All the credit to The Lost Ogle for finding this gem:


“We can look down the turnpike to Oklahoma City as an example,” (Tulsa Mayor Dewey) Bartlett said during the noon Tulsa Metro Chamber-sponsored luncheon at the Tulsa Convention Center.

That city’s successful, long-standing Metropolitan Area Projects (MAPs) initiative is now in its third wave of public improvement projects.

“Mayor (Mick) Cornett, we continue to look to you and Oklahoma City for inspiration as a leading example of rebirth, renewal and breaking new ground,” Bartlett said.
“You’ve turned Oklahoma City into a destination, and we are so proud to be your sister city.” -- Tulsa Mayor, Dewey Bartlett

Tulsa mayor announces what we all suspected: they want to be like OKC | The Lost Ogle (http://www.thelostogle.com/2012/09/12/tulsa-mayor-announces-what-we-all-expected-they-want-to-be-like-okc/)

Tulsa has some good things going but they are way behind in terms of job and population growth and in those respects the gulf is only widening between the two cities.

The looming AA and Dollar/Thrifty issues are cause for even greater concern.

Tulsa is a nice town and great day trip from OKC for someone who wants to go to a city close by. After a late start, they are starting to make some progress downtown.

With that being said, their Vision2 proposal is just a disaster. I'm worried they are really about to snuff out the progress they made.

As controversial as MAPS 3 was, at least it didn't contain $100 million just in "transaction costs" and another $250 million in handouts to an airline on its last leg. I would be shocked if folks in Tulsa pass it.

Fun fact: In 1990, after both cities endured a pretty rough decade, there was about 98,000 population difference between the two. In 2011, its about 196,000.

Recent trends show OKC is growing much faster.

Looking at the respective MSA's, in 1990 OKC was 210K larger (971 v. 761). In 2000 that difference had only grown to 236K (1,095 v. 859).

But by 2011 that number had swelled to 332K (1,278 v. 946). So, OKC added almost 100K more than Tulsa in the last 11 years, and the difference in the growth rates seems to be increasing with every passing year.

Looking at the current situation and especially given the job discrepancy between the two cities, I would expect that trend to continue and maybe even accelerate.

Pete,over on another forum I suggested that in the future(10-20 years) OKC might add 15-20k/year,just in the city alone,is this guestimate feasible?OKC in the 2010 census was 580k and today it is over 600k,so based on those figures and the fact that OKC hasn't experienced a true population boom yet,15-20k shouldnt be absurd,right?

It's hard to extrapolate on just one year but that does seem reasonable as it seems OKC is just now really starting to move in terms of substantial population growth.

Great information Pete. Can you (or anyone) weigh in on why? Why has OKC outpaced Tulsa since the 1980s? Will it continue to do so? Beyond the comparison, why is OKC doing so well? Why is Tulsa NOT doing so well?

We're only a hundred miles away from each other, sharing comparable climates, geography, tax structures, politics, access to capital and education, so why the diverging fortunes?

Great information Pete. Can you (or anyone) weigh in on why? Why has OKC outpaced Tulsa since the 1980s? Will it continue to do so? Beyond the comparison, why is OKC doing so well? Why is Tulsa NOT doing so well?

We're only a hundred miles away from each other, sharing comparable climates, geography, tax structures, politics, access to capital and education, so why the diverging fortunes?

I would say the #1 reason is jobs. All the big energy companies, several new call centers, Express Personnel, Tinker/Boeing and government have all grown substantially and added a lot of new jobs.

Also, OKC is now perceived as being more dynamic and that has a certain draw.

I would say the #1 reason is jobs. All the big energy companies, several new call centers, Express Personnel, Tinker/Boeing and government have all grown substantially and added a lot of new jobs.

Also, OKC is now perceived as being more dynamic and that has a certain draw.

As of 4 years now we are a Major League sports city.............. and that has a lot of weight with it. For nine months out of the year, you see a reference to OKC on ESPN.

It's kind of sad what could potentially happen to Tulsa in the near future. CHK is a big concern for us, but the alarms have to absolutely be going off at a fever pitch up the pike.

I think this state is only big enough for one dynamic metro. It shouldn't be that way, but you can't discount the possibility that as OKC has taken off, perhaps that comes at a cost to Tulsa much in the way that OKC has been fighting to get out of Dallas' shadow for decades.

It's kind of sad what could potentially happen to Tulsa in the near future. CHK is a big concern for us, but the alarms have to absolutely be going off at a fever pitch up the pike.

I think this state is only big enough for one dynamic metro. It shouldn't be that way, but you can't discount the possibility that as OKC has taken off, perhaps that comes at a cost to Tulsa much in the way that OKC has been fighting to get out of Dallas' shadow for decades.

I don't think you're wrong, but I hope you're wrong. A dynamic Tulsa spurs on OKC to better things, as well.

Wonder how much of the population growth is due to Okc expanding its borders.

Wonder how much of the population growth is due to Okc expanding its borders.

OKC hasn't annexed any lands since at least the 1970's.

You do bring up an interesting point however. Tulsa kinda screwed the pooch in thinking that growth was headed east, so in the 50's, 60's and 70's they annexed lots of land east of the city. Turns out, the city grew mainly south and southeast, and cities like Jenks, BA, and Bixby are now reaping the benefits of having the right land in the right place. OKC is lucky that we had a surplus of land in high growth corridors (SW, NW especially).

Of course this ignores the fact that the entire OKC metropolitan area has been growing faster than Tulsa's MSA for about 15 years now.

As a caveat, I've met a lot of people from Tulsa who like the fact they have more "organic growth" and view OKC's growth as forced.

OKC hasn't annexed any lands since at least the 1970's.

You do bring up an interesting point however. Tulsa kinda screwed the pooch in thinking that growth was headed east, so in the 50's, 60's and 70's they annexed lots of land east of the city. Turns out, the city grew mainly south and southeast, and cities like Jenks, BA, and Bixby are now reaping the benefits of having the right land in the right place. OKC is lucky that we had a surplus of land in high growth corridors (SW, NW especially).

Of course this ignores the fact that the entire OKC metropolitan area has been growing faster than Tulsa's MSA for about 15 years now.

As a caveat, I've met a lot of people from Tulsa who like the fact they have more "organic growth" and view OKC's growth as forced.

I think that it's easy and probably correct to say that OKC's growth is forced growth -- if all you're looking at is footprint. OKC's recent growth is very inward focused.

OKC hasn't annexed any lands since at least the 1970's.

You do bring up an interesting point however. Tulsa kinda screwed the pooch in thinking that growth was headed east, so in the 50's, 60's and 70's they annexed lots of land east of the city. Turns out, the city grew mainly south and southeast, and cities like Jenks, BA, and Bixby are now reaping the benefits of having the right land in the right place. OKC is lucky that we had a surplus of land in high growth corridors (SW, NW especially).

Of course this ignores the fact that the entire OKC metropolitan area has been growing faster than Tulsa's MSA for about 15 years now.

As a caveat, I've met a lot of people from Tulsa who like the fact they have more "organic growth" and view OKC's growth as forced.

What is "organic" growth as opposed to "forced" growth? Sounds to me like something that Tulsans would say to make themselves feel better about losing out to the city they have all been brought up to believe is vastly inferior.

To get back to the question originally posted. The core reason for Oklahoma City having surpassed Tulsa over the last couple of decades can be summed up with one word: LEADERSHIP.

Starting with Ron Norick, Oklahoma City has had a series of very strong and effective leaders, both in public office and in corporate/community leadership.

Tulsa just hasn't that kind of effective leadership.

Also, Tulsa is exhibit A for the hazards of overconfidence. The city got some good press back in the 50s or so and had some very early and impressive (for their time and for Tulsa's size at the time) cultural amenities. They were fat and happy and insular. They spent 50 years telling each other that they had so much more to offer than their peer cities. That was perhaps true 50 years ago. But they just kept repeating it and believing it and never noticed that other cities were catching up and passing them. FINALLY, a few started noticing in the 90s, but the leadership was not sufficient to get anything done until about 2002, when they finally passed Vision 2025.

What is "organic" growth as opposed to "forced" growth? Sounds to me like something that Tulsans would say to make themselves feel better about losing out to the city they have all been brought up to believe is vastly inferior.

Agreed that's a really strange distinction. OKC's growth certainly hasn't been forced or directed. If it was, we certainly wouldn't continue developing the nether-regions of northern Oklahoma County into a resource-sucking suburban wasteland.

It's kind of sad what could potentially happen to Tulsa in the near future. CHK is a big concern for us, but the alarms have to absolutely be going off at a fever pitch up the pike.

Tulsa's Vision extension seemed totally out of left field till hearing about those issues.

Vision2 sounds like sheer idiocy to me. $120+ million of it is eaten up by financing costs. To fund these projects they're voting on a tax that will span from 2017 to 2029 or something like that. Why don't they tax themselves, like now? If they want things now..

I want some of what they're smoking... somebody is confused enough to treat a sales tax package the same as a bond issue. So they have masterfully devised a strategy (that makes zero sense) of foregoing any and all benefits of doing a sales tax package and assuming all of the financing problems with bonds.

There is no way this is going to pass. I would vote against it..

Vision2 sounds like sheer idiocy to me. $120+ million of it is eaten up by financing costs. To fund these projects they're voting on a tax that will span from 2017 to 2029 or something like that. Why don't they tax themselves, like now? If they want things now..


You are quite right, but understate the problem.

They are not proposing to tax themselves now for things they want now because they ave already taxed themselves now (and through 2017) for the things they want now.

That is one of many problems with this proposed Vision2. Calling it sheer idiocy is being kind.

They have already taxed themselves through 2016 for things they wanted in the 2004-2012 period.

NOW, they are proposing to tax themselves for the years 2017-2029 for things they want NOW. Even IF there was a well-thought-out plan to use these funds, this is irresponsible, idiotic, unsustainable, and a path to bankruptcy.

Vision2 is an extension of the Vision 2025 tax passed in '03. It's not well-thought out and includes corporate welfare for AA...it likely won't pass. They'll have to go back to the drawing board and try again. The tax doesn't expire until 2016, I believe (13 years).

That being said while there has been some issues with the stability of the local companies in Tulsa, notably DTAG and AA, the city itself is doing well and is up there with OKC in terms of strongest economies especially through the recession. Population growth is slightly lower, yes, but Tulsa doesn't have as much land to sprawl and doesn't have a dynamic suburb like Norman to greatly increase suburban growth.

Vision2 is an extension of the Vision 2025 tax passed in '03. It's not well-thought out and includes corporate welfare for AA...it likely won't pass. They'll have to go back to the drawing board and try again. The tax doesn't expire until 2016, I believe (13 years).

That being said while there has been some issues with the stability of the local companies in Tulsa, notably DTAG and AA, the city itself is doing well and is up there with OKC in terms of strongest economies especially through the recession. Population growth is slightly lower, yes, but Tulsa doesn't have as much land to sprawl and doesn't have a dynamic suburb like Norman to greatly increase suburban growth.

I don't think Norman is nearly as dynamic as it should be, or as it was showing the potential to become before Rosenthal took over. In fact I'd argue last decade has seen OKC really reassertion itself over everything in Central Oklahoma.

To second BG918, and despite some of the opinions expressed, the sky is not falling on Tulsa. Actually, I would say Tulsa is just now heating up. While there are the obvious concerns over AA and Dollar Thrifty, overall the economy in Tulsa is pretty good. The medical industry, in particular, is really trying to get going, with the Saint Francis expansion slated to include a Level I Trauma center, and the developing OU-TU Medical School. From what I hear, many hospitals actually have nurse and doctor shortages, and need to fill some slots.

Williams is growing again, and Cimarex is building themselves a new "tower." There's also no shortage of entrepreneurial start ups and new to Tulsa chains.

Overall, I think Tulsa will be just fine in the long run. Downtown truly is exploding, and seems as though it will continue to do so. The suburbs definitely aren't hurting either, with development increasing in nearly all of them. I fully expect the Tulsa metro region's growth rates to accelerate in the next few years.

More than likely, Tulsa will never be as big or as powerful as OKC. And, honestly, that's fine by me. I am A-ok with Tulsa being the little sister of OKC. Great things are happening here as well as down the pike, so I will continue to cheer on both cities as they make huge strides in becoming better places to live.

You are quite right, but understate the problem.

They are not proposing to tax themselves now for things they want now because they ave already taxed themselves now (and through 2017) for the things they want now.

That is one of many problems with this proposed Vision2. Calling it sheer idiocy is being kind.

They have already taxed themselves through 2016 for things they wanted in the 2004-2012 period.

NOW, they are proposing to tax themselves for the years 2017-2029 for things they want NOW. Even IF there was a well-thought-out plan to use these funds, this is irresponsible, idiotic, unsustainable, and a path to bankruptcy.

I think the list is pretty questionable too. A a certain point, no matter how important AA is, you have to realize when an issue keeps coming up every ten years. How will Tulsa keep AA put in 2022 when they've taxed themselves until 2029 once the reliably expensive issue comes up again.

Oh wait, obviously they'll just pass another tax then through 2050 even though it will only be 2022. The financing costs will probably be a billion dollars alone and that's not even the biggest problem I see. Then they won't even be talking about renovating the hangars anymore because they will be 80 years old.

I just question the sustainability of Tulsa's economic development. AA hasn't even requested tricks yet...

Dont know the particulars of the Tulsa plan, but in OKC's experience it really doesn't make much of a difference if they are using a primarily pay-as-you-go sales tax or bond issue as the length of time for completion of all of the projects is roughly the same (10 to 12 years). As Spartan pointed out, the advantage is avoiding the long term debt issues, so that money can be used for other things. Be it a better project or maint etc. All of that said, for all of OKC's MAPS successes, we still utilize bond issues too.

It's kind of sad what could potentially happen to Tulsa in the near future. CHK is a big concern for us, but the alarms have to absolutely be going off at a fever pitch up the pike.

I think this state is only big enough for one dynamic metro. It shouldn't be that way, but you can't discount the possibility that as OKC has taken off, perhaps that comes at a cost to Tulsa much in the way that OKC has been fighting to get out of Dallas' shadow for decades.

Why is the state only big enough for one dynamic metro? Where is the logic in that thinking? People have to remember that population, immigration and the economy are ever expanding, aka we are always making more pie, there is not just one pie and you only get so much.

Why is the state only big enough for one dynamic metro? Where is the logic in that thinking? People have to remember that population, immigration and the economy are ever expanding, aka we are always making more pie, there is not just one pie and you only get so much.

Missouri has two dynamic metros with core cities based in the state. But Arkansas only has one dynamic metro (Memphis being in TN). Which leads to TN - it has two dynamic metros in its state, and a third across the border in KY. It's all variable, but one thing to note, in an off-the-cuff comparison to these states, our two large metros are much closer than the metros in these other states. I wonder if there's a correlation there.

People have to remember that population, immigration and the economy are ever expanding, aka we are always making more pie, there is not just one pie and you only get so much.

I know people want to believe that - but it isn't true. It is the problem we are rapidly finding ourselves in here in the US. Many places in the US are dealing with those issue right now. Detroit for example has a shrinking economy, a shrinking population, and negative migration - and they aren't alone. The reality is that almost everything in our society requires growth to work, and in many cases exponential growth, so when that growth doesn't materialize all hell breaks lose.

Missouri has two dynamic metros with core cities based in the state. But Arkansas only has one dynamic metro (Memphis being in TN). Which leads to TN - it has two dynamic metros in its state, and a third across the border in KY. It's all variable, but one thing to note, in an off-the-cuff comparison to these states, our two large metros are much closer than the metros in these other states. I wonder if there's a correlation there.

If you are only comparing to states in our region then they are close but compared to the east coast they have plenty of distance between them.

That just means it will be easier to connect them with strip malls.

They already tried that. A tornado took it out.

mUIU1OlpYaI

I don't think it's a case of the state being able to only support one dynamic city.

In fact, until recently you certainly couldn't even call OKC dynamic.

It comes down to leadership within the community -- both political and business -- and if anything Tulsa is following OKC's lead, or at the very least the competition between the two helps both.


The only over-arching limitation you could tie back to the state as a whole is a woeful track record with education. OKC is succeeding in spite of this, and is doing as much as it can with MAPS for Kids and other programs.

The way that the Northwest Arkansas of Bentonville, Springdale and Fayetteville have exploded in size the past 20 or so years it could also be considered a second major metro area in Arkansas. In some ways it probably has more financial clout than Little Rock. There is no reason why Tulsa couldn't be its own dynamic metro, it just needs better leadership and some home grown businesses to flourish. A city never seems to flourish quite as well with transplant companies because most of the time companies that will move based on incentives will move again. Companies that have roots in a community tend to stay there, that is until the founder leaves the company for any number of reasons. Corporate takeovers/buyout/mergers are the main reason why a home grown company relocates. All cities/states and populations should nurture local businesses.

The way that the Northwest Arkansas of Bentonville, Springdale and Fayetteville have exploded in size the past 20 or so years it could also be considered a second major metro area in Arkansas. In some ways it probably has more financial clout than Little Rock. There is no reason why Tulsa couldn't be its own dynamic metro, it just needs better leadership and some home grown businesses to flourish. A city never seems to flourish quite as well with transplant companies because most of the time companies that will move based on incentives will move again. Companies that have roots in a community tend to stay there, that is until the founder leaves the company for any number of reasons. Corporate takeovers/buyout/mergers are the main reason why a home grown company relocates. All cities/states and populations should nurture local businesses.

I don't think Little Rock or Northwest Arkansas are "dynamic" metro areas yet. Arkansas only has one and that is Memphis, which has its core in Tennessee. Little Rock is below Wichita in size and importance and Northwest Arkansas is like Amarillo.

I don't think it's a case of the state being able to only support one dynamic city.

In fact, until recently you certainly couldn't even call OKC dynamic.

It comes down to leadership within the community -- both political and business -- and if anything Tulsa is following OKC's lead, or at the very least the competition between the two helps both.


The only over-arching limitation you could tie back to the state as a whole is a woeful track record with education. OKC is succeeding in spite of this, and is doing as much as it can with MAPS for Kids and other programs.

A thought: could it be that OKC is growing faster now because it reached a tipping point in overall population? Once OKC achieved a certain critical mass of infrastructure, population, and amenities (as well as national recognition), it began growing at a faster pace. This is obviously what happened in Austin, TX.

Many forget that Austin was once a smaller city, more like Tulsa or Little Rock in population. Now it's bigger than OKC and is growing even faster.

Perhaps Tulsa will list along until it reaches this same tipping point, at which time its population will begin growing more rapidly.

I don't think Little Rock or Northwest Arkansas are "dynamic" metro areas yet. Arkansas only has one and that is Memphis, which has its core in Tennessee. Little Rock is below Wichita in size and importance and Northwest Arkansas is like Amarillo.

I cannot say whether or not Little Rock is a "dynamic" metro area or not. However, I do not think that Wichita is larger and more important than Little Rock. I also think that Tulsa's growth has been negatively affected by Northwest Arkansas's strong growth over the past thirty years.

OKC's economy is the same as it's always been- energy and state and federal government spending that Tulsa doesn't enjoy. people shoveling dirt on the lovely town need to take a trip up the turnpike. The town didn't raze all it's grand buildings during urban "renewal". Nice stately looking downtown, stylish artistic community. The music scenes can't even be compared. Tulsa has become a midwest music hub, with awesome historic venues and a very vibrant scene with great crowds. I grew up in OKC but spend far more time in Tulsa than the old hometown. Dismount the highhorse.

OKC has become more diversified than people think.

Obviously there is still a lot of dependence on energy and gov but several healthcare companies, Hobby Lobby, Express Personnel, Boeing and Paycom all employ thousands and are constantly growing. Plus, there are a lot more mid- to small-sized companies than there were just 10-15 years ago.

Tulsa is a nice town with some advantages but there is no comparing the employment base and population growth between the two cities.

From what I have heard, OKC went bust in the 1980s when oil crashed and it wasn't until after the 1995 bombing that it really began to recover. Tulsa had all that time to progress while OKC remained stagnant. OKC, despite its larger population, was behind Tulsa significantly for decades. Today the tables are beginning to turn again. The gap isn't as wide as it once was and if things in OKC keep going as they have been, it won't be long before OKC will trump Tulsa. I haven't spent much time in Tulsa but I do know they have significantly better shopping than OKC has. That may change being that Whole Foods defied the odds and hopefully it will show other retailers that OKC can support higher end shopping. Dining used to be better in Tulsa but the gap has been closed. I've heard the nightlife in Tulsa isn't as good as in OKC but Tulsa has better live music.

OKC's economy is the same as it's always been- energy and state and federal government spending that Tulsa doesn't enjoy. people shoveling dirt on the lovely town need to take a trip up the turnpike. The town didn't raze all it's grand buildings during urban "renewal". Nice stately looking downtown, stylish artistic community. The music scenes can't even be compared. Tulsa has become a midwest music hub, with awesome historic venues and a very vibrant scene with great crowds. I grew up in OKC but spend far more time in Tulsa than the old hometown. Dismount the highhorse.

We've all made the trip up the turnpike, Edgar. We are all well aware of Tulsa's treasures. But numbers and results do not lie and neither do the changes happening in OKC. I'll add to Pete, OKC's economy is no where near what it was in the 1980s, and that is a reality we need to come to accept. We still *think* OKC is mostly energy, only because the energy companies based in OKC today are higher profile than what was here in the 1980s. Not enough recognition is given to our medical industry, aviation and technology.

Tulsa has been a Midwest music hub, this is nothing new. However, OKC is defining a style all its own with a growing list of recognized local bands. Yes, OKC made the mistake of razing much of its history, but we paid for it, are correcting it... time to move on. Tulsa hasn't lost, but it is just simply not utilizing its full potential. We can kick around our delights on Cain's Ballroom, the shopping (which is losing its edge over OKC) and the music scene, but Tulsa is simply not bringing the results for growth. There is no high horse here, it's doing circles in the stall. :)

OKC has become more diversified than people think.

Obviously there is still a lot of dependence on energy and gov but several healthcare companies, Hobby Lobby, Express Personnel, Boeing and Paycom all employ thousands and are constantly growing. Plus, there are a lot more mid- to small-sized companies than there were just 10-15 years ago.

Tulsa is a nice town with some advantages but there is no comparing the employment base and population growth between the two cities.

right, OKC has a much bigger employment base- TAFB, FAA, ONAG and the myriad jobs created by the seat of state government. If Mary was capable of wisdom she'd shut the daft pie hole and close up her "federalism unit." Mick takes credit where it's not due but at least he's bright enough not to bite the hand.

Keep in mind that a big part of Tinker's growth was due to the citizens of Oklahoma County passing a bond issue -- and thus taxing themselves -- to buy the old GM plant. When GM left, it was a terrible blow but instead of letting that massive facility rot, local leaders came up with a creative idea that turned out to be brilliant.

OKC does have a ton of government and government-related jobs but that's not just due to dumb luck. Lots of leaders and the Chamber have worked very hard on things like the GM plant, Boeing, etc.

The Health Sciences Center is another example of public / private partnerships.


To put it another way, OKC and Tulsa were really in the same boat in the early 90's (the capitol, Tinker, etc. were in place then too) and since that time OKC has taken many, many proactive steps to improve itself and greatly expand the employment base on all fronts. For these reasons, there is an ever widening gulf between the two cities.

Yes, and let's not forget it was the feds that funded the $1.2 Billion (with a B) McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System that has been such a boost to the Tulsa region for decades now. ... so let's quit acting like it's been a one way street....

We've all made the trip up the turnpike, Edgar. We are all well aware of Tulsa's treasures. But numbers and results do not lie and neither do the changes happening in OKC. I'll add to Pete, OKC's economy is no where near what it was in the 1980s, and that is a reality we need to come to accept. We still *think* OKC is mostly energy, only because the energy companies based in OKC today are higher profile than what was here in the 1980s. Not enough recognition is given to our medical industry, aviation and technology.

Tulsa has been a Midwest music hub, this is nothing new. However, OKC is defining a style all its own with a growing list of recognized local bands. Yes, OKC made the mistake of razing much of its history, but we paid for it, are correcting it... time to move on. Tulsa hasn't lost, but it is just simply not utilizing its full potential. We can kick around our delights on Cain's Ballroom, the shopping (which is losing its edge over OKC) and the music scene, but Tulsa is simply not bringing the results for growth. There is no high horse here, it's doing circles in the stall. :) Agree that OKC hands down has much more growth and economic momentum going for the city. Hopefully the future will be bright for both OKC and Tulsa. One thing Tulsa has going for them is it is a green, hilly much more trees than OKC. The way I look at this is Tulsa is blessed with natural beauty and asthetics where OKC is a pig with lipstick on it. OKC just is not blessed with archictecture and natural beauty like Tulsa!

Agree that OKC hands down has much more growth and economic momentum going for the city. Hopefully the future will be bright for both OKC and Tulsa. One thing Tulsa has going for them is it is a green, hilly much more trees than OKC. The way I look at this is Tulsa is blessed with natural beauty and asthetics where OKC is a pig with lipstick on it. OKC just is not blessed with archictecture and natural beauty like Tulsa!

Neither is Dallas...The inherent advantage to flat and dull, is that it's essentially a blank canvas. OKC just needs to make the best use of that.

Neither is Dallas...The inherent advantage to flat and dull, is that it's essentially a blank canvas. OKC just needs to make the best use of that.

Agreed. Some areas of OKC are very well landscaped and are very beautiful. Others, especially closer to the freeways, are awful looking. If the city as a whole wants to improve its image, better landscaping citywide may be something to look into.

I know people want to believe that - but it isn't true. It is the problem we are rapidly finding ourselves in here in the US. Many places in the US are dealing with those issue right now. Detroit for example has a shrinking economy, a shrinking population, and negative migration - and they aren't alone. The reality is that almost everything in our society requires growth to work, and in many cases exponential growth, so when that growth doesn't materialize all hell breaks lose.

Not to get too far off subject here, but this thought process is flawed. The last thing our world needs is more exponential growth. Globally, "all hell" is breaking loose because of over population. We simply need to learn to live in a society with low to zero growth, and adapt our economies. More growth in the world's population is highly unsustainable.

I don't think anyone here is advocating or applauding exponential growth of the planet's overall population. That has little to do with advocating or planning for growth in OKC. Our goal is not to see how many babies can be produced, but rather to see how we can improve local employment opportunities and attract those in other areas who are looking for what we can offer them.

Agreed. Some areas of OKC are very well landscaped and are very beautiful. Others, especially closer to the freeways, are awful looking. If the city as a whole wants to improve its image, better landscaping citywide may be something to look into.

When I was in Chicago last, a cab driver told me that Mayor Daley had been in Paris and wanted Chicago to be beautiful as well. He started a massive project to beautify the downtown with flowers, and it does look gorgeous in the summer time. They have an ordinance that any outdoor cafes must be "landscaped" either with flower boxes, shrubs, trees or some combination thereof. Some of the outdoor dining areas are stunning. It seems like an ordinance like that would be simple to institute.

Not to get too far off subject here, but this thought process is flawed. The last thing our world needs is more exponential growth. Globally, "all hell" is breaking loose because of over population. We simply need to learn to live in a society with low to zero growth, and adapt our economies. More growth in the world's population is highly unsustainable.

the world is not overpopulated ...

Yes, and let's not forget it was the feds that funded the $1.2 Billion (with a B) McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System that has been such a boost to the Tulsa region for decades now. ... so let's quit acting like it's been a one way street....

And that was 1970 dollars

Agree that OKC hands down has much more growth and economic momentum going for the city. Hopefully the future will be bright for both OKC and Tulsa. One thing Tulsa has going for them is it is a green, hilly much more trees than OKC. The way I look at this is Tulsa is blessed with natural beauty and asthetics where OKC is a pig with lipstick on it. OKC just is not blessed with archictecture and natural beauty like Tulsa!

Agreed. But for me, I have always preferred OKC's open landscape. Yes, I am strange and unusual but the advantage for OKC with its landscape is this... there is no natural beauty to destroy (deforestation, etc) as development continues, and it is open game for gorgeous landscaping. Turn nothing into something :) Besides, the sky in OKC is a changing scape, whereas mountains and hills are static geologically.

You do all realize that his statement was part of a scare tactic to attempt to get his lame Vision2 package passed, right?

Dewey is a terrible, terrible mayor. Thankfully there now seem to be some real adults on the city council.

You do all realize that his statement was part of a scare tactic to attempt to get his lame Vision2 package passed, right?

Dewey is a terrible, terrible mayor. Thankfully there now seem to be some real adults on the city council.

Regardless of whether it was a scare tactic or not, I don't think you'll find many people here disagreeing with him. That would not have been true 20 years ago. Tulsa is a nice city, but while 20 years ago I would have jumped at the chance to live there over OKC (not an option for me at the time), today I wouldn't consider it.

the world is not overpopulated ...

That is incredibly ignorant and inaccurate.

some places most certainly seem over populated and some have near zero population due to weather, geographic conditions etc, just food for thought...

hunterkirk - Is the World Over Populated? Lets do the math... The World Can Fit In Texas (http://hunterkirk.livejournal.com/326561.html)

some places most certainly seem over populated and some have near zero population due to weather, geographic conditions etc, just food for thought...

hunterkirk - Is the World Over Populated? Lets do the math... The World Can Fit In Texas (http://hunterkirk.livejournal.com/326561.html)

While there is more than enough land area for everyone, overpopulation has little to do with people per square mile, and much more to do with food production and the availability of other important resources such as water. Many places are literally running out of water, using it much faster than it is coming.

Here's some more food for thought: If everyone lived the lifestyle of the average American, it is estimated the world could support about 1.5 billion people.

While there is more than enough land area for everyone, overpopulation has little to do with people per square mile, and much more to do with food production and the availability of other important resources such as water. Many places are literally running out of water, using it much faster than it is coming.

Here's some more food for thought: If everyone lived the lifestyle of the average American, it is estimated the world could support about 1.5 billion people.

Garbage...If everyone lived the "lifestyle" of the average American, the entire world would be a ridiculous amount more educated than it currently is and the world would function at a much higher efficiency than it currently does.

Efficiency? Doubtful - look around American suburbia and tell me if that is efficient. Energy consumption per capita? Definitely not efficient. It is very difficult to make a case for American efficiency when a huge percentage of our economy depends on unbridled consumption. Ingenuity? Yes. Innovation? Yes. But not efficiency.

Efficiency? Doubtful - look around American suburbia and tell me if that is efficient. Energy consumption per capita? Definitely not efficient. It is very difficult to make a case for American efficiency when a huge percentage of our economy depends on unbridled consumption. Ingenuity? Yes. Innovation? Yes. But not efficiency.

No.

You don't get to compare the US and it's citizens to the gold standard of efficiency and say "look we're not efficient".

Compare the average US citizen to the average person in the world and I cannot imagine making a good case for the average person being more efficient. There's a reason that the majority of the world still lives in developing countries, and a lot of that has to do with not being efficient.

Why not? If not, then you cannot make that declaration. Far too much variation in conditions - the average person where? Is a farmer in Africa who lives, works, raises a family, and conducts commerce within a small area more efficient than an American suburbanite driving 30+ miles to work, then drives to the mall, then drives to the grocery store, then drives to the soccer fields, etc in a Suburban they will replace in a few years whether it needs to be replaced or not? Probably, but is that a valid comparison?

You would have to define efficiency before you can make an assertion of the typical American being more efficient than other people around the world. But regarding use of natural resources - it is pretty hard to refute that we use a much larger share than the vast majority of the rest of the world's population.

Why not? If not, then you cannot make that declaration. Far too much variation in conditions - the average person where? Is a farmer in Africa who lives, works, raises a family, and conducts commerce within a small area more efficient than an American suburbanite driving 30+ miles to work, then drives to the mall, then drives to the grocery store, then drives to the soccer fields, etc in a Suburban they will replace in a few years whether it needs to be replaced or not? Probably, but is that a valid comparison?

You would have to define efficiency before you can make an assertion of the typical American being more efficient than other people around the world. But regarding use of natural resources - it is pretty hard to refute that we use a much larger share than the vast majority of the rest of the world's population.

I'm talking about efficiency from a comprehensive perspective: money, education, children, time, resources, value creation, work, trading etc.

And to be sure, much of that efficiency is bred in the American/Western system...but that's the whole point.

If you took 2500 representative Americans and 2500 representative developing-country citizens and dropped them in a set and like environment, I think you would find that the Americans would develop a viable society quicker and stronger than their counterparts. Why? Education and communication.

I'm not claiming Americans are particularly efficient...just that they are more efficient than a good portion of the world.