OKC vs Peer Cities

[boitoirich]

I found this interesting article in the Kansas City Star in which the author attempts to define KC's peers and rate the city against them in some measures. I find it interesting not only that OKC and Tulsa are included, but the metrics utilized seemed a little bit odd to me. Nevertheless, I'm posting this to generate some discussion on (1) how would we define our peer cities, and (2) how do we do in comparison.


The Kansas City Star

Kansas City constantly competes with other large, Midwestern cities to woo young people and new jobs. So it matters a great deal how the city looks stacked up against its peers.

The disturbing answer: Kansas City trails its peers in several significant categories.

As a result, Mayor Sly James and other elected officials face major challenges as they strive to balance the city’s budget but also find ways to invest millions more in crucial infrastructure such as roads and bridges.

And this lackluster showing indicates Kansas City’s business community needs to be more aggressive in creating a dynamic and attractive work environment. For instance, it’s crucial that several job-related ideas in the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce’s Big 5 initiative succeed. If those plans tank, the city’s future will suffer.

City Hall officials in recent years have offered a sensible list of peer Midwestern cities: Denver, Fort Worth, Indianapolis, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Omaha, St. Louis and Tulsa.

Take a look at how Kansas City compares with most of those cities in several categories. Landing on or near the bottom of any list is bad.

• Violent crime rate (lowest to highest)

Omaha, Denver, Fort Worth, Oklahoma City, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Tulsa, Kansas City, Memphis, St. Louis

Kansas City’s high number of murders and especially aggravated assaults pushes it down this list. Kansas City, Memphis and St. Louis have ranked among or near the 10 most violent U.S. cities in recent years.

While violent crime has fallen dramatically in Kansas City the last two decades, it has dropped even more in many other large cities. As a result, Kansas City has failed under different police chiefs and elected leaders to improve its rank.

• Tax burden rate (lowest to highest)

Memphis, Denver, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Kansas City

This list compares only the largest cities in a state, so several of Kansas City’s peer cities don’t appear on it.

Kansas City’s high tax burden is a big concern, especially as James and the City Council consider placing a fee renewal for community centers, property tax increases for infrastructure upgrades and sewer revenue bonds before voters later this year.

• Debt service burden (lowest to highest)

St. Louis, Denver, Fort Worth, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Memphis, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Omaha, Kansas City, Milwaukee

Kansas City’s high debt load will make it tougher to persuade residents to increase their taxes.

Still, the debt load indicates the city is trying to make improvements after years of ignoring infrastructure problems. Any debt added in the future needs to be financed with a tax increase, so the city’s general fund is not further drained to pay for debt.

• City employees per 1,000 residents (lowest to highest)

Omaha, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, Tulsa, Memphis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Denver, St. Louis

Kansas City’s large number of police and firefighters when compared with its peers drives down this ranking. Even after several years of cutbacks, it appears Kansas City still has a high number of public workers.

• Rainy day fund for city expenses (highest to lowest)

Fort Worth, Indianapolis, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Minneapolis, Denver, Memphis, Omaha, Kansas City, St. Louis, Milwaukee

Kansas City hasn’t socked enough away to be ready for major emergencies. It’s been tough to add to the rainy day fund during the tough economy and with elected officials straining to please residents with adequate basic services.

Still, Kansas City remains very attractive to many current and future residents for good reasons, from its charming neighborhoods to the Country Club Plaza to its major league sports and cultural attractions.

But City Hall’s finances are a mess in many ways. That will challenge the public’s ability to make investments in needed physical upgrades in an aging city.

Plus, the business community in recent years has struggled to meet the key challenge of expanding the local economy without depending on taxpayers’ incentives.

Kansas City must keep moving forward. Our peer cities aren’t standing still, after all.

Read more here: How KC stacks up against competing peer cities - KansasCity.com

[bchris02]

I have always considered Kansas City on a higher level than OKC and not really a peer. This article is interesting as is the metrics they use. It's not how most people would compare the mentioned cities.

Kansas City is with Charlotte, Indianapolis, Tampa, Denver, St. Louis, etc. OKC is with Tulsa, Memphis, Wichita, Omaha, Jacksonville, and Louisville.

[boitoirich]

What's interesting about that is apparently the comparison comes from Kansas City's own City Hall. Including OKC, Tulsa, and Omaha did make me raise an eyebrow. Perhaps peer is used broadly here to mean similar in metrics (Denver, Slomo, FW, Indy, Minneapolis), and regionally significant (Omaha, Tulsa, OKC). Otherwise, I don't see why Tulsa, for example, would be included -- not singling out Tulsa because I also think OKC and Omaha probably don't fit either.

Interestingly enough, DenverInfill.com (my favorite progressive urbanism blog in Denver) compares its city to Seattle, Portland, SLC, Dallas, and Atlanta among others based on population, development patterns, success of retail, politics and policies, and downtown characteristics. I think the list you came up with for OKC would be a lot better in terms of fitting within those measures.

I would love for us to strive to be more like Indy and Denver and Portland, but that goal is a bit off for now.

[ljbab728]

I find it interesting that they consider the high numbers of police and firefighters in Kansas City to be a negative when most people here consider our low numbers to be a negative.

[Pete]

Kansas City is with Charlotte, Indianapolis, Tampa, Denver, St. Louis, etc. OKC is with Tulsa, Memphis, Wichita, Omaha, Jacksonville, and Louisville.

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.

This is a difficult game to play because it's not just where you are in terms of population but where you are going. OKC is reeling in Milwaukee yet I can assure you, the two cities couldn't be any more different. Milwaukee is actually a great peer city for Kansas City due to it's history and they way they both have been developed. Cincinnati as well.

I've said this many times but those cities developed along navigitable water (KC, and almost every city on or east of the Mississippi plus the West Coast) are a completely different animal than OKC, Ft. Worth, Phoenix, Denver, SLC, Tuscon, etc. Most the former have much more in terms of historic urban fabric and most the latter are much more newly developed and sprawling without a central focus (Denver being a notable exception).

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.

[LandRunOkie]

It is a good thing in the long run to have fewer cops and firefighters, as they are among the few "special" groups allowed to unionize in Oklahoma. The case of Vallejo, CA's bankruptcy provides a perfect example of what happens when municipal workers' unions are allowed special treatment.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

This is a difficult game to play because it's not just where you are in terms of population but where you are going. Okc is reeling in milwaukee yet i can assure you, the two cities couldn't be any more different. Milwaukee is actually a great peer city for kansas city due to it's history and they way they both have been developed. Cincinnati as well.

I've said this many times but those cities developed along navigitable water (kc, and almost every city on or east of the mississippi plus the west coast) are a completely different animal than okc, ft. Worth, phoenix, denver, slc, tuscon, etc. Most the former have much more in terms of historic urban fabric and most the latter are much more newly developed and sprawling without a central focus (denver being a notable exception).

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.

*like*

[LandRunOkie]

The reason Vallejo went bankrupt was that their economy declined and their pension outlays were inflexible. It is just another area where the assumption of growth goes unquestioned, and politically, no one wants to stand up to a firefighter.

[Doug Loudenback]

I've not been to Kansas City in many years (last time was in 1991 or so), but when I was there my impression was that it was pretty darned cool, much more metropolitan than Okc and a place in which I'd be happy to live. As for the others mentioned in the op-ed piece (Denver, Fort Worth, Indianapolis, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Omaha, St. Louis and Tulsa) other than Tulsa and Ft. Worth, it's been longer still since I was in them. So I'd be hard pressed to make present day comparisons, except for Ft. Worth and Tulsa, and, even then, only as compared to Okc and not to Kansas City.

Even with the excellent progress that Okc has made and is making, and just basing this comparison on distant memories of most of those cities and recent ones of Tulsa and Ft. Worth, and as much as I like my town, and just from gut reaction and nothing scientific, I'd have to rate Okc vs.the others, head to head, as follows:

Denver & Minneapolis: Denver and Minneapolis win hands down. Not only are they larger, they have (at least, had) much better public transportation, cultural attractions, natural beauty, and downtown districts. I wouldn't say that Okc is one of their peers, at least, not yet. Today, we are not in their class.

Kansas City: I'd give Kansas City the nod largely because it hasn't chosen to destroy its downtown history like Okc did. When in downtown Kansas City, I had the sense of being in a very established city with deep roots and ties to its past, something that Okc, aside from a few buildings, can no longer lay much of a claim to. As Bob Berry Sr. used to say when calling OU football games and by analogy, Okc lost that potential as the result of "self-tackle-ization" with the Pei Plan. However, I do see Kansas City as a peer city with Okc.

Milwaukee & Omaha: I don't have sufficient impressions about either city to offer any opinions.

Memphis & Indianapolis: Okc is probably a peer city with both. Memphis is rich in history and culture but the impression that I have is that it has allowed its core to deteriorate rather badly. I never thought that highly of Indianapolis, it striking me as pedestrian, mediocre, and uninteresting (and much the same complaint could be directed to Okc after the Pei Plan and before MAPS 1). I give Okc the nod with both of these guys.

Ft. Worth: Many see Ft. Worth as being much like Okc, and I see Ft. Worth as a peer city. But Ft. Worth's old downtown hasn't been significantly destroyed but combines its old stuff with a vibrant amount of public and private downtown investment, not to mention its renowned cultural attractions, e.g, art and natural history museums. Plus, one can get on Dart and be in downtown Dallas in a flash, or regular train with ties to many areas around the country. Okc's train service begins and ends with daily round-trip schedules to Ft. Worth, and we are lucky to have that. My nod goes to Ft. Worth.

Tulsa & St. Louis: Probably I'd call both peer cities. When I was last in St. Louis, probably 40 or so years ago, I was struck by (what seemed to me) to be vast areas of downtown and near-downtown decay. Maybe that has changed, or maybe I was mistaken. But it's not a place I'd presently choose to live. I've never been jealous of St. Louis. But, back in the day, I was jealous of Tulsa with its natural beauty, rolling hills, skyline, riverfront, shopping, and cultural things. But, something went wrong in Tulsa, perhaps around the same time that things started going right in Okc with MAPS 1. I don't pretend to understand to know what happened in Tulsa ... yes, I understand it suffered a series of blows from exiting energy companies ... but Tulsa can't seem to come and get it together to do what is needed to right the ship. Okc gets my nod with both.

My above useless opinions aside, perhaps the most notable item in the op-ed piece, as far as we are concerned, is that Kansas City today deems Oklahoma City to be its "peer." To me, such an admission is pretty remarkable, and it is certainly a testament to the forward-thinking public-private approach that Okc has embraced, beginning with MAPS1. I know that it's corny, but what comes to mind is, "If you build it, they will come."

[Praedura]

Oklahoma City has no peer!!!




That's my homer statement for the day.

[Praedura]

Nice post Doug.

Really, it's hard to compare cities. So many similiarities, yet so many differences. I mean, who's better... Mary Ann or Ginger?

I tend to look at Seattle and Portland when it comes to urban development. I admire what they've done. They are far away, in a different topography, a different (longer) history, and a different culture (somewhat). But so what -- a lot of what they do is applicable to any city. While I understand the peer thing, I'm actually more interested in looking at what different cities are doing - right and wrong - and then seeing how it can be applied here, regardless of the source. If you can copy a good idea from New York City, then go for it. And obviously NYC is so far above OKC as an urban environment it's not even humorous.

Anyway, that's my $0.00002.

[bchris02]

I really do wonder where OKC would be today had there not been a Pei Plan. Would it still be nationally perceived as a cultural wasteland without an identity? In the 1960s historic, dense, and urban was out and suburban sprawl was in, but most cities managed to make it through that period with much more of their historic downtown intact than OKC, and they are reaping the benefits of that in today's hipster-centric age.

Portland and Seattle are very culturally different from OKC as is Austin. Larger cities that are a notch above us but are good examples for OKC (yet aren't too far ahead) are of course Kansas City, Fort Worth, Charlotte, Nashville, and Indianapolis.

[Pete]

I don't know that OKC pulled down more of it's historic buildings than other cities. We certainly did a lot of damage but so did most everywhere else in the 50's and 60's. We are all just keenly aware of our losses... There were huge urban renewal projects in virtually every U.S. city.


Charlotte is probably the best example of a lead to follow. Being part of the South and Tobacco Row, it was always seen as a bit of a backwater and had been heavily reliant on agriculture and textiles, both of which dried up in the second half of the last century. It built a new economy focused on banking and energy and completely reinvented itself, becoming much more progressive and drawing in lots of people from other parts of the country.

Charlotte was the lucky recipient of lots of consolidation in the financial services industry but OKC is experiencing a similar good fortune in the energy field. North Carolina has more natural beauty and better weather, but neither were big forces behind their explosive growth.

And as stated before, I think Nashville is another good model for us.

[UnFrSaKn]

Kansas City

[adaniel]

KC has such an amazing core, so I'll forgive them for thinking that butt-ugly UFO looking arena was a good idea.

[UnFrSaKn]

Memphis

[bchris02]

Memphis

I have always liked Memphis' skyline. Even though its not very tall, it looks great on the shore of the Mississippi River. I also think its a good idea to include the Pyramid and the I-40 bridge in any Memphis skyline shot. Memphis has an advantage because of its culture and heritage and how that plays into its downtown nightlife.

It would be cool if one day OKC had something like Peabody Place downtown.

[progressiveboy]

OKC has the chance to redefiine itself! My philosophy is that people make a city. If OKC residents want a vibrant city and to be a respected peer city, then it must continue it's momentum and hope that "sustanability is on their side. It must continue to grow and evolve and strive to be a respected city.

[SOONER8693]

I've not been to Kansas City in many years (last time was in 1991 or so), but when I was there my impression was that it was pretty darned cool, much more metropolitan than Okc and a place in which I'd be happy to live. As for the others mentioned in the op-ed piece (Denver, Fort Worth, Indianapolis, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Omaha, St. Louis and Tulsa) other than Tulsa and Ft. Worth, it's been longer still since I was in them. So I'd be hard pressed to make present day comparisons, except for Ft. Worth and Tulsa, and, even then, only as compared to Okc and not to Kansas City.

Even with the excellent progress that Okc has made and is making, and just basing this comparison on distant memories of most of those cities and recent ones of Tulsa and Ft. Worth, and as much as I like my town, and just from gut reaction and nothing scientific, I'd have to rate Okc vs.the others, head to head, as follows:

Denver & Minneapolis: Denver and Minneapolis win hands down. Not only are they larger, they have (at least, had) much better public transportation, cultural attractions, natural beauty, and downtown districts. I wouldn't say that Okc is one of their peers, at least, not yet. Today, we are not in their class.

Kansas City: I'd give Kansas City the nod largely because it hasn't chosen to destroy its downtown history like Okc did. When in downtown Kansas City, I had the sense of being in a very established city with deep roots and ties to its past, something that Okc, aside from a few buildings, can no longer lay much of a claim to. As Bob Berry Sr. used to say when calling OU football games and by analogy, Okc lost that potential as the result of "self-tackle-ization" with the Pei Plan. However, I do see Kansas City as a peer city with Okc.

Milwaukee & Omaha: I don't have sufficient impressions about either city to offer any opinions.

Memphis & Indianapolis: Okc is probably a peer city with both. Memphis is rich in history and culture but the impression that I have is that it has allowed its core to deteriorate rather badly. I never thought that highly of Indianapolis, it striking me as pedestrian, mediocre, and uninteresting (and much the same complaint could be directed to Okc after the Pei Plan and before MAPS 1). I give Okc the nod with both of these guys.

Ft. Worth: Many see Ft. Worth as being much like Okc, and I see Ft. Worth as a peer city. But Ft. Worth's old downtown hasn't been significantly destroyed but combines its old stuff with a vibrant amount of public and private downtown investment, not to mention its renowned cultural attractions, e.g, art and natural history museums. Plus, one can get on Dart and be in downtown Dallas in a flash, or regular train with ties to many areas around the country. Okc's train service begins and ends with daily round-trip schedules to Ft. Worth, and we are lucky to have that. My nod goes to Ft. Worth.

Tulsa & St. Louis: Probably I'd call both peer cities. When I was last in St. Louis, probably 40 or so years ago, I was struck by (what seemed to me) to be vast areas of downtown and near-downtown decay. Maybe that has changed, or maybe I was mistaken. But it's not a place I'd presently choose to live. I've never been jealous of St. Louis. But, back in the day, I was jealous of Tulsa with its natural beauty, rolling hills, skyline, riverfront, shopping, and cultural things. But, something went wrong in Tulsa, perhaps around the same time that things started going right in Okc with MAPS 1. I don't pretend to understand to know what happened in Tulsa ... yes, I understand it suffered a series of blows from exiting energy companies ... but Tulsa can't seem to come and get it together to do what is needed to right the ship. Okc gets my nod with both.

My above useless opinions aside, perhaps the most notable item in the op-ed piece, as far as we are concerned, is that Kansas City today deems Oklahoma City to be its "peer." To me, such an admission is pretty remarkable, and it is certainly a testament to the forward-thinking public-private approach that Okc has embraced, beginning with MAPS1. I know that it's corny, but what comes to mind is, "If you build it, they will come."

Not trying to be critical of you at all, but, having spent time in St. Louis and Milwaukee, OKC is not in their league at all. But, that is just my opinion.

[HangryHippo]

Not trying to be critical of you at all, but, having spent time in St. Louis and Milwaukee, OKC is not in their league at all. But, that is just my opinion.

With all due respect, St. Louis is not a league I want to be in.

Milwaukee is very cool.

[UnFrSaKn]

Milwaukee

[Praedura]

Milwaukee

Look at all the trees in their downtown! Big mature trees all over the place. Wish we had that.

[Doug Loudenback]

Not trying to be critical of you at all, but, having spent time in St. Louis and Milwaukee, OKC is not in their league at all. But, that is just my opinion.

No negative criticism taken (but it wouldn't offend me if you did). My impressions of St. Louis and Milwaukee were just formed by "driving through" on the way to someplace else. I've already mentioned my limitations, so very distant, so I'll defer to your opinion (and anyone else's) about those cities.

bchris02, you wondered, "I really do wonder where OKC would be today had there not been a Pei Plan." Of course, that's anyone's guess. Downtown was deteriorating before the Pei Plan as retailers, movie theaters, etc., made their way to the suburbs, and something clearly needed to be done to save downtown. Our city chose a bold and radical approach ... throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. Who can say what would have happened if an approach had been taken which would have preserved the best of the old and made room for the new had been chosen instead of the approach which was taken. And, to be sure, the city's urban renewal plan did not follow the Pei Plan exactly, which had a bit more room in it for saving old structures than the final urban renewal plan did. As well, the Pei Plan did result in the creation of several new downtown buildings which we enjoy today.

There are no easy answers.

Here are some images in alphabetical order using the Kansas City article as the base. Click images for larger views.

Denver today:



Ft. Worth today:





Indianapolis today:



Kansas City today:



Kansas City today if Okc's Urban Renewal had impacted Kansas City more or less like it did Okc:



Memphis today:



Milwaukee today:



Minneapolis today:



Omaha today:



St. Louis today:



Tulsa today:



If I'm up to it, I'll take a contemporary image of Okc tomorrow from St. Anthony's for a present day image of Okc's downtown skyline. That is one of my favorite vantage points for city skyline views.

[catcherinthewry]

Not to be too picky, but the picture of St. Louis is fairly old. You can see the old Busch stadium and the construction of the new one hasn't even started. FWIW, I like StL's downtown, especially since they built the new ballpark.

[stlokc]

The St. Louis picture is older than 1998 because that's when the 35-story Eagleton Courthouse was completed, and it's not in this shot.