch of the "on hold" and many more that have been canceled entirely and Austin is still considered one of the "economic wonders" of the current economic crisis like OKC has been called.

I also wonder how much of Tulsa's development is financed by home grown banks like BOK? The only development stuff moving here is small projects mostly funded by local/regional banks.

I'm looking at this in the context of Sunday, March 28, 2010--why the downtown Tulsa is expanding and OKC isn't.

But I don't think a case has been made that this is even true. Oklahoma City has many developments going on that aren't being built with city debt. In fact, the construction of the Devon tower is actually giving BACK to the city and paying for a complete revamping of the downtown street scapes. So, you could argue, that not only is it advancing further, Oklahoma City is actually getting paid for it with immediate reinvestment.

If anything, it just seems to be different strategies. Instead or borrowing against future revenue to invest directly into projects for private sale that may or may not be in demand, Oklahoma City is using its public resources to build public assets debt free. As for Oklahoma City using public funds to issue debt to private developers, I'm not completely opposed, but I would much rather see them effectively enforce development design codes and proposals through OCURA before I trust them to actually invest in these developments. Oklahoma City's problems have been more of a result of poor oversight rather than lack of funding, imo. I'd much rather build public assets with public money that entice private development rather than use public money to build private developments that need public money to be built.

It also should be noted that the existing, recently-completed housing projects in and around downtown OKC are not fairing well at all -- with the exception of the Centennial.

Lots of unsold units in projects that were started just the last couple of years.

So, how the heck to you finance a new condo development? There are plenty on the drawing board with money already invested in land but the developers simply can't get them funded.

I still believe the right project could sell units, but even in that case, how do you convince a lender YOUR project is different than several others that are languishing??

It's a combination of having some over-priced projects coming on line just as times got tough (and hence a bad recent local track record) and lenders getting very, very convsevative. The latter is not unique to OKC but the former definitely is.

I know this might sound cliche, but "If You Build It, They Will Come". Have any you played any of the old Sim City games? It is a game, in which you actually design your own city from the ground up, making residential and commercial areas, transportation routes, malls, businesses and so on, and how you build it determines if you attract population growth. What people have to understand is that jobs come first, there has to be a substantial amount of a workforce in the downtown area to drive dense residential construction. We won't see mass downtown residential construction, or those empty spaces being filled until downtown okc brings more high paying jobs to that area. There has to be a demand for these types of residential areas, and at this time there is not a demand because downtown OKC is not an attractable place to live. However, after Project 180 is completed in a few years, around the time the Devon Tower is completed, the downtown area will be more attractive, and people will want to live downtown, henceforth, the demand for new residential construction will go up.

What people have to understand that the new Tulsa developments, have been on the drawing board for years, and they have recently just now got around to starting those developments, and this was before the recession. Now Oklahoma City has a great number of projects going on right now, during the recession, but can you just imagine the developments we will see in the downtown area, once the recession is over? In the end Tulsa will always being playing catch up to Oklahoma City, sorry.

I meant for that post to say "why the Downtown Tulsa HOUSING MARKET is expanding..." And hopefully no one is under the sheer delusion that the Downtown OKC housing market is expanding. It's not. It's frozen at the moment. Face the facts, stop drinking the koolaid. And yes, it's a temporary condition, and yes--things will almost certainly heat up again, but not tomorrow and not next week.

I think you all missed my point. The Downtown Tulsa housing loans are LOANS. The city is not handing out grants. The terms are that they are are repaid after 10 years, and interest-free. The goal is that they are loans that can be secured and used towards the singular purpose of getting downtown housing going.

Some of you made a point about the dire straights Tulsa is in financially. Their city coffers were leveraged more on energy prices than ours were, and their citizens' livelihoods are more dependent on them as well, affecting sales tax revenues. The housing loans however came from Vision 2025, passed in like..2002, and a 1996 bond issue that was passed a long time ago. Supposedly the TDA is holding onto lots of other loan money that they're gonna sit on until one of their cronies has a development proposal. Still, it benefits downtown, and if it could be done more transparently, OKC should definitely look at it.

"why the Downtown Tulsa HOUSING MARKET is expanding..."

That would have helped.



Face the facts, stop drinking the koolaid.

I don't think anyone has misrepresented any facts or shown any bias actually. I think you have a case that downtown OKC is stalled if you just want to talk housing. I think your blog post addressed more than just housing, so that was not clear.


I think you all missed my point. The Downtown Tulsa housing loans are LOANS. The city is not handing out grants. The terms are that they are are repaid after 10 years, and interest-free.

I think we know what a loan is, but it's still public funds at issue, especially when you're talking interest free. Do they start collecting interest after 10 years or does it effectively become a grant at that point?

Again, Tulsa has some nice projects going and we could probably debate the funding issue. OKC's new housing development in the core has slowed, but there is still some mid town developments and I personally feel that our downtown housing issues have been caused more by poor oversight by OCURA and the lack of a good mix of housing. Most of it has unfortunately been future priced. Hopefully, Tulsa can look at that a take a different approach (do we know what their pricing structure will be?). I still don't know if we should subsidize new projects with interest free loans (unless of course the funds are used to tear down The Hill and start over ; ) ).

Yeah sorry about that..sometimes I think of something else to say and don't completely round out my last thought. The Tulsa loans are 10-year loans, so it's not as convenient as a 30-year commercial loan for development purposes, but it's something you can use to build a total equity package on.

As for the Tulsa pricing.. I would say that almost 2/3 of the new Tulsa units are rent, so right off the bat, you have something that the market will realistically absorb. The average price range for the projects is probably $800/mo to $1,200..about $1/sf is what seems pretty typical across the board when I looked at their projects.

There's also a new rent controlled project overlooking the south leg of the IDL that I forgot to mention in the blog post. That'll be accessible for artists and people just out of college who can't afford $800/mo but want to be downtown/uptown. The only major new supply of upscale condos hitting the Tulsa market at the moment is that absolute boom in small infill lofts being seen north of Cherry Street and in the East Village. The area north of Cherry Street, several blocks..virtually every lot in the neighborhood is being razed and built over with contemporary 2-4 unit lofts. There's also some in the East Village of downtown.. those start around $200,000 or so for 1,000 sf, with more features than the loft apartments in the CBD/Brady/Greenwood/Blue Dome/Uptown hoods.

Tulsa didn't fall for the fallacy that we did, in that you have to develop a new market "from the top down" in order to maximize demand at all price levels, because the rich won't come in to the same extent as they would if there is a glut of starter pricepoints in the area. I even used to believe that, we all did. That was the only thing that made the initial wave of mass residential infill less than extremely positive. It still went over pretty well, all things considered.

Tulsa didn't fall for the fallacy that we did, in that you have to develop a new market "from the top down" in order to maximize demand at all price levels, because the rich won't come in to the same extent as they would if there is a glut of starter pricepoints in the area. I even used to believe that, we all did. That was the only thing that made the initial wave of mass residential infill less than extremely positive. It still went over pretty well, all things considered.
That works in certain markets...so it was taken to be "the gospel" in that type of development but the main reason why that kind of development is popular with developers is there is more potential margin in those so it can be more profitable for them.

It (kinda) worked here in Austin because of all the California tech transplants and thinking those were "bargain prices" compared to what they were used to paying in Silicon Valley.

hope tulsa does something to attract people off the main interstates and take that toll road up to that city, to bad for a city tulsas size there is not direct interstate thats does not have a toll to it.

Spartan;311782: I just did an exhaustive post detailing all of DT Tulsa's development from an OKC perspective..it's pretty amazing. It kept me up all night tracking down, too.


I wouldn't burn any night oil or lose any sleep :doh: concerning Tulsa's developments.

The Ford Center (18,200 bb) has better and more expansive seating than T-Town's BOK Center (17,700 bb). They do have a better building facade which attributed to their high cost in addition to a well-reknown architect.

Our Performing Arts Civic Center and Bricktown entertainment district is farther more alone than their Blue Dome district with their aging Brady Theater.

We have a canal and a river with Core to Shore bringing it all together; they have a river which is being developed in the Broken Arrow area. The Tulsa area voters turned down a $700 million dollar plan to develop the Arkansas River (Riverside area) because Broken Arrow didn't want it to detract from their river development.

We have the state's tallest skyscraper under construction.

Their new 7,700-seat (overpriced) ballpark can't touch or hold a candle to the AT&T Bricktown Ballpark.

Enough said!

I feel that Tulsa is finally coming out; however, I wouldn't compare them to Oklahoma City. We have put too much distance between both cities.

Spartan;311782: I just did an exhaustive post detailing all of DT Tulsa's development from an OKC perspective..it's pretty amazing. It kept me up all night tracking down, too.


I wouldn't burn any night oil or lose any sleep :doh: concerning Tulsa's developments.

The Ford Center (18,200 bb) has better and more expansive seating than T-Town's BOK Center (17,700 bb). They do have a better building facade which attributed to their high cost in addition to a well-reknown architect.

Our Performing Arts Civic Center and Bricktown entertainment district is farther more alone than their Blue Dome district with their aging Brady Theater.

Well obviously you aren't burning any night oil concerning much of anything.. BOK has less seats because the seats are wider and there are more suites. And BOK isn't just a "better building facade" .. it's a landmark building. The Ford Center isn't bad, and I've argued the point with a lot of people who seem to think the Ford sucks, which it doesn't. The Ford was a bargain project. The BOK was never meant to be a bargain project, Tulsa wanted to spend a little on it, and they got what they wanted.

I agree that our Civic Center Music Hall is nicer than the "aging Brady Theater." But first of all, I love that the Brady is "aging" aka historic, and they're about to renovate it again. Second of all, Tulsa's main PAC is the Tulsa PAC located across from the new One Technology Place City Hall Borg Cube. Inside of it are 3 smaller theaters and one large concert hall about the size of the Civic Center's. Tulsa also has many of community theaters similar to the Plaza Theater.


We have a canal and a river with Core to Shore bringing it all together; they have a river which is being developed in the Broken Arrow area. The Tulsa area voters turned down a $700 million dollar plan to develop the Arkansas River (Riverside area) because Broken Arrow didn't want it to detract from their river development.

The Tulsa area voters turned down the river plan because it wasn't the best proposal, the leadership behind it was fragmented, and because of development in Jenks, not development in BA. BA doesn't have any river development to speak of. Jenks on the other hand is the only city in Oklahoma that is actually currently developing mixed-use lifestyle centers, and they've got two currently under construction, with a ginormous one on hold. Still waiting for the lifestyle center proposals in BA, Tulsa, Edmond, OKC, and Norman to turn any dirt..


We have the state's tallest skyscraper under construction.

Their new 7,700-seat (overpriced) ballpark can't touch or hold a candle to the AT&T Bricktown Ballpark.

Enough said!

I feel that Tulsa is finally coming out; however, I wouldn't compare them to Oklahoma City. We have put too much distance between both cities.

The Bricktown Ballpark is a ballpark built or a higher league. ONEOK Field is a smaller project, and it probably won't attract any tournaments like the Brick--but ONEOK will still be a very nice environment for Bedlam in Tulsa and Drillers games, maybe other concert events, who knows. It's doing a lot for the Greenwood area of Tulsa.

As for Devon Tower, don't forget that it will go like this: Devon, Tulsa, Tulsa, Tulsa, Tulsa, Chase Tower, Tulsa, Tulsa.. once we fill in some more gaps, then we'll be able to talk skyline smack. That's not what this is about though. I'm really trying to avoid the comparisons and just get people in OKC to objectively analyze. Things like MAPS 3, Core to Shore, Devon Tower, etc are GREAT things for our downtown. But I'm just trying to get us to focus on the small things right now.

I see urban development sort of like a stream that you want to make splashes in. A lot of cities have a good balance of pebbles being thrown into the stream, making ripples, and huge boulders that make huge splashes. You need a healthy balance of both. I look at OKC and I see people heaving ginormous boulder after boulder after boulder into this tiny little stream that is our little downtown, but not a lot of pebbles. I look at Tulsa and I see a city that doesn't have any boulders to throw in, but they're doing their best to make up with smaller pebbles, and they're making the ripples that they need. We discount them because we've gotten to the point that all we see are the big boulders, as if the small pebbles don't matter to us anymore.. have we forgotten that the pebbles are the most important piece?

The pebbles are what led us down the MAPS 3 road, not the boulders. Voters didn't approve MAPS 3 because MAPS 1 projects were successful. They approved MAPS 3 because MAPS 1 and subsequent investments helped average people get involved in downtown. MAPS 1 impact is what has made downtown what it is today, and that impact comes mostly in the way of smaller projects. Devon Tower and the NBA are great for our community, but the huge iconic things aren't the things that build a community. Devon Tower, the NBA, MAPS 3, Core to Shore, the new Crosstown, Boathouse Row, and on and on..these big boulder projects need to be leading to smaller projects.

If we haven't been able to empower private investment and entrepreneurship downtown then we haven't come close to realizing what our potential could be. The focus on the pebbles, not on the boulders, has to be what sets the MAPS era apart from the Urban Renewal era..if not, MAPS will be end up being the same thing. OKC doesn't need more "big architecture" and it will never come to our rescue and save downtown with these big projects. Did we not learn that lesson? We need infill more than anything. We need more small pebbles to throw into the stream.

THAT is why studying Tulsa is relevant and useful. Same goes for other cities.

While you can talk about pebbles being better than boulders, it takes both. And it seems that the OKC strategy is working quite well. The focus on downtown development has given OKC a national identity. Our workforce is growing and our income is steadily improving. I personally am involved in several start-up firms who are likely to locate here instead of Los Angeles. One of the reasons why is the ease of recruiting engineers here vs. Los Angeles. OKC has shed its backward image of just a couple of decades ago. Tulsa has had the image of a small oil city with nice hills. It was content on living off that legacy for years. Now OKC has the higher national image and greater recognition. It is because of the aggressive approach to the public-private partnership. The OKC model is now recommended by cities across the US who look at ways to actually get city redevelopment going.

When I lived in Tulsa I felt the arrogance of most Tulsans when it related to OKC. I think it has been a shock for many there that OKC actually has passed them in the national eyes. I think it actually spurred them on to act a little more progressively in the last couple of years. Kudos for great projects like the BOK center, but it never would have happened without their sense of competition with OKC.

We still need more pebbles..

We still need more pebbles..

Cocoa or Fruity?

haha, how about a mix of both.

and Spartan, I agree that you should have reworded the title of this thread. It sure would have cleared up a lot of things and might have spurred the conversation you have been looking for.

HOUSING certainly puts a different prospective to the subject of downtown development between the two cities - and definitely is an interesting topic to discuss. As you say, OKC does need more small pebbles to help fill-in the big boulders we all know and love in this rapidly expanding big city (and I agree that Tulsa's collection of little pebbles is impressive and worth noting how they are able to do it).

Is there any way to change the title of the thread?

Still waiting for the lifestyle center proposals in BA, Tulsa, Edmond, OKC, and Norman to turn any dirt..

In OKC, Tuscana has already turned dirt, and they are on schedule. But it is a large scale, multiphase development. Now, the order in which the phases are built has changed (residential first, then retail), but it is moving forward.



As for Devon Tower, don't forget that it will go like this: Devon, Tulsa, Tulsa, Tulsa, Tulsa, Chase Tower, Tulsa, Tulsa.. once we fill in some more gaps, then we'll be able to talk skyline smack.

Let's not, because although Tulsa has four towers taller than OKC's tallest, the gap isn't impressive. 667 feet, 648 feet, 516 feet, 513 feet, and then OKC's tallest at 500 feet. It's lackluster, don't you think? And it's more like Devon, Tulsa, Tulsa, Tulsa, Tulsa, Chase Tower, FNC, City Place, Oklahoma Tower, and THEN Tulsa... Now can we talk skyline smack?

That being said, both cities have things going on that are very valuable to each city in their own perspectives. Tulsa has sort of always focused on the pebbles, while Oklahoma City has been in boulder mode since the 1970s. Thankfully, we're on the right track. MidTown and the developments north of Bricktown are taking care of the first round of pebbles.

It is all perspective. OKC has lots of "pebbles", so I am not sure what this point is. Go to Midtown, Automobile Alley, Bricktown,Arts District, Film Exchange, Deep Deuce, etc. and see plenty of smaller private and local development projects. Tulsa doesn't have as MANY areas with development projects so they are more concentrated in a couple of areas. OKCs rentals for downtown are at Central Park. Maybe some think that isn't "downtown", but it is a huge complex that is serving mostly the downtown area, not the subburbs where there is alread a massive amount of for-rent properties.

I doubt that rental units downtown Tulsa convince any large companies to relocate to downtown Tulsa, but thousands of people working at Devon in the new tower will certainly encourage residential development in the vicinity. And dont forget that the Devon center also includes 80,000 sq. ft. of commercial space for shops, restaurants, etc. The large workout center there means workers can stay downtown to do more of their normal life things. All that is missing downtown to encourage more residential is a food store and lower price rentals. Those will come as Devon completes and Sandridge ramps up.

It definitely seems that Tulsa has had more success with downtown residential conversion. I don't know where the residents are coming from, though.

Geez, you guys. What's the need to compare Okc & Tulsa again and again and again? They are both fine cities. Each has its +'s and each has it -'s and it will always be so. So what's the deal here?

Especially since there is no way that Tulsa will ever catch up to Oklahoma City. :kicking::kicking::kicking:

No kidding, I stayed at the Hotel Ambassador in DT Tulsa a few weeks ago, the hotel was dead, the area around it dead, tons of surface lots with no streetlife, even drove over to MidTown (Utica Square) and over by the BOK, Bluedome, etc. almost zero streetlife and very eery feeling. The new ballpark is a joke, but I am jealous of some of their art deco buildings (Atlas Life, etc.)

No kidding, I stayed at the Hotel Ambassador in DT Tulsa a few weeks ago, the hotel was dead, the area around it dead, tons of surface lots with no streetlife, even drove over to MidTown (Utica Square) and over by the BOK, Bluedome, etc. almost zero streetlife and very eery feeling. The new ballpark is a joke, but I am jealous of some of their art deco buildings (Atlas Life, etc.)

That is unfortunate about the Ambassador because it's a fantastic hotel, very similar to the Colcord, but in a rather desolate area of south downtown Tulsa. But I would say that area, called Uptown, is very similar to OKC's Midtown about 5 years ago before McNellie's, 1492, Cafe do Brasil, etc. moved in. Both areas are adjacent to beautiful historic neighborhoods, in Tulsa's case Maple Ridge/Riverview and in OKC Heritage Hills/Mesta Park. Both are just outside of the main CBD but are still connected to downtown, for instance most of midtown OKC is concentrated between 10th & 13th while Uptown Tulsa is between 13th & 15th with some extending it as far as 18th. However at 18th & Boston there is an area of several bars and restaurants called Sobo that is pretty popular like the little cluster around NW 10 & Walker. There is a lot of potential for both districts in both cities, it will be interesting to see which one develops faster.

I know it's the Colcords "sister" hotel or whatever, but we stayed in a suite and I would say it's not NEAR the caliber of the Colcord. It was much more outdated and smaller, both from common areas to room size and amenities.

I know it's the Colcords "sister" hotel or whatever, but we stayed in a suite and I would say it's not NEAR the caliber of the Colcord. It was much more outdated and smaller, both from common areas to room size and amenities.

You might try the Mayo next time. It's brand new and much more modern than the Ambassador, and also in a better location downtown. So really the Ambassador is probably more similar to the Skirvin in that it's more traditional, though much smaller, and the Mayo and Colcord are probably more similar due to the more contemporary finishes.

The Ambassador is quaint, but nothing like the Skirvin. The Skirvin is one of Hilton's highest ranked hotels and has a great full service meetings area, catering, etc. The Ambassador is a boutique hotel with limited services...although it has one of my favorite restaurants located there, the Chalkboard.

Back on topic, Nick's analogy of the pebbles and boulders was very thought-provoking. I didn't see it as any kind of nitpicking comparison, I saw it as instructive.

Whoever said we did have the pebbles and listed the Film Exchange as an example; I don't think that's what he's talking about. It COULD be and maybe WILL be, but it's not comparable to some of the pebbles he was talking about in Tulsa.

Well obviously you aren't burning any night oil concerning much of anything.. BOK has less seats because the seats are wider and there are more suites. And BOK isn't just a "better building facade" .. it's a landmark building.

Wow I'll say................
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/bok_night_shot_c67j.jpg

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/tulsa_01_9401.jpg

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/tulsa_skyline.jpg

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/tulsa.jpg

I agree it looks cool, but it looks severely out of place....

Old buildings...then a big hunk of stainless steel looking material in the middle.

Back on topic, Nick's analogy of the pebbles and boulders was very thought-provoking. I didn't see it as any kind of nitpicking comparison, I saw it as instructive.

Whoever said we did have the pebbles and listed the Film Exchange as an example; I don't think that's what he's talking about. It COULD be and maybe WILL be, but it's not comparable to some of the pebbles he was talking about in Tulsa.

Exactly. I've long been making examples out of Tulsa because I am fascinated by the city. This is a point I hope you guys will hear me out on: It astounds me how a city can just be so effortlessly beautiful, despite all of its corruption, bitter people, and other complications--when you get down to it, people and especially property owners in Tulsa just care more about their city. They don't have the land run spirit that we do, so while they don't dream as big as we do, they are a lot more thorough and when they do something it's done right.

1 Look at Brookside in Tulsa, which is a stretch of Peoria from 31st to 48th or so. Between 31st and 41st is a beautiful new streetscape and 25 mph speed limit. We should be doing that for Western. A streetscape is on the way, but how much longer? I thought it was in the 2008 bond issue..still hasn't happened.

2 Look at their downtown loft conversions, way ahead of ours. Yes, it makes sense that Tulsa is doing exceptionally well because of their abundant historic building stock--and their pride in their historic buildings. But it wouldn't be possible in these economic conditions without the city's loans. This is something OKC should look to include money for in the next bond issue.

3 Look at their retail. Do I really have to rattle off all of the stores they have that we don't? There are at least a dozen..some of the main ones are Whole Foods, Sak's, Fleming's Steakhouse, Dave & Buster's, Anthropologie, Wolfgang Puck Bistro, IMAX Theater, and on and on. Why? The answer is simple. OKC lacks quality development to attract these stores, which Tulsa has in abundance.

4 Their inner city neighborhoods. There is a 3-mile radius centered around 21st and Utica that is probably by far the nicest area of Oklahoma. In this little area you've got Utica Square, Cherry Street, Brookside, Maple Ridge, and many more awesome areas as well as the downtown districts. It's also the state's #1 income ZIP code. The #2 income ZIP code is far south Tulsa. Tulsa places a major emphasis on each neighborhood. Even less significant neighborhoods have a decorative logo sign at every entrance identifying that neighborhood.

So how can OKC get its deficiencies in retail, spurring more lofts, sprucing up the inner city, and making something more out of Western Avenue? And keep in mind these are NOT deficiencies compared to Tulsa or any other city, they're just deficiencies that I think we can all recognize about our own city. Well, here's what Tulsa does and why they don't have these problems, maybe we can learn from them.. 1, Western Avenue needs a streetscape; 2, we need to offer no-interest loans for downtown housing during rough economies in order to keep the housing market constant; 3, we ought to place decorative logos at the entrance of EVERY inner city neighborhood; and 4, we need to somehow get some nicer retail development. Whether that comes by incentivizing nicer development or just by making crappy development harder to do, whatever..it needs to happen. Personally I would just rather see a citizen-led campaign against average or crappy development.

Quote:
4 Their inner city neighborhoods. There is a 3-mile radius centered around 21st and Utica that is probably by far the nicest area of Oklahoma. In this little area you've got Utica Square, Cherry Street, Brookside, Maple Ridge, and many more awesome areas as well as the downtown districts. It's also the state's #1 income ZIP code. The #2 income ZIP code is far south Tulsa. Tulsa places a major emphasis on each neighborhood. Even less significant neighborhoods have a decorative logo sign at every entrance identifying that neighborhood.

Yes, I'm amazed at how beautiful and expansive midtown Tulsa is. Block after block of beautiful mansions, hills, trees, bimmers, benzes, etc.

I hate the comparisons, but Okc needs to step it up in the beautiful neighborhood department. There's one, maybe 2 areas in okc (NH doesn't count) on par with midtown Tulsa, and those areas are tiny by comparison.

http://www.riverviewtulsa.org/images/RIVERVIEW_Sign.jpg

This is an example of the signs that are on every street in the Midtown Tulsa neighborhoods. (Going down Harvard or Yale you see one at 21st St, 21st Pl, 22nd St, 22nd Pl, 23rd St...etc). If we just marked neighborhoods better and created greater awareness that this is a neighborhood, not just a collection of rundown houses with a few nice ones--maybe more people would actually care about their neighborhood, and their home.

So basically you mean like we do have signage very similar as well for Bricktown, Arts District, Auto Alley, Heritage Hills, MidTown, Mesta Park, Jefferson Park, Paseo, Edgemere, Crown Heights and Western Avenue?

I'm talking about for Miller, Classen Ten-Penn, Shepherd, Gatewood, Crestwood, Cleveland, Putnam Heights, hell even Capitol Hill neighborhoods. Contrary to popular opinion, Heritage Hills, Mesta Park, J-Park, Paseo, Edgemere, and Crown Heights don't make up even half of the inner north side's neighborhoods...

Miller has signage too, as does Crestwood and Putnam Heights. Capitol Hill is working on it. Let's not also forget the Asian District has nice signage.

I agree it looks cool, but it looks severely out of place....

Old buildings...then a big hunk of stainless steel looking material in the middle.

yep...just like that Devon building is going to look in OKC.

The Devon building follows a regular pattern....up. It's not going to be pure stainless steal either. Last time I checked, it will have windows. It's not a blob of steal in the middle of a run down looking downtown.

OKC has a thriving downtown scene.

OKC has a more modern downtown look. (Didn't say pure age, said look)

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b26/okcland/12-05downtown.jpg
http://www.kwhb.com/Community/images/downtown_Tulsa-1.jpg

The Devon building follows a regular pattern....up. It's not going to be pure stainless steal either. Last time I checked, it will have windows. It's not a blob of steal in the middle of a run down looking downtown.

OKC has a thriving downtown scene.

OKC has a more modern downtown look. (Didn't say pure age, said look)

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b26/okcland/12-05downtown.jpg
http://www.kwhb.com/Community/images/downtown_Tulsa-1.jpg

Oh come on, I would take the BOK Center over the Ford Center in a heartbeat, same for the highrises..............Devons not there yet.

Oh come on, I would take the BOK Center over the Ford Center in a heartbeat, same for the highrises..............Devons not there yet. The rate that Tulsa keeps losing jobs then they may not have to worry about their downtown. Just today, Arena Resources announced they would be acquired by OKC based Sandridge Energy and the jobs will be absored into OKC. Also today, AA annouced that 200 jobs will be moved from Tulsa to Dallas. Tulsa continues to lose jobs and they have not stopped the tide for several years. It too bad for T town but is a winner for OKC and Dallas.

^ And especially a winner for Houston, the New Oil Capitol of the World. That's a horrible picture of Tulsa compared to an awesome picture of OKC. Bias, much?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1385/1362728482_54642048b8_b.jpg

I only like one of Tulsa's skyscrapers and it's the older one with green on the top. The rest of the prominent ones are basically the same as OKC's; boxy and ugly.

I'd also take the BOK Center over the Ford, but when the renovations of the Ford are complete, it should hold up a lot better when compared to the BOK. Tulsa's will still be much more aesthetically pleasing but the Ford will have catched up a lot with the glass facade on the southside.

I am not comparing the BOK center to anything. All I have stated is it looks out of place. It is modern, cool and a nice looking building, has green grass, and sits in the middle of a blighted downtown.

"Blighted downtown" = urban renewal speech. Say it aint so!

Which I don't have an official opinion on because I was not even a mere sperm at the time urban renewal happened.

Take what I am saying for face value, opinion: it looks out of place. Not sure what the giant fuss is about.

OKC wins for this one reason.

Random TNT announcer: "We are at the Ford Center, in downtown Oklahoma City, for game 1 of the Western Conference Finals..."

On the TV screen will be an inside shot of the Ford Center. What goes on inside the building IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT than what the outside looks like.

Before everyone gets all in a twist, you do have to admit that SkyWest does have a point. Much to the same as OKC was at one point.

The BOK Center is an arena...there's nothing so super special about it other than the facade being very spiffy. Just the same as the Ford Center...it's an arena...woo. We've posted that topic to death a million times over. Remember the overhead shots I posted before where the two arenas have almost EXACTLLY the same footprint design?

BUT, Tulsa's downtown is tied more to the international box style that anything. There are several really awesome Deco structures down there, but that's about it...2 styles. So throwing a modern structure in there, while nifty, feels a bit out of place. OKC stands to be in the same situation with Devon though, but only because of the height. OKC happens to have a wider swath of styles. Starting way back at the First Nation era, there really hasn't been a decade that didn't have at least 1 building in it (was Renaissance 99 or 00?)

The other side part of his arguement...downtown Tulsa is pretty dang dead. DTOKC is MUCH more lively.....now. Lest we forget how "downtown was dead and we killed it" in OKC. OKC was in a much more dire situation than Tulsa until MAPS happened. OKC has made HUUUUUGE strides downtown and has more than overtaken Tulsa. However, keep everything in context folks. You can't look at the present without looking at the past.

Another point to OKC is how the NW Exway isn't mirrored in Tulsa either. OKC has a second skyline that spans a short time period, but is mostly more modern. My fav is The Tower. But the south central Tulsa skyline is about as close as it gets, and they're too low-rise to count.

And don't forget how Memorial in OKC is getting a pretty large corporate presense these days. There are some fantastic modern structures up there....just have to look BEHIND the restaraunts.