Downtownguy had a thought provoking post today. He copy/pasted comments from the TulsaNow forum. Interstingly pessimistic views of OKC were had by several posters over there. It hurts to read, but I have to admit it's the truth. My only explantion is: Rome wasn't built in a day. it takes time. However, there are some simple things that we could do to solve some of the problems that were addressed.

The biggest impact and impression we could make on visitors is simply cleaning up litter, fixing up what we got, and plants like flowers and trees. Stroll across OU's campus anyday and you'll notice a few things (and not notice a few others). What you will notice is that all the lawns are very well maintained and that there are lots of flower gardens, fountains, statues and benches. The whole campus is like a park. What you won't notice is litter and overhead powerlines. They're ugly. Now, I'm not suggesting that we get rid of above ground powerlines here. The fact is, they care about what things look like.

It comes back to the form vs function debate. OKC really needs to take steps in Edmond's direction with regards to quality and standards imposed on businesses (and I would assume homeowners as well).

All the main entrances to OKC need to be spruced up. First impressions are real.

We have to start caring about the appearance of our city. I would venture a guess that people would have a much better impression of OKC if we had more gardens, plantings, better lightposts, benches, no litter and an "average" bricktown than if we had a booming bricktown with no attention paid to any of the above amenities.

Read Downtownguy's blog here:
http://www.downtownguy.blogspot.com/

Luke

Plantings & upkeep cost money. OKC has always been a very utilitarian town. A place for the workers to sleep when they aren't working. OKC sprang up from opportunists.

Tulsa has a legacy of Eastern money that has a tradition of civic involvement.

This is changing in OKC because new money is coming in, but big frogs in a small pond still have their stranglehold on the City.

On the other hand, a strength for Tulsa is that the citizens believe their own BS. It is a pretty town & that makes for happier residents.

The people that live in Tulsa, are not all that different. Their art & music scenes are definitely not superior. Their musicians & artists are NOT better or even as good as those in OKC. They are not more prevelant, they just get more respect.

Perception is important & Tulsans believe their own hype. Norman is the same way. People who live there believe that it is the best & the coolest.

I don't see higher ratios of good creatives in either city, but they feel better about where they live.

For too long, (pre Maps) OKC has been one big bedroom community. Go to work, maybe stop at a bar on the way home, then go home to watch channel 4 & read Gaylord's newspaper.

Pride doesn't have to be based on anything more than appearance. OKC is only just now understanding this. It's actually important to think that your city is cool.

Public sculpture in OKC is an example. It's terrible & unimaginative. The works are chosen by folks who are in a position to make these choices by virtue of their social position on a small ladder. They have no qualifications, because when they went to school, they focused on ways to make money, & a liberal education was seen as a waste.

Now they pick sculpture.

In some cities, the business elite have liberal, broad educational backgrounds so that they have some idea about the arts.

I fought hard & vocally to stop the '89 state olympic runners statue from being set up in front of the Myriad. I even got a personal threatening call from Lee Allen Smith who sponsored the piece, & saw how he used his influence to stop media coverage in one day.

The sculpture was inept & only there for the self glorification of the promoters. What were Lee Allen Smith's qualifications for putting up a major monument in downtown OKC?

He was married to one of the Gaylord girls.

luckily, just as I predicted in the Gazette (the only news outlet that covered the disagreement for more than a day.) the sculpture was understood to be clumsy & ugly & was moved a few years later. It was NOT a competent piece & after the reality distortion field died down, & no one was proud enough to keep it in an honored place.

I don't even know where the "Running Joke" is now, probably somewhere on the fairgrounds.

Quality lasts, opportunism eventually is seen for what it is. OKC is not quite there yet.

I agree With Joe Shmoe. Altho some points that The Tulsa Forumers brought to the table were partly factual to me they sounded more and more of what the normal Tulsan would say about Oklahoma City. I learned not to look at there views because 90 percent of the time they are overly negative and bring us down ourselves just as we have been lead to believe are city Sucks for so many years just beacause everyone says it did. Everyone meaning who dont live here. But of course thats what they are gonna say when they see a City that is prospering and is much bigger than theres yet has a feeling that doesnt quite feel as urban as it should. Thats the problem with OKC is the image. We need way more beatification projects and we need to beatifuy our Highways and make them look more modern and larger they have a large impact on the image of a City when someone drives threw. Most Oklahoma City highways look like there supposed to be out in the Country because they have been there to long and even tho they may have patched them up they still kept the same plain boring principal desighn. I understand all this costs money but hopefully with the future success of Downtown and The rest of the City that these image problems will fade away. If we had more larger buildings downtown it would make a big difference too.

It's not what a city looks like at 65 on the highway that makes it urban, it's what it feels like driving or better yet walking the streets. Being a big unique city is not defined by how many big box stores there are, or how many lanes a highway is. The number of people is not meter of success for a city. And anyway, OKC is NOT a big city, neither is Tulsa. Most people in the US live in cities larger than Tulsa and OKC, MOST. 90 million people, more than 1/3 of the population of this country live in just ten cites with each having more than five million people. Being a middle sized city is not bad, it is what it is, strive to grow, but don't be decieved about where you are. OKC metro is 25% larger than Tulsa, not double. It's really just a little bigger, not a lot. Both are middle tier cities and markets.

And if you want to be a big city, don't copy Dallas Houston or LA, they are bad cities. And have great highways.

I see where your comming from on the Streets mattering the most but what i meant about our highways was not being big i meant making them modern. And OKC is a Big City just the image is not of that. If someone can Say Atlanta, New Orleans, Minneapolis, Kansas City Etc. are big citys get it Right Oklahoma City is bigger than all Of them but image wise is where our problem lies. Tulsa is not on our level city wise but image wise they got us. They had way more richer lifestyles and way more private investments comming from rich residents than the hardworking People that made OKC. We shouldnt try to copy any City we should hear there critisism yes but not take exactly what they say because we know whats best for our Own City not them. And Houston is a wonderful city i know Im living here right now. The highways are great and crime is very low for a city of its size. Dallas and L.A. are jus terrible lol.

Minneapolis and Atlanta are big cities, 3.3 million people and 4.6 million respectively. OKC and Tulsa are not in their league.

Kansas City is borderline at 1.9 million people, New Orleans at 1.4 is just 15% bigger than OKC at 1.2 and 50% bigger than Tulsa at .9 million. But it is still a larger city than OKC. So no OKC is not bigger in image or substance than any of these cities. If you are talking just city population and not metro, that doesn’t count. That would make Tulsa bigger than St Louis, Tulsa is not a big city and St Louis is with a metro of 2.8 million people.

One thing I think people like swake really have to consider is that the San Antonion Riverwalk has been in existence for well over 70 years. The Bricktown canal has been there for 5 years. Just 5 years!!! We have a lot of growing to do. And we're no where close to being finished. As downtownguy said in one of his blog's, I think the current development in Lower Bricktown in temporary. Sure the movie theater will stay, but I bet several of thoe other buildings will make way for larger buildings later.

And yes, many of the buildings are vacant right now. But with time, as the area grows, I think that will change as well.

Rome wasn't built in a day! That's a great statement. swake was right when he said, Bricktown has a long ways to go. That's very true.

I think the residential population in Bricktown will change soon, with residential developments like the Factory, the Steel Yard, Deep Deuce II, etc. taking place right in the middle of the Bricktown canal.

One thing you have to consider though...San Antonio doesn't have residential on their Riverwalk.....it's more of a tourist destination. So in a way, I think we're trying to capture the bests of both worlds in Bricktown.

Brookside has a lot more people living there, because it was developed in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Bricktown, on the other hand, wasn't.....we're having to build the residential to go along with it.

I do agree with some of the comments that we need to work better on our inner city neighborhoods. But, again, look at San Antonio, and you'll see a very similar image there. Their inner city neighborhoods are no prizes. One thing you have to cinsider.....Tulsa didn't have to face the consequences of desegregation and the "White Flight" like our city did. Nothing racial, but when this occurred, much of the money in the inner city areas moved to Edmond. Tulsa never really had that problem because they never gave into the pressure of cross town bussing.

Anyways, it just depends on what cities you compare to eachother. Sure Tulsa has nicer inner city neighborhoods and a nicer fairgrounds, but they're missing a lot of major tourism draws that we have. Their Gilcrease Museum is nothing compared ot the National Cowboy and Western Heritage Museum. I've been to both zoos, and I think their's looks much like ours did back in the 1960's. We've had some complaints about our science museum (Omniplex) but at least we have one!!! And it's not all that bad. Ford Center isn't a jewel, but it has enough seats to attract larger concerts. Since Tulsa has decided to choose form over function, they're going to have a harder time attracting concerts, because 20,000 seats is the target number. Tulsa's downtown area needs a jumpstart, and it's going to take more than an arena to get it going.

Bricktown may not be exaclt completed, but we have at least started the project now, and have the momentum to carry us for years! Bricktown is always changing, and I think as its popularity grows, the overall feel of the district will change.

One more thing.....I made a comparison between our fair grounds in another post. I think that could be spread to the entirety of both cities. Simply put, Tulsa chooses form over function. Tulsa has some beautiful facilites. But that can be both good and bad, for reasons I've already mentioned. As long as the facility is nice and functional, most people really don't care what it looks like, they care more about what's going on inside.

If I remember correctly,

The last census estimate I saw for Tulsa had its metro at .82 mil, not .9mil. I tend to notice these kinds of typos from Tulsans, little exaggerations.

while OKC is estimated to have a metro of 1.25 mil currently, why does Tulsa round theirs up and ours down (to the noted 1.2 mil from swake)?

I agree that Tulsa has lots to offer, but it really seems like much of what Tulsans say is hot air, and always has been. Stylez pointed out that Tul and OKC have different economic perspectives and he is right. OKC is much more public oriented where Tulsa has been old wealthy and conservative. Yet, Tulsa is always complaining about state funds when OKC contributes the MOST to the state coffers anyways.

You may not think that there is no difference between 1.25 mil and .82 mil but OKC Metro is 1/3 bigger. City wise, OKC estimate is 523k while Tulsa dropped to 378k; a 38% difference.

By the way, I thought we had dropped the OKC vs. Tulsa wars? I guess their new arena (design) has sparked the new battle which will clearly hold back this state as we move forward.

Who is battling,

Facts, census 2000, CMSA populations

OKC 1,160,942
Tulsa 908,528

Exactly

OKC is 27.78% larger

So, really, I rounded OKC up and Tulsa down. Get your facts straight.

I don’t know why you think this is battling? I don’t get it. I posted some observations about OKC on the Tulsa website, those were referred to here, I tried to be above board and not be too down on what I saw. I really tried to be nice. I think Patrick did much the same thing here on the OKC site about his visit to Tulsa. I see truth in a lot of what he said outside of what he says concerning the Cowboy Hall of Fame being superior to Gilcreace, which is nuts. Gilcreace is a world class museum and is generally regarded to have the best and largest collection Western American art and history anywhere. I don’t have issue with much of what he says at all. I really want OKC to do well, really. From what I have read here about how great Bricktown is, I expected more than what I saw. That’s all. And San Antonio is a miserable and very poor city, it’s a nice place to visit, but I’d never want to live there, you want an example of cities with some great urban areas in Texas, try Ft Worth and Austin. The Riverwalk in San Antonio is a tourist trap. And kind of a boring one.

Hyperbole I see here on this site would include that OKC is bigger than Atlanta or that OKC can host the Olympics in 20 years. And Tulsa is most definitely on the Donor side of state taxes while OKC is a huge recipient.

Hello from Houston, everyone. I'll post about SE Texas when I have more time, but I thought I'd post on this matter.

As TStorm on the TulsaNow forum, I provided neutral facts so that other forum members can make imformed judgements on their own will. I will do the same on my home city forum, as I have always championed the stop to city rivalries.

Swake, by federal census definition, any city with a population of 500,000 or more is officially designated as a "big city" as reported by USA Today in 2002. Oklahoma City gained this designation when the 2000 census reported 506,132 residents living in the city. This means that since OKC has surpassed the half million mark, OKC qualifies for more federal funds for federally funded porgrams, and even more, OKC recieves better recognition by private marketers. The term "big city" by federal definition does not apply to a metropolitan statistical area. Atlanta and KC have larger metropolitan statistical areas that does OKC and Tulsa. However, by federal definiton, once an MSA surpasses the 1 million mark, an MSA also qualifies for more federal funds. This is why the Census Bureau and decennial census is heavily used by the government as a means for a distribution formula (or an established threshold) and by marketing, which also has population thresholds.

Another important statistic taken into consideration by marketers is demographics. This is where Tulsa, until recently, had an advantage over OKC. With a higher median and per capita income than OKC, Tulsa usually attracted better retail stores and restaurants. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reported last year that OKC has shown a substantial gain in per capita income AND median household income within the last two years, while Tulsa has seen slower growth. This doesn't mean that Tulsa has lost its economic status, but that OKC is playing some major catch up. Before long, both cities will see an even demographic status, and it will be hard to tell the difference.

Remember, also, that the U.S. Department of Management and Budget recently revised both Tulsa's and OKC's MSA. Tulsa saw the addition of two counties, making Tulsa a seven county metropolitan area. OKC lost Pottawatomie County, but also gained two counties, making OKC a seven county metropolitan area, covering less land area than Tulsa's MSA, but with a larger population.

You are taking the Metro Population and putting it to the City and OKC the city not the metro is larger than all of them get tha facts straight.

And the City is what matters not the Metro thats why oklahoma City is in the position it is today it put to much attention on Growing a Metro than growing the Main Heart of that Metro first. Like Houston Annexes many many subbourbs Kingwood, Aleif, The Woodlands to name a few. Oklahoma City did the opposite they made subbourbs. I understand these citys might have larger metros and that makes them more money but that doesnt make them better citys as a whole. For example Edmond has little affect On Oklahoma City it hurts it more than it helps.

In regards to population numbers, I think that's really beside the point.
I think the issue we can draw from this is that both cities have work to do. Oklahoma City needs to work on improving its inner city neighborhoods, overall city beautification, Fair Grounds, etc. while Tulsa needs to improve it's overall downtown area, sports facilities, etc.

Nice Put Patrick.

Thanks okcstylez!!! Just trying to put us back on topic!

Who is battling,

Facts, census 2000, CMSA populations

OKC 1,160,942
Tulsa 908,528

Exactly

OKC is 27.78% larger

So, really, I rounded OKC up and Tulsa down. Get your facts straight.

No you should get your facts straight!

In a well known article published by the Tulsa World within two weeks, it clearly stated that Tulsa lost population, estimated to be at 387K, down from the census 2000 listing of 393k. It also went on to say that OKC had over 523k estimated, up from 506k from the 2000 census.

You should get yours straight, as I clearly noted my facts were from the 2003 estimates; which are well known and widely published. OKCs metro area is estimated to have 2.25 mil estimated for 2003, Tulsa metro is estimated at 830k. Look it up.

\

And Tulsa is most definitely on the Donor side of state taxes while OKC is a huge recipient.


Plz define your logic?

Hey guys, I think the population figures are beside the point. This topic was created originally not to bash OKC, but to bring up some valid points.....mostly about what outsiders think of our city from first impressions. It is true that we have some issues that need to be dealt with. Luke listed these in his thread. I appreciate Tulsans for bringing up some of these issues, and I appreciate swake for commenting on his last visit to our city. I don't think swake meant to attack our city, rather he meant to let us know what his first impressions were so we canuse those to hopefully help improve our city. I'm going to copy some of swake's comments and send them to our mayor and my councilman to make them more aware of some of our problems. I think, for the most part, our mayor is aware of our problems.....it just all costs money. But a simple reminder from an outsider is always a help.

The same can be said the other way. I recently commented on my trip to Tulsa. I had good things to say about Tulsa's fairgrounds, but at the same time, I had negative things to say about Tulsa's downtown area. My objective wasn't to launch an attack against Tulsa, but mainly to present the impressions from what I saw.

I somewhat agree that OKC is on the recipient side of state taxes. Sure OKC gives a lot more in taxes, but not that much more. Just compare our highway systems for example. I-44 through the middle of Tulsa has been a 4 lane highway for years now. It desparately needs to be widened. Yet, Broadway Extension was the first project on the list for state legislatures. I don't even know if I-44 is even on the current list of highway widening projects. It needs to be though, probably even more than Broadway Extension. We do have the luxury of having the capitol building in our city, and of course, there is some bias at the capitol for OKC.

Patrick you may be correct in your take of swake, but i also read what he wrote in TulsaNow to see if his view was shared by Tulsans; and i have to say that he was not very nice about OKC nor was he impartial.

It seemed like in order for OKC to be "worthy" of his time (or for him to acknowledge our accomplishments), then we needed to be better than anywhere he had ever been. In one sentence he is blasting the canal then in the same breath he is saying we are not San Antonio.

Well, even my city - Seattle, has its faults. It just seemed like his post was more of the same, Tulsa bashing OKC, when now it is more difficult for them to do so. It seems like because of their Vision 2025 and arena announcement, the bashing has returned. Sure, Tulsa is a beautiful city but it has nothing else on OKC!

And I usually note that Tulsans always inflate their numbers/claims. Seems like 830K metro Tulsa turns into 900K or even 1mil, but OKC Metro at 1.255mil (for real) only gets noted at 1.2 mil.




And most people I know up here in Seattle know more about OKC as a big city than Tulsa. It is just a given.

The only problem is, it is usually OKC shooting themselves in the foot with stuff like the CNN thing, the Prostitution bandit, and that Child Porn/OKC Police thing. Other than that, most people up here have pretty high regard for OKC. It is another big city like us.

Tulsa is not seen that way. It is seen more like Spokane or Tacoma. That is the way we see it [isnt it funny that that is the reality!]

Patrick, you wrote about Tulsa based on your recent trip and noted that you were disappointed at best about their downtown. You did not write it like SWAKE did about OKC, you had class and did not dwell on Tulsa's unimpressive downtown. You noted positives and great takeaways. It seems like Tulsans always try to make Tulsa look (appear) better at OKC's expense. I thought we had gone away from this but it looks like the old rivalry is back.

I see your point. I didn't consult the Tulsa Now forum when I wrote my reply. Anyways, I do find it interesting that it's usually Tulsans bashing OKC, and not the other way around. If Tulsans have to bash someone, maybe they should start bashing Kansas City, instead of bashing an in-state partner.

In the end, I think we all need to build up Oklahoma. I think Tulsans need to realize that we're all in this together. If they want to break off and form their own state, then so be it. Otherwise, let's work together.

You know, I find it quite interesting....several years ago Ron Norick wanted to work with Tulsa's mayor at the time to build a mega airport between the two in Stroud. It was our city that reached out and wanted to work together with Tulsa. But it was the Tulsa mayor that turned us away. She didn't want to have any part in a project with our city.

Seems like we try to work with Tulsa, but they're always "too good" for us! That's the impression I get anyways.

I guess that's just the mindset of a lot of Tulsans though. When I was in Branson at the Showboat Branson Belle, we sat across from a group from Tulsa. When we told them we were from Oklahoma City, the first words that came out of their mouths were negative comments about our city. And in reply, I tried to praise their city. That just fueled more negative comments about our city. Why couldn't they just thank me for the nice comments about their city and shut their mouths?

I just don't get it! Why are they always on the defense?

By the way Hot Rod, the CNN article was representative of our whole state, Tulsa included, not just OKC. After all, it was the department of tourism.

I never meant to start a flame with my posting, and if I offended anybody, I apologize. My idea was simply to point out what Tulsans are saying, and to examine whether there was any truth to their opinions. I wasn't meaning to imply anything about their motivations.

For those of you who think Tulsans are obsessed with bashing Oklahoma City, it would seem that the best response would be to praise their city, then point out how proud you are of how far Oklahoma City has come, and to conclude Oklahoma will be better off if both cities continue to prosper.

- The Downtown Guy
www.downtownguy.blogspot.com

Amen.

Can't we all just get along?

I agree! In fact, I personally enjoy going to Tulsa when I make a trip up there. It's just a different environment! I'm sure most Tulsans enjoy coming to OKC for the same reason.....a change in scenery. If a decent job was offered to me in Tulsa in the near future, Iwouldn't be afraid to move there. It seems like a pretty nice place to raise a family and Tulsa has its nice attractions as well. I don't think this state would be the same without either OKC or Tulsa. They both add a unique flavor to our state. IMHO, Tulsa adds a more upscale, artsy feel, while Oklahoma City offers a more urban, big city feel.

By the way, swake I do want to than you for your contributions to our forum, and for expressing your opinions about your trip to Oklahoma City. Your opinions are valuable and I did email our mayor with your concerns. They're valid concerns.