OKC vs Peer Cities

[Edgar]

He's at Lucky Star in Concho Nov 16, so you're in business. Also, Martina McBride, Mike Epps Cheech & Chong in Oct and Nov. We probably get the same acts, I once saw ZZ Top twice in 4 months, at the Peake and Riverwind, just a few years ago.

Being a long time Norman I was very excited about the prospects of a new music venue in town, and it was great for awhilw. Saw Bonnie Raitt, Black Crowes, some others, and then the place seemed to go dormant for soem reason. Heard from an employee a bean counter put in charge of running the casino so many it was some mgmt issues. Now it seems to be pretty much strictly a Red Dirt venue. Going for the cheap safe bet. Never been to Chonco. My friends went to the Hall&oates show and said it was a tent on the parking lot with godawful acoutistics. They left early. What was your impression? maybe Howard Pollack and Innervisions will get the new Airpark venue going but it surely can't be as cool as the Zoo. The Farmers Market could be a really cool venue but it guess it didn't go.

[Bellaboo]

Being a long time Norman I was very excited about the prospects of a new music venue in town, and it was great for awhilw. Saw Bonnie Raitt, Black Crowes, some others, and then the place seemed to go dormant for soem reason. Heard from an employee a bean counter put in charge of running the casino so many it was some mgmt issues. Now it seems to be pretty much strictly a Red Dirt venue. Going for the cheap safe bet. Never been to Chonco. My friends went to the Hall&oates show and said it was a tent on the parking lot with godawful acoutistics. They left early. What was your impression? maybe Howard Pollack and Innervisions will get the new Airpark venue going but it surely can't be as cool as the Zoo. The Farmers Market could be a really cool venue but it guess it didn't go.

I've been to Concho only once, just a few months ago to see Miranda Lambert. I was fortunate enough to sit in the Platinum section, so it was actually pretty good. Free food, but you had to buy the beer. The stage is built high so you can see, but we were about 8 rows front and center. I would not go to Concho unless you can buy a reserved seat, otherwise, you would be miserable. They have reserved seating next to the Platinum section, just no free food. They put a rail across the mid section of the building, and for general admission, they turn you loose in that back section of the building. I looked back and it was a sea of people standing at the rail.....no thanks.
Now that venue is a huge quanset hut, permanent structure. They do use a large tent outside for the smaller acts though.

It is not a bad venue, but it's not near as good as the theater in Riverwind.

[Laramie]

Finished reading the Kansas City Star's examinating criteria used to rank Kansas City among its peer cities.

My observation:

The statistical profile camparison using their designated peer cities (Denver, Fort Worth, Indianapolis, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Omaha, St. Louis and Tulsa) were definitely a gauge used to highlight whatever they felt was inadequate (Landing on or near the bottom of any list is bad.) about Kansas City. These cities were chosen because of their proximity to Kansas City and corporate city population; KC has a larger corporate city population than four (St. Louis, Minneapolis, Omaha & Tulsa) of those cities listed? This would place Kanas City one slot below the median among those peer cities (below corporate city populations of Indianapolis, Fort Worth, Memphis, Denver, Oklahoma City & Milwaukee). Although this involved corporate Kansas City, a more meaningful gauge would have been to look at the overall area's metropolitan (MSA) or combined cities (CSA) in the KC area.

Who knows why these cities were selected and referred to as peer cities?

'Peer cities' appear to be a good catch phrase for a fishing expedition; large cities in Kansas City's vacinity. Why was Fort Worth used and not Dallas? Would Dallas' statistical profile in those catagories have screwed the writer's agenda? Or did it have more to do with corporate size and proximity?

Peer cities? Would you define that as cities in proximity, demographics or what?

OKC HAS been with those cities but is leaving pretty much all of them behind. Growing much faster than all, far more progressive in terms of public/private investment and leadership and light years ahead in terms of employment, both present and future...

...I think all the cities lumped in with OKC in the quote above look at OKC as doing many things they aspire to. For OKC it's Nashville, Charlotte, Indy, Denver, Austin and yes even Dallas that we can look to for leadership and ideas that could be directly applied in our setting.

Good observation Pete...

What if Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Cleveland had been included--cities more aligned with the MSA or CSA populations of Kansas City instead of Memphis, Oklahoma City, Omaha & Tulsa? Kansas City might have come out smelling like a rose?

A good peer cities list for OKC would probably include cities like Austin, Denver, Fort Smith, Fort Worth, Kansas City, Little Rock, Memphis, St. Paul, Wichita and Tulsa.

[bchris02]

It depends on how you define peer city. My definition would be cities that are similar in population and economic clout. Fort Smith, Wichita, and Little Rock may very well be peers of OKC in terms of culture and geographic proximity, but everybody knows those cities are a notch below by most metrics. Wichita and Little Rock would be peers, and Fort Smith and Lawton would be peers. These are the cities I believe OKC should be compared to. As I've mentioned before, New Orleans is world renowned culturally, but in terms of population and economic development, they aren't that far ahead of OKC. These are the cities I think are our true peers.

New Orleans
Salt Lake City
Richmond
Louisville
Memphis
Jacksonville
Birmingham
Omaha
Albuquerque
Tulsa

[BG918]

By MSA population:
40. Jacksonville, FL
41. Memphis, TN
42. OKC
43. Louisville, KY
44. Richmond, VA
45. New Orleans, LA
46. Hartford, CT
47. Raleigh, NC
48. Birmingham, AL
49. Buffalo, NY
50. Salt Lake City, UT

[bchris02]

By MSA population:
40. Jacksonville, FL
41. Memphis, TN
42. OKC
43. Louisville, KY
44. Richmond, VA
45. New Orleans, LA
46. Hartford, CT
47. Raleigh, NC
48. Birmingham, AL
49. Buffalo, NY
50. Salt Lake City, UT

I agree with this list, except for Raleigh, NC. Raleigh is part of the Raleigh-Durham CSA which functions much like Dallas/Ft Worth or Minneapolis/St Paul. It wouldn't surprise me if one day soon, the census bureau redefines it as one metro area. Raleigh, like Fort Worth, is a peer in and of itself but considering its place in its larger urban region it isn't quite an apples to apples comparison.

I fully expect OKC to soon pass up Memphis in population. Memphis' hub airport helps keep their GDP above however.

[ljbab728]

I fully expect OKC to soon pass up Memphis in population. Memphis' hub airport helps keep their GDP above however.

That hub in Memphis will be disappearing so that is a non-issue.

Delta to Close Memphis Hub In the Fall, 230 Jobs Will Be Eliminated : Leisure : TravelersToday

[Teo9969]

Will be interesting to see how the Enable deal affects OKC's economic standing...

[stlokc]

I think geography does play a role in discussing "peer cities." For example, even if population and GMP are similar, I would not consider Buffalo or Hartford to be peers of OKC. Probably not Raleigh either. Not suggesting they are on a higher level, I don't think they are. But their particular economies and histories and compositions are just different. In many ways, we're more a peer of Dallas than those similarly-sized cities.

[Spartan]

In any event, KC is most definitely a Tier 2 city and OKC is Tier 3.

And we STILL have a bigger and faster growing urban district.


And Tulsa has absolutely nothing that even holds a candle.

KC hits well above its weight in urbanism. It's a beautiful, classic city.

[bchris02]

Oklahoma City metro area leads state in GDP growth | News OK

The OKC metro handily beat Tulsa in GDP growth for 2012. Neither metro's numbers are stellar, but OKC had a 2.2% growth vs Tulsa's 0.3%. It's surprising OKC's GDP growth is so low given the low unemployment, which in most of 2012 was SIGNIFICANTLY lower than peer cities.

I'll be interested to see if OKC's population growth will slow as the economy improves in other cities and what impact the recent Chesapeake reorganization will have.

[Just the facts]

..but OKC had a 2.2% growth vs Tulsa's 0.3%.

This only tells part of the story. OKC has a bigger GDP than Tulsa so even if OKC only had a 0.3% growth it would still be bigger than Tulsa's 0.3% growth.

[adaniel]

I'm not too worried about us growing a bit slower than national average. If anything the rest of the country's metros are just catching up with us. A GDP number only tells you half the story. Job growth, income growth, housing starts, tax collection, etc. are much better indicators taken together.

I was reading somewhere that a lot of gains in these areas were due to increased real estate valuations. That doesn't sound like something to celebrate. "Hey I can't find job but I can get a big ass HELOC and go on vacation now. Yay, its 2006 all over again!" Have we learned nothing?

With that in mind, it wouldn't shock me between sequestration, upheaval at Chesapeake, flat sales tax collections, and disruption from the May storms, OKC has probably "tapped the brakes" economy-wise in the first half of 2013. But we have a lot of good positives on the horizon coming online (GE, Enable, continued growth at Devon & Continental). Also, construction spending, which is a big component of this area's economy, continues to be strong. Housing starts are still growing, tornado rebuilding is only just now kicking in, and Stage Center tower and MAPS3 projects should keep things humming into 2014.

[Laramie]

Oklahoma City metro area leads state in GDP growth | News OK

The OKC metro handily beat Tulsa in GDP growth for 2012. Neither metro's numbers are stellar, but OKC had a 2.2% growth vs Tulsa's 0.3%. It's surprising OKC's GDP growth is so low given the low unemployment, which in most of 2012 was SIGNIFICANTLY lower than peer cities.

I'll be interested to see if OKC's population growth will slow as the economy improves in other cities and what impact the recent Chesapeake reorganization will have.

Our biggest growth in population has been the hispanic sector. Our population will continue to grow with the hispanic base leading the % of growth. Many of my relatives and friends have moved here from Texas and they don't like what's happening down there. They have had their vehicles taken (strick auto safety inspection); housing, food, utilities and so on has skyrocketed.

They like the construction they see going on in OKC and inexpensive living and the ease of driveability throughout the City.

When I lived in the Metroplex (95-02); I would return to Oklahoma City on a monthly basis to stock up; this is where I did my grocery shopping--the food was fresh and the meat didn't spoil as fast. The water in that area was 'not fit for my consumption.' Some of my neighbors were impressed with the prices on food items I was getting. They couldn't wait to help me unload my auto (I only lost a pork roast during that time). There are a lot of advantages to living in Texas and there are some disadvantages as well.

Really feel that some people don't know how good we have it here in OKC.

[soonerguru]

Oklahoma (and OKC) music is most certainly red dirt country and various brands of gospel music. Tulsa's music scene however has that 'hipster' element and they are able to attract the type of bands that play in Austin, something OKC is not yet able to do. I would be willing to bet money though that once OKC has a respectable venue, we will start seeing those tours more split between OKC and Tulsa instead of them ALWAYS going to Tulsa.


Really? I have never been to St. Louis, but for the most part it is a more respected city than KCMO, and I think KCMO's downtown is pretty polished and vibrant (like Charlotte's). Is St. Louis really that bad?

It's been a few years for me as well, but St. Louis is not as nice as KC. It has the arch and an empty downtown surrounded by dangerous inner-city neighborhoods that are filled with despair.

The Midtown or UPtown portion of St. Louis is quite neat and I enjoyed it immensely, but St Louis is not very navigable for a tourist in the way KC is. KC has, in a direct line, downtown, P&L, Crown Center, Westport, and the Plaza. It is all very dense for the most part and very urban and dynamic. I love KC.

[OKCisOK4me]

It's been a few years for me as well, but St. Louis is not as nice as KC. It has the arch and an empty downtown surrounded by dangerous inner-city neighborhoods that are filled with despair.

The Midtown or UPtown portion of St. Louis is quite neat and I enjoyed it immensely, but St Louis is not very navigable for a tourist in the way KC is. KC has, in a direct line, downtown, P&L, Crown Center, Westport, and the Plaza. It is all very dense for the most part and very urban and dynamic. I love KC.

It will be even better when they complete their streetcar between the River Market, Downtown, and UnionStation!

[bchris02]

It's been a few years for me as well, but St. Louis is not as nice as KC. It has the arch and an empty downtown surrounded by dangerous inner-city neighborhoods that are filled with despair.

The Midtown or UPtown portion of St. Louis is quite neat and I enjoyed it immensely, but St Louis is not very navigable for a tourist in the way KC is. KC has, in a direct line, downtown, P&L, Crown Center, Westport, and the Plaza. It is all very dense for the most part and very urban and dynamic. I love KC.

That's how I see it. STL may be overall larger and more historically urban, but it also has a lot of blight problems that puts KC in a better position in my opinion. Now I am not saying St Louis is a bad city, but if I was going to live in Missouri my first choice would be Kansas City. Kansas City is underrated nationally simply because it has the word "Kansas" in its name and people from the coast apply to it the stereotypes that go with that. St Louis on the other hand is more closely associated with blue state Illinois, garnering it more respect among the urban elite.

[OKVision4U]

That's how I see it. STL may be overall larger and more historically urban, but it also has a lot of blight problems that puts KC in a better position in my opinion. Now I am not saying St Louis is a bad city, but if I was going to live in Missouri my first choice would be Kansas City. Kansas City is underrated nationally simply because it has the word "Kansas" in its name and people from the coast apply to it the stereotypes that go with that. St Louis on the other hand is more closely associated with blue state Illinois, garnering it more respect among the urban elite.

St. Louis is the farthest West Eastcoast City. Kansas City is the farthest East WestCoast City. My preference is KC w/o the issues.

...and it use to have one of my favorite restaurants " The Stateline Grill" close to The Plaza. ...just a nice dinner.

[bchris02]

St. Louis is the farthest West Eastcoast City. Kansas City is the farthest East WestCoast City. My preference is KC w/o the issues.

...and it use to have one of my favorite restaurants " The Stateline Grill" close to The Plaza. ...just a nice dinner.

I agree with this. St. Louis is the westernmost city of the Northeastern/Midwestern ilk. When I think Missouri, I never think of St. Louis. I always think of Kansas City, or the vast farm country in the central part of the state, or "Missour-uh" in the southern part of the state anchored by Springfield and Branson. People talk about Dallas being where the East ends and Ft Worth where the West begins, but Texas, like Oklahoma is still culturally Dixie.

[Teo9969]

I agree with this. St. Louis is the westernmost city of the Northeastern/Midwestern ilk. When I think Missouri, I never think of St. Louis. I always think of Kansas City, or the vast farm country in the central part of the state, or "Missour-uh" in the southern part of the state anchored by Springfield and Branson. People talk about Dallas being where the East ends and Ft Worth where the West begins, but Texas, like Oklahoma is still culturally Dixie.

Texas and Oklahoma seem as much southwestern as Dixie to me. I'd say dixie stops at AR and LA. Texoma is really it's own thing because of Big Oil and Ranch-land.

[Spartan]

Our biggest growth in population has been the hispanic sector. Our population will continue to grow with the hispanic base leading the % of growth. Many of my relatives and friends have moved here from Texas and they don't like what's happening down there. They have had their vehicles taken (strick auto safety inspection); housing, food, utilities and so on has skyrocketed.

They like the construction they see going on in OKC and inexpensive living and the ease of driveability throughout the City.

When I lived in the Metroplex (95-02); I would return to Oklahoma City on a monthly basis to stock up; this is where I did my grocery shopping--the food was fresh and the meat didn't spoil as fast. The water in that area was 'not fit for my consumption.' Some of my neighbors were impressed with the prices on food items I was getting. They couldn't wait to help me unload my auto (I only lost a pork roast during that time). There are a lot of advantages to living in Texas and there are some disadvantages as well.

Really feel that some people don't know how good we have it here in OKC.

Huh?

Ease of drive ability?

OKC's slow growth is okay bc your cousin moved up from Texas?

Texas is losing people because of strick auto inspections?

The superior grocery shopping of OKC?

I think that our growth dropping off is a sobering reminder to not become complacent and to keep working on issues directly relating to OKC's competitiveness.

[Spartan]

I tend to agree with this. St Louis is a solid Tier 2 city while OKC is, in my opinion, at the lower end of Tier 3 (moving up though each year). I have friends who live in St. Louis and they all love it. I've never been myself though.

OKC's real gems aren't easy to find. Most tourists aren't going to be able to find the Plaza district, the Paseo, or even Midtown unless they've done their research before. I imagine St. Louis has tenfold the amount of vibrant neighborhoods given its prestige and history.

This is my own ranking of tier 3 cities, all which would be peers to OKC.

1. New Orleans
2. Hartford, CT
3. Salt Lake City
4. Richmond
5. Louisville
6. Buffalo
7. Memphis
8. Rochester
9. Jacksonville
10. Birmingham
11. Oklahoma City
12. Omaha
13. Albuquerque
14. Tulsa
15. Tuscon

Huh?? How are Richmond, Jacksonville, Louisville, Buffalo, Memphis, and ROCHESTER ahead of OKC? As usual, I'm surprised you didn't put Wichita ahead of us, too.

[bchris02]

Huh?? How are Richmond, Jacksonville, Louisville, Buffalo, Memphis, and ROCHESTER ahead of OKC? As usual, I'm surprised you didn't put Wichita ahead of us, too.

Richmond and Louisville are ahead of OKC. Jacksonville isn't in terms of urban development but its location with pristine beaches puts it ahead to me (I love the ocean). The Northeast is an entirely different ballgame than the Sunbelt so OKC can't be compared apples to apples with places like Buffalo, Hartford, and Rochester despite them being of similar size and economic clout. Memphis is a toss-up. I would put it ahead culturally given its musical legacy but that city also has lots of problems that detract from it being a good place to live. As for Birmingham, I wanted to put it one spot below OKC but its location in the Appalachian foothills as well as the density and vibrancy of its downtown caused me to put it one place above. It also suffers though from many of the same problems Memphis does.

Wichita is well below OKC. I understand that was sarcasm but if I was trying to downplay OKC I would have put Tulsa ahead of it but I did not.

[bchris02]

Texas and Oklahoma seem as much southwestern as Dixie to me. I'd say dixie stops at AR and LA. Texoma is really it's own thing because of Big Oil and Ranch-land.

I would say only West Texas is truly Southwestern. I would define West Texas as anything west of the I-35 corridor but not including it. DFW, Austin, and San Antonio are still Southern but west of there it gets Southwestern. For Oklahoma, I would say the Panhandle is Southwestern but most of the interior of the state fits more with the South. All of Oklahoma and Texas does have more Southwestern influence than say Tennessee or Alabama, but I would say Southern culture is still the dominant culture for the most part.

[betts]

It depends on how you define peer city. My definition would be cities that are similar in population and economic clout. Fort Smith, Wichita, and Little Rock may very well be peers of OKC in terms of culture and geographic proximity, but everybody knows those cities are a notch below by most metrics. Wichita and Little Rock would be peers, and Fort Smith and Lawton would be peers. These are the cities I believe OKC should be compared to. As I've mentioned before, New Orleans is world renowned culturally, but in terms of population and economic development, they aren't that far ahead of OKC. These are the cities I think are our true peers.

New Orleans
Salt Lake City
Richmond
Louisville
Memphis
Jacksonville
Birmingham
Omaha
Albuquerque
Tulsa

I've been to every single one of these cities. Some of them I've spent a fair amount of time in. And here's my ranking:

New Orleans
Louisville/Oklahoma City (Louisville is prettier, but the Thunder trump anything they have IMO)
Memphis/Salt Lake City (different positives and negatives, but about the same to me)
Jacksonville (I love the beach there too, but as far as urban areas go, OKC is far more appealing).
Richmond (maybe...might even be below Omaha and Birmingham)
Omaha (Omaha and Birmingham are the most appealing of the slightly smaller cities)
Birmingham
Albuquerque
Buffalo/Rochester/Hartford (none of these I find very appealing)
Tulsa
Tucson