OKC Vs. Tulsa

[Plutonic Panda]

So in attempt to get the OG&E thread back on track, here's a place to discuss which city you think is better. I've already voiced my opinion, so I'm not going to get into to it again.

[SomeGuy]

I like both cities, although OKC really needs something like Tulsa's Utica Square ( I could spend all day there).

[bchris02]

People a lot of times forget that OKC's metro is around 25% larger than Tulsa. OKC should be the shining star in the state. People in Tulsa who are jealous of the spotlight OKC has been receiving as of late need to remember that.

Right now OKC is growing and is going full speed ahead. Tulsa is doing well but lacks a real catalyst for strong growth at the moment. It's basically a reversal of the 1980s and 90s when Tulsa was doing very well but OKC was struggling. I think OKC has moved ahead of Tulsa at this point in all but a couple of areas. As have been discussed, Tulsa is still pretty much the center of the state's live music scene. There really isn't even any competition there (yet). Hopefully in the coming years as some new performing venues come online in OKC that begins to change and I think it can. Secondly, I think Tulsa still barely edges out OKC in terms of retail, though that too is changing. What OKC really needs is a strong development to attract new-to-market retailers.

Outside of that though, OKC has pulled ahead of Tulsa in the last five years. If Tulsa got its act together and developed a catalyst for growth they could easily be back in the game. For some reason or another, Tulsa has always pulled well above its weight compared to other cities its size on the national stage.

[PhiAlpha]

I like both cities, although OKC really needs something like Tulsa's Utica Square ( I could spend all day there).

Hopefully Nichols Hills Plaza + the triangle + Classen Curve + the area between the triangle and Nichols Hills will become something like Utica.

[BG918]

If Tulsa got its act together and developed a catalyst for growth they could easily be back in the game. For some reason or another, Tulsa has always pulled well above its weight compared to other cities its size on the national stage.

As someone from Tulsa but that also lived in OKC, and really likes both cities, I am curious what Tulsa "getting its act together" would entail. To me the city government (mayor) and business leaders in OKC have been the biggest driver in moving the city forward with big ideas like MAPS and landing the Thunder. For some reason those same bold plans just don't get the same support in Tulsa, whereas in the past (roughly before the mid-90's) it was the opposite.

At one time it appeared Tulsa was on its way to becoming a hub for telecommunications and technology in the 90's until the recession decimated those industries in the early 00's. The city lost thousands of jobs and has struggled to fully recover until recently with energy, aerospace and manufacturing (the three primary industries in Tulsa) doing well. Meanwhile MAPS was staring to pay off at the same time in the early 00's and OKC didn't have the same crushing job losses Tulsa did while also having the meteoric rise of Devon and Chesapeake as well as other energy companies solidifying the city as the #3 American energy hub and the growth of the OUHSC and aerospace at Tinker. Tulsa hasn't had the same dynamics which has lead to slower growth than OKC has experienced.

Both are doing well though now; OKC's economy grew by 3.9% from 2012-2013 while Tulsa's grew by 3.5% outpacing the national average of 1.7% during that period. Metro OKC has been killing it though in population growth with 3.39% change since 2010 while Tulsa has only seen a 1.43% change.

[AP]

Hopefully Nichols Hills Plaza + the triangle + Classen Curve + the area between the triangle and Nichols Hills will become something like Utica.

I think all three areas together could be better than Utica. Hopefully somethings will start happening there soon.

[Plutonic Panda]

People a lot of times forget that OKC's metro is around 25% larger than Tulsa. OKC should be the shining star in the state. People in Tulsa who are jealous of the spotlight OKC has been receiving as of late need to remember that.

Right now OKC is growing and is going full speed ahead. Tulsa is doing well but lacks a real catalyst for strong growth at the moment. It's basically a reversal of the 1980s and 90s when Tulsa was doing very well but OKC was struggling. I think OKC has moved ahead of Tulsa at this point in all but a couple of areas. As have been discussed, Tulsa is still pretty much the center of the state's live music scene. There really isn't even any competition there (yet). Hopefully in the coming years as some new performing venues come online in OKC that begins to change and I think it can. Secondly, I think Tulsa still barely edges out OKC in terms of retail, though that too is changing. What OKC really needs is a strong development to attract new-to-market retailers.

Outside of that though, OKC has pulled ahead of Tulsa in the last five years. If Tulsa got its act together and developed a catalyst for growth they could easily be back in the game. For some reason or another, Tulsa has always pulled well above its weight compared to other cities its size on the national stage.

Here's the thing though, if OKC was twice the size of Tulsa, than I would understand what you mean, but 25% isn't that much bigger. Tulsa is in a bigger tier than Wichita, and I know I might get some crap for this, but as I really think about it, Tulsa would be in the same tier as OKC in my book. I don't know if you have noticed, but nearly every single retailer that announces a Tulsa or OKC location, announces a location for the other city shortly after. To me that says they view the cities as the same pretty much.

I should also note that I still believe Tulsa could pull ahead of OKC if it really gets its sh!t together. Tulsa right now is a dump, imo, but they could easily experience a major boom and I won't feel different about it until OKC gets a population that is at least twice the size of Tulsa's. Tulsa has some pretty significant safeguards to their economy so that should be noted as well.

As I've said before, I really do not like Tulsa, but I still recognize realities here. I don't know why, but Tulsa just depresses the crap out of me. I hate going there. I'm not going to lie here, I want OKC to flourish and Tulsa not to do as well so we can really grow to become a major city just because this is my hometown and I love OKC. That is the way I feel and if you are from Tulsa and don't like it tough. I have also had many conversations with people from Tulsa that just loooooooove to say things like ''sorry to hear you're from OKC'' or "OKC is becoming a nice little city almost like it is going to catch up with Tulsa. . . it's cute." 99% of the time I just say ok, shake my head, and walk away. When I am in a real city like Dallas, people have nothing but good things to say about OKC. Every once in awhile I get the "what the hell do you do for fun down there" but that is expected at least from some people in a city the size of Dallas.

The point I'm trying to make is that OKC suffered for a long time and we are just now really starting to grow, so don't turn your back to Tulsa like they are some city we've left in the dust. I believe they are still a competitor to OKC and even though they are smaller, I still consider OKC and Tulsa to be in the same rank or tier, but barely. I would also venture to say KC is in a higher tier than OKC is and will be probably for the next 5 years or so.

[Plutonic Panda]

As someone from Tulsa but that also lived in OKC, and really likes both cities, I am curious what Tulsa "getting its act together" would entail. To me the city government (mayor) and business leaders in OKC have been the biggest driver in moving the city forward with big ideas like MAPS and landing the Thunder. For some reason those same bold plans just don't get the same support in Tulsa, whereas in the past (roughly before the mid-90's) it was the opposite.

I can't speak for Bchris, but I think the first thing Tulsa needs to do is fix its downtown streets(like P180 in OKC) and dam the river. The city needs to better support the Pop Culture Museum, which I think would be a smash hit, and look at building light-rail from the airport to downtown. That would be my first step.

Is there anything major being built in Tulsa right now that I'm unaware of? I know they have the Gathering Place underway, which is awesome. They have a Costco, but that's a discount warehouse store, nothing really special. They have a mid-rise casino underway, some outlet shops, and a couple nice office buildings being built out in the suburbs, but I am thinking I am missing something. All in all, that really is not impressive except for the park; I quite honestly think that park will be better than what most cities twice the size of Tulsa has. For some reason, I just feel a new skyscraper is due in Tulsa as well.

[HOT ROD]

People a lot of times forget that OKC's metro is around 25% larger than Tulsa. OKC should be the shining star in the state. People in Tulsa who are jealous of the spotlight OKC has been receiving as of late need to remember that.

.....

Tulsa has always pulled well above its weight compared to other cities its size on the national stage.

OKC metro is "what?" 1,350,000 or so. Tulsa metro is "what?" 940,000 or so. That makes OKC metro 44% larger (not 25%).

Just for kicks, OKC city is 610,000 or so. Tulsa city is 398,000 or so. That makes OKC 54% larger.

Semantics, yes. But OKC is more than just 25% larger. Which further gives context to why OKC 'should' rightfully so be the state leader and Tulsa should NOT take offense. Both can help the state grow, together, by realizing their strengths.

[Plutonic Panda]

OKC metro is "what?" 1,350,000 or so. Tulsa metro is "what?" 940,000 or so. That makes OKC metro 44% larger (not 25%).

Just for kicks, OKC city is 610,000 or so. Tulsa city is 398,000 or so. That makes OKC 54% larger.

Semantics, yes. But OKC is more than just 25% larger. Which further gives context to why OKC 'should' rightfully so be the state leader and Tulsa should NOT take offense. Both can help the state grow, together, by realizing their strengths.

I believe OKC's metro is now a 1.4 million.

[BG918]

OKC metro is "what?" 1,350,000 or so. Tulsa metro is "what?" 940,000 or so. That makes OKC metro 44% larger (not 25%).

Just for kicks, OKC city is 610,000 or so. Tulsa city is 398,000 or so.

OKC metro is much larger and has been for as long as I can remember. When was the last time the Tulsa metro was actually larger than the OKC metro?

Comparing city populations is pretty pointless. Tulsa is only 198 sq miles while OKC is 621 sq miles. A more useful comparison would be OKC city limits 610,613 to Tulsa County at 587 sq miles with 622,409.

[BG918]

I believe OKC's metro is now a 1.4 million.

That is the CSA at 1,390,835 (2013). The Tulsa CSA is 1,131,458 (2013).

[Plutonic Panda]

That is the CSA at 1,390,835 (2013). The Tulsa CSA is 1,131,458 (2013).

Ah, I was thinking the MSA for some reason. Is Tulsa combined with Bartlesville? How did their CSA jump? For some reason, I thought it was just shy under a million.

[HOT ROD]

Yes, Tulsa CSA is combined with Bville AND Muskogee, essentially all of NE Oklahoma except one county I believe. I think it is a bit unfair to include so much; OKC should be able to claim Stillwater in that case.

BG, I think city pop is valid because OKC includes a lot of rural and watershed in its city limits. MOST of the city limits don't have population, so please don't make it out like OKC needs 610 sq miles to get 610,000 people. Nearly all of those 610,000 people live in 244-to-350 square miles or so, giving a density close to Tulsa's and an area that isn't that much larger. Very comparable in this case whereas metro probably not so much.

Just look at the freeway networks, Tulsa's loops are actually significantly larger and more spread out serving the city and it's suburbs better than OKC's, which basically covers the most populated part of OKC city while the city limits extend far beyond and suburbs extend further beyond.

It is nice to have two different, yet strikingly similar cities in one state.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yes, Tulsa CSA is combined with Bville AND Muskogee, essentially all of NE Oklahoma except one county I believe. I think it is a bit unfair to include so much; OKC should be able to claim Stillwater in that case.

BG, I think city pop is valid because OKC includes a lot of rural and watershed in its city limits. MOST of the city limits don't have population, so please don't make it out like OKC needs 610 sq miles to get 610,000 people. Nearly all of those 610,000 people live in 244-to-350 square miles or so, giving a density close to Tulsa's and an area that isn't that much larger. Very comparable in this case whereas metro probably not so much.

Just look at the freeway networks, Tulsa's loops are actually significantly larger and more spread out serving the city and it's suburbs better than OKC's, which basically covers the most populated part of OKC city while the city limits extend far beyond and suburbs extend further beyond.

It is nice to have two different, yet strikingly similar cities in one state.

O wonder how far away we are from being able to claim Stillwater for our CSA.

[bchris02]

Here's the thing though, if OKC was twice the size of Tulsa, than I would understand what you mean, but 25% isn't that much bigger. Tulsa is in a bigger tier than Wichita, and I know I might get some crap for this, but as I really think about it, Tulsa would be in the same tier as OKC in my book. I don't know if you have noticed, but nearly every single retailer that announces a Tulsa or OKC location, announces a location for the other city shortly after. To me that says they view the cities as the same pretty much.

I agree, but that shouldn't be the case. Tulsa is best compared to Omaha, Albuquerque, Des Moines, and El Paso. OKC should be in a tier above Tulsa. I would make an exception though considering Tulsa pulls above its weight. It really does offer a lot for a metro area under 1 million.

[Plutonic Panda]

I agree, but that shouldn't be the case. Tulsa is best compared to Omaha, Albuquerque, Des Moines, and El Paso. OKC should be in a tier above Tulsa. I would make an exception though considering Tulsa pulls above its weight. It really does offer a lot for a metro area under 1 million.

I guess you're right, I don't know. OKC really is transforming to the next next tier, it's just hard for me to say if it has officially jumped into the next tier which would be a league in with KC, Jax, and maybe Indianapolis, perhaps that might be a bit of a stretch. What would you say OKC'S peer cities are at this point?

After we surpass those cities, then we might be in a league with Charlotte, SA, Austin, and Portland, but I think that is a decade or two away, and by then, those cities might still be out of our league if the grew faster than we did.

[bchris02]

I guess you're right, I don't know. OKC really is transforming to the next next tier, it's just hard for me to say if it has officially jumped into the next tier which would be a league in with KC, Jax, and maybe Indianapolis, perhaps that might be a bit of a stretch. What would you say OKC'S peer cities are at this point?

By the numbers, I would say Memphis, Louisville, Jacksonville, Richmond, and Birmingham. I don't include Salt Lake City, Hartford, Buffalo, New Orleans, or Raleigh, which are also within the same 1-1.5 million population range, because they are very different from OKC and can't really be compared. Since the double whammy of urban renewal and the oil crash, OKC has pulled below its weight and is just now starting to act like a city in the tier that it is actually in. Tulsa doesn't belong in the conversation with the above cities.

[PhiAlpha]

I think all three areas together could be better than Utica. Hopefully somethings will start happening there soon.

Agreed

[bchris02]

I think all three areas together could be better than Utica. Hopefully somethings will start happening there soon.

Agree. Hopefully whatever is stalled up due to the Glimcher sale resumes soon and we start seeing improvements and retailers announced.

[Pete]

The best thing for OKC would for Tulsa to become awesome; to up the ante in terms of urban development in particular.

That kind of competition would be a motivator for others to up their game as well.

Plus, what's good for the state is good for OKC.

[BG918]

In terms of MSA size these are the closest peers for each city:
42. New Orleans
43. Grand Rapids
44. Greenville
45. Memphis
46. OKC
47. Birmingham
48. Richmond
49. Harrisburg
50. Buffalo
51. Rochester
52. Albany
53. Albuquerque
54. Tulsa
55. Fresno
56. Knoxville
57. Dayton
58. El Paso

OKC is nationally in the tier of metros above Tulsa, but regionally is considered a peer metro.

[HangryHippo]

Meanwhile MAPS was staring to pay off at the same time in the early 00's and OKC didn't have the same crushing job losses Tulsa did while also having the meteoric rise of Devon and Chesapeake as well as other energy companies solidifying the city as the #3 American energy hub and the growth of the OUHSC and aerospace at Tinker.

Just out of curiosity, what is the #2 American energy hub? I'm assuming Houston is #1.

[bchris02]

I somewhat disagree that what is good for Tulsa is good for OKC. What is good for Tulsa though is good for the state of Oklahoma overall, but there have been times in history when Tulsa has been very successful and OKC hasn't been (and vice versa).

OKC and Tulsa are at just the right distance from each other that its impractical for them to work together in the way that Dallas and Ft Worth or Raleigh and Durham do, but they are close enough where one's success can sometimes come at the expense of the other. If Tulsa was a little farther, like say on the Oklahoma-Missouri border it would be more of a Memphis vs Nashville or Charlotte vs Raleigh relationship in which one doesn't have a great deal of impact on the other. Of course this all may one day change if high-speed rail connects the two cities and shortens the commute time between them.

[warreng88]

Just out of curiosity, what is the #2 American energy hub? I'm assuming Houston is #1.

Philadelphia maybe?