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.

[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.

[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*

[Crosstimbers Okie]

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.

As a native of OKC who has lived in Kansas City for the past 11 years... There is no way Kansas City is on a higher level than OKC unless you value violent crime and poor service. And it's noticeably more expensive to live here than in OKC.

[bchris02]

As a native of OKC who has lived in Kansas City for the past 11 years... There is no way Kansas City is on a higher level than OKC unless you value violent crime and poor service. And it's noticeably more expensive to live here than in OKC.

I think it depends on what you are looking for in a place. In terms of urban metrics, KC wins easily in virtually every category. When it comes to actual quality of life and raising a family, the match gets much closer, especially if you don't require big city amenities.

[ljbab728]

I think it depends on what you are looking for in a place. In terms of urban metrics, KC wins easily in virtually every category. When it comes to actual quality of life and raising a family, the match gets much closer, especially if you don't require big city amenities.

I'm not familiar enough with KC to be sure but I would tend to trust the opinion of someone who has lived there for the last 11 years.

[PWitty]

I think it depends on what you are looking for in a place. In terms of urban metrics, KC wins easily in virtually every category. When it comes to actual quality of life and raising a family, the match gets much closer, especially if you don't require big city amenities.

KC does have a much more urban feel to it's downtown, but its population is also pretty sprawled out. It's not like you're going to feel like you're in a bustling urban area when you're in downtown KC. The KC metro area is actually larger, area wise, than the OKC metro which leads to their population densities being more similar than you would think. Yes it does come in at just over 2 million, but a large majority of those are cities/suburbs on the KS side of the metro and as many have pointed out the KS suburbs almost operate as an entity of their own with the job competition.

I'll also add that it seems like people judge cities based on their skylines far too much. Just because a place has a nice developed skyline or a built up core doesn't mean that the city as a whole is better or offers more than a city that doesn't. In some places that comparison holds true, but that is not always the case. It is one thing if you're only comparing the urban feel of a city, but I see too many people that will say one city is better than another overall and their only reasoning is because one is more urban.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[bchris02]

As to not detract from adaniel's work in the other thread with a long post, I thought it would be cool to compare OKC's growth with its regional peers that its often compared to so I am posting it in this thread instead. Omaha surprises me given the extent of development they've had recently.

Oklahoma City, OK
2013 Population: 1,319,677
Change from 2010: 66,690
Births-Deaths Surplus: 23,706
Int'l Migration: 6,759
Domestic Migration: 30,086
Total Migration: 36,845

Tulsa, OK
2013 Population: 961,561
Change from 2010: 24,083
Births-Deaths Surplus: 14,024
Int'l Migration: 3,226
Domestic Migration: 6,536
Total Migration: 9,762

Kansas City, MO-KS
2013 Population: 2,080,213
Change from 2010: 59,509
Births-Deaths Surplus: 38,819
Int'l Migration: 9,922
Domestic Migration: -3,767
Total Migration: 6,155

Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR
2013 Population: 724,385
Change from 2010: 32,482
Births-Deaths Surplus: 12,486
Int'l Migration: 3,255
Domestic Migration: 8,886
Total Migration: 12,141

Omaha, NE
2013 Population: 895,151
Change from 2010: 29,801
Births-Deaths Surplus: 22,462
Int'l Migration: 5,303
Domestic Migration: 2,540
Total Migration: 7,843

For kicks and giggles...

Austin-Round Rock (TX)
2013 Population: 1,883,051
Change from 2010: 166,762
Births-Deaths Surplus: 54,365
Int'l Migration: 16,932
Domestic Migration: 92,812
Total Migration: 109,744

Charlotte, NC
2013 Population: 1,865,903
Change from 2010: 107,865
Births-Deaths Surplus: 39,892
Int'l Migration: 14,844
Domestic Migration: 51,452
Total Migration: 66,296

[Edgar]

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."

Have to disagree about Tulsa Doug. Went to the Steely Dan show at the Brady Theater Wed eve. The joint was hopping. There was obviously a show happening at Cains as well. The town is a music hub. Restaurants busy, a new Mediterranian place, McNellies packed as usual. Looked look swank new housing downtown. Drillers' game well attended at the new park. Brady district a vibrant artistic place. Tulsa got started later but looks like they're on a good path. they've had bad luck with energy companies moving and failed incentive plans, but is it really fair to compare OKC and Tulsa on this metric when 5 of the top 6 employers in the OKC metro and state and federal jobs- oh the irony.

[bchris02]

Have to disagree about Tulsa Doug. Went to the Steely Dan show at the Brady Theater Wed eve. The joint was hopping. There was obviously a show happening at Cains as well. The town is a music hub. Restaurants busy, a new Mediterranian place, McNellies packed as usual. Looked look swank new housing downtown. Drillers' game well attended at the new park. Brady district a vibrant artistic place. Tulsa got started later but looks like they're on a good path. they've had bad luck with energy companies moving and failed incentive plans, but is it really fair to compare OKC and Tulsa on this metric when 5 of the top 6 employers in the OKC metro and state and federal jobs- oh the irony.

I agree. Right now Tulsa still has the upper hand in a few key areas, vibrant urban districts being one of them. I would be willing to bet the situation will be different two years from now. Things are starting to happen that will create the type of vibrant urban districts here similar to what they have in Tulsa. I really do hope it all unfolds as planned. While Tulsa is still ahead in some areas, OKC however is improving at a much faster rate. Even though Tulsa also had a bust, I dont think things were ever as bleak there as they were in OKC in the 1980s. One area I don't think OKC will ever be able to compete with Tulsa in is their world class museums.

[progressiveboy]

I agree. Right now Tulsa still has the upper hand in a few key areas, vibrant urban districts being one of them. I would be willing to bet the situation will be different two years from now. Things are starting to happen that will create the type of vibrant urban districts here similar to what they have in Tulsa. I really do hope it all unfolds as planned. While Tulsa is still ahead in some areas, OKC however is improving at a much faster rate. Even though Tulsa also had a bust, I dont think things were ever as bleak there as they were in OKC in the 1980s. One area I don't think OKC will ever be able to compete with Tulsa in is their world class museums.

Oh gosh. Another Tulsa vs OKC rivalrly, Lol. Looking at it from an objective view, Tulsa has OKC beat in it's topography and hills, more greener. However, I feel the buck stops here. First OKC is way more metropolitan than Tulsa, OKC is the states Government hub and the states financial hub. OKC river has hosted world class venues in rowing, kayaking home to the US Olympic Office for these respected sports. What has Tulsa hosted on their river?? Crickets, lol. World class boathouses, new zip line, soon to be whitewater course, how about Tulsa? Not mention more jobs, cultural amenities (World class Armstrong Auditorium), Dale Chihuly at the OKC MOA. I really feel that OKC has a much brighter future. Tulsa just stays the same. I have been to Brookside and Midtown Tulsa, it is nice but nothing super special.

[Pete]

One area I don't think OKC will ever be able to compete with Tulsa in is their world class museums.

OKC is very under-appreciated in this area:

National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum
Oklahoma History Center
Oklahoma City Museum of Art
Science Museum Oklahoma
Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum
Oklahoma Heritage Museum
Fred Jones Museum of Art (OU)
Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History (OU)

Plus, a whole host of others:
National Softball Hall of Fame
45th Infantry Division
American Banjo Museum
Harn Homestead
Oklahoma Railway Museum
Overholser Mansion
Oklahoma Contemporary

Coming soon:
American Indian Museum & Cultural Center


I know Tulsa has the Philbrook & Gilcrease, but Oklahoma City has plenty to offer in terms of museums.

Right now, the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum and Fred Jones both have world class collections. The American Indian Museum will also be world class when complete.


And I would add that the OKC Zoo is by far the biggest attraction in the state, although it's in a slightly different category. It's a bigger asset and far more people make use of it than any museum.

[progressiveboy]

OKC is very under-appreciated in this area:

National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum
Oklahoma History Center
Oklahoma City Museum of Art
Science Museum Oklahoma
Oklahoma City National Memorial & Museum
Oklahoma Heritage Museum
Fred Jones Museum of Art (OU)
Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History (OU)

Plus, a whole host of others:
National Softball Hall of Fame
45th Infantry Division
American Banjo Museum
Harn Homestead
Oklahoma Railway Museum
Overholser Mansion
Oklahoma Contemporary

Coming soon:
American Indian Museum & Cultural Center


I know Tulsa has the Philbrook & Gilcrease, but Oklahoma City has plenty to offer in terms of museums.

Right now, the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum and Fred Jones both have world class collections. The American Indian Museum will also be world class when complete.


And I would add that the OKC Zoo is by far the biggest attraction in the state, although it's in a slightly different category. It's a bigger asset and far more people make use of it than any museum.

Speaking of Oklahoma Contemporary, they will be relocating from the fairgrounds into a new facility once fundraising is completed which will add more space and allow for more Art acquisitions! OKC Zoo has always been rated in the top 10 zoological parks in the country! Much better than the Tulsa Zoo in my opinion. Heck, even the OKC zoo is far superior to the Dallas Zoo!

[Pete]

If these were walkable in the downtown core. Man. You'd have something really neat.

The large majority should be eventually connected via the street car and Adventure Line.

[bchris02]

If these were walkable in the downtown core. Man. You'd have something really neat.

Museum of Discovery in Charlotte, which is quite an amazing science museum, is located downtown. The one nice thing about the science museum where it is at is it complements the zoo pretty well.

Now it just needs updated to the 21st century.