Just wanted you guys to know that some of the actors from Cirqúe Dreams are in town. Apparently they just got back from Tulsa. I asked them how it went and their comment was that Tulsa's Performing Arts Center was pretty nice for being a "small town." I asked if they had seen the Civic Center yet and they hadn't because they just got in town but that they were excited to be in a "big city" again. I told them they would be very impressed with the Civic Center.

Anyways, it's nice to hear the point of view from a few Russians that Tulsa's a small town and OKC is a big city.

That almost sounds hilarious!! How times have changed. I guess OKC is no longer the hick town that Tulsans used to perceive us as a few years ago.

Are these guys blind? Or just dumb.

Neither!!

[QUOTE=Luke]Just wanted you guys to know that some of the actors from Cirqúe Dreams are in town. [QUOTE]

Actors? In a Cirque styled rip off show? They would be offended to be called actors.

Now who is the hick?

You got to love them there cowboys in that there BIG CITY? OKC. GIDDY UP

Yawn. I'll ignore this continued "who's a hick" nonsense, but the notion that Tulsa is a "Small Town" is ridiculous. If they said that, they don't know what they're talking about.

Check out their tour dates:

http://www.cirqueproductions.com/tourdates.htm

They may not know what a big city is, but they should know what a small one is by now.

Wow, ruffled some T-Town feathers.

Easy to do nowadays. :)

Well when you live in a city this good that is very easy to do.

Check out their tour dates:

http://www.cirqueproductions.com/tourdates.htm

They may not know what a big city is, but they should know what a small one is by now.

That's true. Oklahoma City IS the biggest city on that tour list.

Maybe that is what they meant, a big city (significantly over 1mil with lots of attractions).

No offense Tulsa, but it is true. (then again, you are not a small town - but I think they meant the other locations -- in general).

Wow, ruffled some T-Town feathers.

Easy to do nowadays. :)


Not ruffled at all. It’s just very funny that in a comment when you want to call Oklahoma City a big city and infer that Tulsa is less so and say it is a “small town”, you just reveal yourself as a stereotypical Oklahoma rube by referring to the Russian acrobats you were speaking to as “actors”.

It’s just plain that you had no idea what Cirque de Soleil is, even if this was just a touring rip off show hitting tier two and three cities that the real Cirque doesn’t visit, if you weren’t so provincial you would know what it is. My God, have you never even been to Vegas? The bright lights there usually draw in even the most simple and uneducated.

Did you have a strand of straw sticking out of your mouth when you were talking to the Rooskies or was that chewing tobaccie in yer mouth? How did ye understand ‘em when they talked so funny?

Ruffled my ass, it’s funny as hell.

The truth is that Tulsa and OKC are tier two cities, both mid sized, metro OKC is 20% larger than metro Tulsa, wow, what a difference! Dallas-Ft Worth is a big city, it’s five times the size of OKC; Chicago is a big city, almost eight times bigger. Neither OKC nor Tulsa is a big city. Hell, Kansas City isn’t even a big city, St Louis is kinda on the edge of being a big city. I find it even funnier that the biggest insult on this board is to say that OKC is not a big city. I’ve been to big cities, even lived in big cities, and neither city here is a big one. Get over it!

Chicago isn't eight times bigger. DFW is actually close to passing up Chicago in metro population. Houston will pass up Chicago proper in population, while Chicago continues to shrink.

The U.S. Census Bureau classifies cities as a 'Big City' if the city's proper population surpasses 500,000, which Oklahoma City did in 2000.

However, a true big city by the definitions of many are cities with 1 million or more. I call them large cities.

But in all honesty, this thread was started by a harmless comment. Let's not start another turnpike war.

Not ruffled at all. It’s just very funny that in a comment when you want to call Oklahoma City a big city and infer that Tulsa is less so and say it is a “small town”, you just reveal yourself as a stereotypical Oklahoma rube by referring to the Russian acrobats you were speaking to as “actors”.

It’s just plain that you had no idea what Cirque de Soleil is, even if this was just a touring rip off show hitting tier two and three cities that the real Cirque doesn’t visit, if you weren’t so provincial you would know what it is. My God, have you never even been to Vegas? The bright lights there usually draw in even the most simple and uneducated.

Did you have a strand of straw sticking out of your mouth when you were talking to the Rooskies or was that chewing tobaccie in yer mouth? How did ye understand ‘em when they talked so funny?

Ruffled my ass, it’s funny as hell.

The truth is that Tulsa and OKC are tier two cities, both mid sized, metro OKC is 20% larger than metro Tulsa, wow, what a difference! Dallas-Ft Worth is a big city, it’s five times the size of OKC; Chicago is a big city, almost eight times bigger. Neither OKC nor Tulsa is a big city. Hell, Kansas City isn’t even a big city, St Louis is kinda on the edge of being a big city. I find it even funnier that the biggest insult on this board is to say that OKC is not a big city. I’ve been to big cities, even lived in big cities, and neither city here is a big one. Get over it!

:ohno:

Damn! If that's not ruffled, I don't know what is.

You're mostly right in your relative comparisons of city size, but, damn, that was testy.

In the end, we all look a little small time arguing over the opinion of a b-level acrobat. :)

Chicago isn't eight times bigger. DFW is actually close to passing up Chicago in metro population. Houston will pass up Chicago proper in population, while Chicago continues to shrink.

The U.S. Census Bureau classifies cities as a 'Big City' if the city's proper population surpasses 500,000, which Oklahoma City did in 2000.

However, a true big city by the definitions of many are cities with 1 million or more. I call them large cities.

But in all honesty, this thread was started by a harmless comment. Let's not start another turnpike war.


2003 CMSA Estimates

Tulsa 928,967
Oklahoma City 1,200,000
Dallas-Ft Worth 5,784,645
Chicago 9,549,014

Sorry, I was off, Dallas is 4.83 times bigger, and Chicago is 7.96 times bigger

Dallas’ CMSA is nowhere close to passing Chicago, Dallas grew by 402,961 people 2000 to 2003, but Chicago grew 216,189 people, at that rate it’s going to take several decades for Dallas to catch Chicago which is larger by nearly four million people.

Your city numbers are suspect too, Chicago the city did shrink by about 35,000 people 2000 to 2004, but Houston only grew by about 50,000 people in that time and is smaller than Chicago by 850,000 people. Houston might pass Chicago at that rate in about 40 years, if nothing changes.

This is like all the fuzzy math people on this board like to use and say, “Oklahoma City has almost 1.5 million people!” Right, OKC is projected to hit that mark in about 2030.

And find me the definition of a “big” city online, because I don’t think it exists.

here is where you should look

www.census.gov

The definition is set by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. This is the same agnecy that defines metropolitan statistical areas, and decided which counties belong and which ones don't.

I stand corrected on Chicago's MSA. You're giving the numbers for Chicago's and Dallas' CMSA, both of which are commonly used. Oklahoma City's CMSA is just slightly over 1.2 million. Our MSA is 1.13 million. And Oklahoma City's TV market is 1.5 million in population, not its metro area. Some people are getting that confused. Trust me, I don't exaggerate Oklahoma City's figures. I'm picky when it comes to accuracy, because I want to present Oklahoma City's true picture, not sugar up the numbers to make it look good.

I wouldn't say the definition of a "big city" doesn't exist, because the article was featured in USA Today after the new census figures were released for 2000. Heck, I didn't even know that until I read the article. Remember, this definition targets only the city, not its suburb included.

Well, since you quoted and personally attacked me, I feel obligated to respond.


It’s just very funny that in a comment when you want to call Oklahoma City a big city and infer that Tulsa is less so and say it is a “small town”, you just reveal yourself as a stereotypical Oklahoma rube by referring to the Russian acrobats you were speaking to as “actors”.

Actually, I was not inferring anything at all. I simply find it interesting and funny that some performers in a Russian traveling Cirqúe production made the comments they did. If you have issues with their statements, buy a ticket to the show at the Civic Center and I can point him out to you.


It’s just plain that you had no idea what Cirque de Soleil is, even if this was just a touring rip off show hitting tier two and three cities that the real Cirque doesn’t visit, if you weren’t so provincial you would know what it is. My God, have you never even been to Vegas? The bright lights there usually draw in even the most simple and uneducated.

Again, your assumption is incorrect. I've been to Vegas many times. Unfortunately, I've not been able to see the Cirqúe du Soleil (this is the correct spelling, by the way) shows in Vegas (Zumanity and "O"). And again, unfortunately, I won't be able to see this Cirqúe Dreams production because of prior obligations. I was very familiar with this before you explained it all to me. Please, can you keep the personal attacks out? All I was doing was giving the members of the OKCTalk.com fora a random foreign individual's view of his personal opinion comparing OKC and Tulsa. Again, if you want to get personal and attack someone, buy tickets to the show here and I'll point out the guy who said that.

Boy, if that didn't ruffle your feathers, I wouldn't like to be around when they are ruffled.

Next time you’re in Vegas, I recommend Avenue Q at the Wynn. Great show.

Chicago isn't eight times bigger. DFW is actually close to passing up Chicago in metro population. Houston will pass up Chicago proper in population, while Chicago continues to shrink.

The U.S. Census Bureau classifies cities as a 'Big City' if the city's proper population surpasses 500,000, which Oklahoma City did in 2000.

However, a true big city by the definitions of many are cities with 1 million or more. I call them large cities.

But in all honesty, this thread was started by a harmless comment. Let's not start another turnpike war.

That's not true about Chicago. Have you been there lately?

Anyways, the census numbers put Chicago at near 10M metro, 2.88M in city. DFW is near 6M Consolidated Metro, so I dont think Chicago has anything to worry about getting surpassed.

Actually, Chicago is not shrinking - it's having an urban renaissance of its own. I imagine in 2010, there will once again be >3M in city, as there is a massive condo boom going on downtown! (heard of Trump Tower Chicago, et al?).

There is NO WAY any city will dethrone Chicago from #3 (either in city or metro) any time soon!

.. Now a word from our sponsors :)

That's true. Oklahoma City IS the biggest city on that tour list.

Maybe that is what they meant, a big city (significantly over 1mil with lots of attractions).

No offense Tulsa, but it is true. (then again, you are not a small town - but I think they meant the other locations -- in general).


actually el paso is the largest city on the list. 592,099.

True, but I think OKC's metro bigger than El Paso's.

I just found something interesting comparing Tulsa to OKC in population per square mile OKC is 833.84 people per square mile and Tulsa has 2,151.97 people per square mile. That is a difference of 1,318.13 people. That also makes Tulsa one of the largest cities in population of square miles in the country.

That also makes Tulsa very congested and crowded -

not very desirable for those who like a little breathing room between neighbors or no traffic.


But to each his own...

Ah, the wonders of sprawl. Most cities fear it, but OKC is the poster child for loving ugly strip malls and the big box. Should Oklahoma City be renamed WalMart City? WMC?

And FYI, Tulsa has the shortest commute time on average in the nation. So while we may have traffic, debatable for anyone who has been back east or to California, the drive distance is also shorter in Tulsa.

Note: I am in no way implying that Tulsa does not have ugly strip malls, I am being critical of the love of sprawl.

not very desirable for those who like a little breathing room between neighbors or no traffic.



Who said anything about the love of sprawl? I am referring to those people who really don't relish the sound of barking dogs and blaring horns.... fighting neighbors and screaming kids - all heard due to the fact that your tract home is practically touching your neighbor's home.

With 1,318.13 more people per square mile - you'll get this... many people are moving from congested areas because they want to wake hearing birds instead of sirens. They like acreage and space.

WMC? wow.

Like I said, to each his own, there is no need to get your feathers ruffled (again) should anyone even mention something remotely negative about Tulsa.

Ruffled? Critical?

I didn't think you were being critical. I think you are wrong. I mean, if you think Tulsa is crowded and congested, then you need to get out more. Coastal cities are FAR more dense than Tulsa. New York on average is something like 10,000 people per square mile, with some areas far more dense then that. Traffic? well, drive in cities like Dallas or Chicago, mentioned before in this thread and lets talk traffic. But don't get me wrong, that still is not an insult, you are taking this the wrong way.

Many people in Tulsa wish Tulsa was more crowded and congested, not less so. Many people in many cities wish this. Look at OKC and Bricktown and midtown. I too wish at least in midtown and downtown that density would be higher than it is in Tulsa, at least high enough to warrant real mass transit, which Tulsa currently is no where close to dense enough for. Dense enough to be walkable, to be able to live without a car. Tulsa is not there, midtown in Tulsa may never be there since it is beautiful and old and wealthy and will most often fight infill.

Tulsa is dense for a city in this region, but truly, Tulsa has few real urban areas and the entire city is for the most part, suburban. OKC is much the same, only even less dense.

If you love the strip mall and wide open spaces, what is the difference between one city and the next? All cities have much the same stores and restaurants in much the same configurations in strip malls that look a lot alike city to city. It's bland and boring, Overland Park is South Tulsa is NW OKC is Plano is The Woodlands is Littleton is West Omaha is who cares? It's the older, denser areas that make the difference.

You think you are insulting Tulsa by calling it dense? Come on, there's too much wrong in this city, that's simple schoolyard crap. Tulsa has real issues, beat us up for something real, not for having too much traffic, that's not even a true statement. How about the mayor is a fool and the politics are strident and out of hand. Streets are poor, crime is too high with the gang problem on the north side. Tulsa is out of land and the fights over infill are petty and stupid. The arena is overbudget and the city is hiding it. There is such a long list to insult Tulsa with, pick something real.

I just found something interesting comparing Tulsa to OKC in population per square mile OKC is 833.84 people per square mile and Tulsa has 2,151.97 people per square mile. That is a difference of 1,318.13 people. That also makes Tulsa one of the largest cities in population of square miles in the country.

I disagree with this statement.

The urbanized areas of OKC and Tulsa are very similar. True, OKC has much more land in its city limits but that does really define urban density, now does it?

Las Vegas is also a very spread out city with lots of room to grow, but would anyone say that vegas is not a dense city, ditto that for Los Angeles.

And 2000 people per sq mile is called density and Tulsa IS NOT one of the largest, its right in the middle. But I argue that OKC has pretty close in the urbanized area - which is really where it counts, not the tracts of rural that OKC has (mainly to protect its water aquashed - by the way).

I hope that OKC can get the Central Oklahoma Association of Governments (or whatever their name is) to take a more leadership role in the governance of water rights for central Oklahoma. Then, OKC can de-annex unliveable tracts of land near the watersheds (and probably shed off some 250-300 sq miles). That alone would change the "density" index, doubling it.

See what I mean, the city limits would get smaller on paper but it didnt change the "urban density" of OKC nor the fact that OKC would still have 530000 people in its city urbanized area, regardless if the city limits are 608 sq miles or 288 (which is what it should be, by the way). Tulsa has 379000 people in its city urbanized area. Enough said.

That 288 square miles would put OKC at 1840 per sq mile in density.

which is the density you all truly see, isnt it?

Who really hangs out in the "restricted" watershed areas? Or the rural OKC?

No one. Most people are in the urbanized area, which should be OKC's city limits. IMO.

1840 per sq mile is not only reality, but is not that bad!!

I didn't think you were being critical. I think you are wrong. I mean, if you think Tulsa is crowded and congested, then you need to get out more. Coastal cities are FAR more dense than Tulsa.



LOL - I moved here from coastal California where I lived for 40 years.. trust me, I've gotten out more. I know congestion and I know traffic. That's why I was attracted to OK so I could have some breathing room, less neighbors and less traffic. Anyway, no biggie.. I like Tulsa and I like OKC.. my observations are only based on driving through Tulsa on my way to Branson and the above statistics.

Very true, Hot Rod. All I have to say is look at a wallmap of Oklahoma City sometime. People will find out real quick how Oklahoma City isn't as spread out as they thought.

But I better not carry this argument too far, as I've been accused of gerrymandering on the issue of urbanized Oklahoma City.

But the facts are, in Tulsa's world, Oklahoma City will always consist of Bricktown, Crossroads Mall and the southside strip malls, and that Oklahoma City's neighborhoods stretch from end to end on the 620 sq. mile grid. I am not knocking Tulsa in anyway, shape or form, and I'm not saying swake is wrong, I'm just relaying what I hear all the time while I'm in Tulsa. I have yet to hear different (with the exception of my inlaws).

I agree, though, the land we will never develop should be deannexed. I'm sure the aquashed will be protected if he have the right city leaders making the right decisions.

One valid point of Oklahoma City's large land area working against us isn't urban sprawl. It's roads. Keeping up with city streets over the entire area is causing our city streets to crumble. The heavy development north of Quail Springs Mall has badly damaged the two-lane roads passing beautiful new subdivisions. This has been the case for five years and the torn-up roads, battered from dump trucks and construction vehicles, have yet to be repaired.