In OKC, you guys are forgetting about Tuscana, although I do admit it is not finished.

Not finished? More like not even started.

I don't think that Urban Outfitters and Saks Fifth Avenue are interested in opening stores on a dirt farm.

Well said. More people in OKC need to get off cloud nine and start being more critical of their own city.. there needs to be a "nobody insults my city but me" mentality.

NewsOK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-hasnt-sold-chains-on-its-strong-points/article/3452997?custom_click=lead_story_title) Makes sense..

Good story by Steve and definitely helps answer a lot of questions people have here. Seems like it is coming down to they see this big sprawling city, but don't realize commute times are really short. However, de-annexing property isn't going to fix that part, since people are already establishing (living) in various areas.

I also was interested in the part on how much leakage there is when it comes to retail clothing sales. Unfortunately there isn't much that can be done there now. The majority of people can shop at the same stores that are in OKC in the burbs and Norman. If they want something unique, they go to Tulsa or Dallas. There really isn't a huge need for people not in OKC to drive there to shop. If they can't get it close to home, they will go to Tulsa or Dallas to get it...not OKC.

Seems that it is going to boil down to re-educating the retailers on the city and retraining shoppers. Neither is going to happen very fast so we need to focus on those things and stop with this day dreaming of what if. Not to mention the bitterness of "OMG TULSA GOT IT AGAIN" stuff.

you know, Seattle doesn't have much high end stores either.

we're the home for Nordstrom (so in my book they dont count), but until just last year - the whole Seattle area had NOTHING larger than it. To me, Nordstrom isn't high end because they are located in just about every mall in the puget sound area. However, i do see where other cities covet them.

That being said, the Seattle area just now (beginning of this year) got a Neiman Marcus and it was Microsoft that delivered it - in downtown Bellevue. Portland, has had a Saks Fifth Avenue and other big end retailers for decades.

Dare I say that OKC and Seattle have some similarities in this regard? Why is Seattle not swimming in every high end retailer or international retailer? Vancouver is a natural competitor but Portland? yep, theres much more high end down there.

Maybe OKC should follow Portland's model and get rid of the sales tax. But it would still probably only benefit Tulsa since it seems to be retailers "IT" city for Oklahoma.

Maybe OKC could make it much more difficult for OKC people to get to Tulsa. haha

Not finished? More like not even started.

I don't think that Urban Outfitters and Saks Fifth Avenue are interested in opening stores on a dirt farm.

I spoke to the owners last winter. It is still on schedule, and is a multi-phased, master planned development. Although the residential will come first, then the retail.

I also was interested in the part on how much leakage there is when it comes to retail clothing sales. Unfortunately there isn't much that can be done there now. The majority of people can shop at the same stores that are in OKC in the burbs and Norman. If they want something unique, they go to Tulsa or Dallas. There really isn't a huge need for people not in OKC to drive there to shop. If they can't get it close to home, they will go to Tulsa or Dallas to get it...not OKC.



I'd like to know what kind of idiot would use leakage as a reason to not open a store in a certain city. So everyone in OKC goes to Dallas for the unique stores. If I owned a retail store in Dallas, and found out a large chunk of my clients came from OKC, common sense would tell me that opening a store there would work. Simple economics. But since retailers use these anal, tunnel-vision formulas, we get the shaft.

It's a joke if you ask me. We're losing tax dollars to other cities over this crap.

That's a good point, Pulse.

Can we impress this upon the OKC leadership and have them make a stand to retailers?

If OKC is going to other cities in such large numbers, then YES - a store in OKC would be an instant hit. ...

But I do agree (also) that we need appropriate development and for that we need somebody local to STEP IT UP! I think, if we have the development - then we could make the argument and get at least somebody in here to 'try-out' the market. Once it is shown successful, there shouldn't be any more PROBLEMS getting retail into OKC.

But we need to play our hand successfully, and right now we just dont have anything to even attract a high end store; Classen Curve, NHP, or Tuscany just dont cut it.

I do also agree about supporting local, but most major cities have a nice spectrum from which to chose from and thus - OKC, being the newest Tier 2 city; needs to really go out and battle these retail conceptions with the following focus:
1) educate people about OKC's size and scope (as in the entire state and most of the region being OKC's catchment - the NBA knows this already. ....)
2) educate stupid OKC developers that OKC needs some PRIME real estate development in place if we EVER want to land some top end stores
3) educate the media and advertisers to promote OKC-local stores so that we can grow organically while also spreading the wealth of OKC WITHIN OKC
4) the city leaders need to use OKC's own spending habits as a positive; if OKC people travel to these cities for high-end stores; then surely said stores would do well if they were in OKC in these new developments I speak of in step 2.
5) the city needs to continue to do what it can to get it's name out there with the big boys. We need to keep doing well with the NBA and go after some big time conventions. We need to complete all of the projects we have in place and do it well -

All of this, so that people will NO LONGER have any excuse of overlooking or avoiding OKC. Again, this is a process that OKC needs to initiate and we need all of the city leadership on board, just like we did with MAPS. In effect, this would be a MAPS for Retail - that wouldn't even cost the taxpayers anything as it would use most of the current revenue stream for the Chamber and CVB to get OKC on people's radar, and city leadership to get the aformentioned points going.

5 years from now, needs to be the goal. and not just so OKC can have what Tulsa has; but OKC has what the rest of the state and region outside of possibly dfw doesn't. Again, I give you Seattle as an example - Microsoft had to do the EXACT same thing I am mentioning to get the Seattle area our first TRUE high end retailer - in Neiman Marcus. and this was just the start of this year - 2010. .... (Microsoft [development] ALSO got Seattle a Whole Foods store, in South Lake Union in 2009).

OKC needs to make even more impressive moves and there needs to be a partnership where people involved are doing it not JUST for the profit margins but also for the overall improvement of OKC as a brand. In the long run - it will be worth the risk of letting go egos and self orientated motives; when OKC has the retail options that match it's major league status.

Im not buying all of that 2.5M crap that was in the paper, there are much smaller cities than that (and smaller than OKC) who have high end shoppes. Again, just like the NBA has shown; the middle of the country is a hidden gold mine - and OKC is the best place to tap that market. With Tulsa, you just have their small market and spill-over from OKC. But with OKC, you have a true regional catchment plus a larger base city to start with.

Like I said, OKC needs to step it up (with development) to make it even possible, but if we bring it - we can turn retailer's own 'assessments' of OKC against them and use their own arguments as points in OKC's favor. But all of the power plays we could say will not mean a hill of beans unless we deliver the place to put it; we need several quality developments and not all just scattered on the fringe.

There is another aspect to the issue that Steve can't/won't discuss because it involves his own employer. I face-to-face asked the man in charge of setting office locations for my ex-employer why they hadn't opened an office here when it was by far the largest city in the US without a local presence. He told me flat-out that, per capita, OKC is significantly more expensive to advertise in by newspaper than any other major city in the country.

My ex employer has offices in most every major American city. Many of their offices are in much smaller communities than OKC because of concentrations of wealth. This was about 10 years ago so it may have changed some but I would imagine it hasn't changed that much. This company does advertise significantly by newspaper and other media types but probably not enough to warrant huge discounts I know the Oklahoman offers. However, when they do it is designed to catch your eye by being half to full page adds, etc.

Try checking the Dallas Morning News and the Oklahoman on the same day. You will see advertisements by national chains that may be full to multi-page adds in the DMN but are only half to 1/4 page adds here.

Steve's article just verifies what I think we have discussed in this thread previously and basically already know. I believe that there are some inaccuracies in the data many of these retailers go by, however. For example, there is a chicken-or-the-egg aspect. Why do OKCitians go elsewhere to buy certain things? IMO, Part of the reason is that we have gone on shopping trips to Dallas for a long time - as has already been stated. OU-TEXAS weekend is a good case in point. Also, OKCitians go elsewhere to shop BECAUSE these retailers aren't here. If they were, we would shop at them HERE! Finally, when shopping for large ticket items such as furniture, stores in Dallas will ship here with no sales tax. That can be a significant savings factor.

I think a major factor is just the proximity of OKC to one of the major retail centers of the world in DFW, when it is a 6hr round trip by car vs a 10hr round trip from Tulsa, it makes a big difference. People in OKC are more likely to visit DFW on a regular basis, thus reducing the need for additional stores.

I must also support the notion of the concentration of retail in Tulsa. In Tulsa it is either Utica or 71st Street. In OKC you have it much more spread out, as well as the wealth. Edmond and Norman are on opposite ends of the metro with similar wealth. I feel a lot of it has to do with land values, in Tulsa due to the infrequent bridges over the river, and hills there are natural boundaries that facilitate density, in OKC its all about sprawl.

Mug, I'm not here to be an apologist, defender, etc. for The Oklahoman. But good lord people, I could only wish newspapers had this sort of influence in this new media age. Even if what you're saying was once true, I seriously doubt it's true now. Of course, you can easily call up the various newspaper ad offices and get rates for yourself.
I'm not going to get caught up in a flame war on this particular issue, and The Oklahoman, like any other business or newspaper, likely has things people can take issue with. But sometimes it just gets ridiculous... A proper comp is not DMN and The Oklahoman. It's The Oklahoman and Tulsa World. And I do not see Whole Foods advertising day to day in the Tulsa World, nor do I see Saks Fifth Avenue in there.

I recognize the newspaper industry has changed a lot in the last few years and I don't want to argue the point either. My former employer is a trillion $ + asset management company and when I hear it directly from the horses mouth that the DOK's advertising rates are, per capita, siginificantly higher than others, and thats the reason they don't put an office here, I have to believe him and I have to believe it is (or has been) a contributing factor for other companies.

I am not saying DOK add rates are the sole reason chains haven't located here, but it has contributed along with other issues. Just like I think some of the data you cite in your article that these retailers are going by are old or misleading or they aren't putting them in proper light, perception is reality.

Now in fairness, my ex-employer IS apparently going to open that office here soon because of some communications I have had and, obviously, newspaper advertising is not as essential as it used to be, but it probably delayed their presence here 15 years. It's small potatoes in the broad scheme of things but its an example.

Please understand, I'm not blaming you - truth be known, you have my dream job.

What's really sad about this situation is that Oklahoma Cityans will have an option to spend their money in Texas (Dallas) or keep it home Oklahoma (Tulsa). Which is the lesser of two evils?

Well, Oklahomans have been traveling to Dallas for decades spending money and fattening up the Metroplex (Dallas-Fort Worth) economy and now it looks as though it's coming back to haunt us.

"
Oklahoman:

But two retail experts who visited Oklahoma City last week revealed some reasons why some stores are saying "no” to the state’s largest city while saying "yes” to smaller cities like Tulsa, Birmingham, Ala., and Louisville, Ky.

As senior editor at Chain Store Age Magazine, Katherine Field talks to executives of the country’s leading retailers. August Partners consultant David Lobaugh, meanwhile, has 30 years’ experience conducting surveys and research for retailers worldwide.

Both were asked by the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber to look at why Oklahoma City is falling short in luring big name high-end retailers.

Their conclusion: Oklahoma City isn’t going to lure some of the top names any time soon, and the problem is neither population nor income."

Link: NewsOK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-hasnt-sold-chains-on-its-strong-points/article/3452997?custom_click=lead_story_title)

# # #



So, I'll start spending my money in Oklahoma (Tulsa) when the economy gets better and I can afford an upscale store. Meanwhile, "Wal-Mart Fall-Apart" will have to do for now.

Check the thrift stores out :kicking: you would be surprised what you might find there in the rough!

I know, I'm not taking it personally. But sometimes - especially when I hear E.L. Gaylord, dead since 2003, being blamed for everything that ails this city and state, I just cringe. Again, I must emphasize, I'm not about to say things are perfect. I'm also not foolish enough to start detailing my home's flaws if you get my drift. But maybe it's time to delve a bit deeper into what's at play here instead of going to the old standby of "blame the dark tower."

Mug, I do also think you may be on to something in terms of "habit." Oklahomans still go to West End in Dallas whereas hardly anybody else does (it was abandoned by Dallas locals several years ago).

Thanks Steve and really, I am not blaming it all on the DOK but as one of the contributing factors that may, or may not be slowly going away. I don't know if the info in your article is new news or not to local leaders and/or the Chamber of Commerce, but it certainly gives them a big huge target of perception to try and change.

How many other quality shopping centers are there in Tulsa? In OKC, you guys are forgetting about Tuscana, although I do admit it is not finished. Then there is Classen Curve, and University Towne Center in Norman, which is being built in phases.

What Penn needs to do is expand their retail space and build another parking garage, since it will involve tearing out a chunk of surface parking.

Old tricks are the best tricks.

As someone mentioned, Tuscana is nowhere near being completed. Classen Curve doesnt have the size/depth to get most national retailers. And University Towne Center isnt able to attract an Anthropologie at this point. Maybe they could when they are able to develop the rest of the center, Im referring to the portion that is more of the open air mall and not the big box retailer/power center portion.

I agree about Penn Square. Whether there is enough space and how they would expand are questions that would have to be answered but they would have no trouble leasing up newly built space.

As someone mentioned, Tuscana is nowhere near being completed. Classen Curve doesnt have the size/depth to get most national retailers. And University Towne Center isnt able to attract an Anthropologie at this point. Maybe they could when they are able to develop the rest of the center, Im referring to the portion that is more of the open air mall and not the big box retailer/power center portion.

I agree about Penn Square. Whether there is enough space and how they would expand are questions that would have to be answered but they would have no trouble leasing up newly built space.

That is the problem with Penn Square, it's full. That is a good 'problem' to have though, and one that Utica Square also has i.e. Anthropologie is going in the old Harold's space. An expansion would be costly but may be what is needed for new stores to enter the OKC market. They could consolidate parking in another garage and expand to the west or south.

The amazing thing about Penn Square is that it really isn't even that nice. In fact it looks like crap on the outside, despite being pretty nice on the interior. The bottom line is that Oklahoma City more than almost anywhere else has a serious dearth of nice retail space. Where would an Anthropologie or Urban Outfitters in OKC locate, Crossroads Mall? Quail Springs Mall? Seriously..

As someone mentioned, Tuscana is nowhere near being completed. Classen Curve doesnt have the size/depth to get most national retailers. And University Towne Center isnt able to attract an Anthropologie at this point. Maybe they could when they are able to develop the rest of the center, Im referring to the portion that is more of the open air mall and not the big box retailer/power center portion.

I agree about Penn Square. Whether there is enough space and how they would expand are questions that would have to be answered but they would have no trouble leasing up newly built space.

It would be tough to expand unless they made parking decks all around and expanded to the north but there isn't much room there, either.

I suspect the answer is across the street at 50 Penn Place - IF - and this is a big if, if it could get new owners who would be willing to gut the current mall, totally reinvent it.

The answer would have been where Belle Isle Station is located before Wal Mart and the big box mall went in.

I know, I'm not taking it personally. But sometimes - especially when I hear E.L. Gaylord, dead since 2003, being blamed for everything that ails this city and state, I just cringe. Again, I must emphasize, I'm not about to say things are perfect. I'm also not foolish enough to start detailing my home's flaws if you get my drift. But maybe it's time to delve a bit deeper into what's at play here instead of going to the old standby of "blame the dark tower."

There are peeps who don't accept moon landings, and peeps who would swear Elvis bumped into them at one place or another. All things considered, it isn't really surprising to me to entertain the notion some peeps may cotton to the notion that ELG is still calling some shots, whether hither or yon.

Elvis is still alive. He along with JFK has been battling killer mummies at a nursing home in Texas.

I'd like to know what kind of idiot would use leakage as a reason to not open a store in a certain city...If I owned a retail store in Dallas, and found out a large chunk of my clients came from OKC, common sense would tell me that opening a store there would work

Just watch one episode of Undercover Boss to answer your question. It has been my experience that anyone over the job title of Sr. Manager is a moron. Most companies earn a profit be sheer luck and/or accident.

The amazing thing about Penn Square is that it really isn't even that nice. In fact it looks like crap on the outside, despite being pretty nice on the interior. The bottom line is that Oklahoma City more than almost anywhere else has a serious dearth of nice retail space. Where would an Anthropologie or Urban Outfitters in OKC locate, Crossroads Mall? Quail Springs Mall? Seriously..

Classen Curve... or maybe Campus Corner in Norman.

Classen Curve... or maybe Campus Corner in Norman.

Again, although Classen Curve is new and nice, it doesnt have the space for an Urban Outfitters or Anthropologie. Classen Cureve simply isnt big enough. Campus Corner could possibly attract one but its probably not likely. UA and Anthro prefer to locate in areas with other retailers, Campus Corner isnt so much of a retail center as it has mostly eating and drinking establishments. Also, is there any available space at Campus Corner? Urban Outfitters stores are like 10,000sf or more. At this moment in time, I wouldnt expect to see any new popular national retailers locate to OKC anytime soon. Not including outlet concepts that will open if and when they build the new outlet center at Council and I40.

It would be tough to expand unless they made parking decks all around and expanded to the north but there isn't much room there, either.

Would it be possible for Penn Square to expand upward versus outward. I know of some shopping malls that were 1 level at first and expanded to 2 levels. Don't know if this is possible going from 2 to 3 levels.

When I was home over Easter, I walked around Classen Curve with my parents. Seems that has the potential to be a pathbreaking shopping center. This is probably the wrong thread for this, but my family's conversation turned to Nichols Hills Plaza. If CC is going to be the new destination, what's in store for NHP? Lots of potential there for nice stores to locate if it can be revitalized. Those two centers along with the multitude of storefronts along Western north of 63rd could firm the nucleus of a much bigger district of upscale shops...all the pieces are in place with some TLC. I also noticed the large swath across May from Lakehurst is still mostly empty. That seems a prime place fir a Spring Creek esque infill project. I think there are lots of possibilities across the Nichols Hills - bordering parts of OKC.

Sorry for my spelling errors...damn iPhone keyboard!

Again, although Classen Curve is new and nice, it doesnt have the space for an Urban Outfitters or Anthropologie. Classen Cureve simply isnt big enough. Campus Corner could possibly attract one but its probably not likely. UA and Anthro prefer to locate in areas with other retailers, Campus Corner isnt so much of a retail center as it has mostly eating and drinking establishments. Also, is there any available space at Campus Corner? Urban Outfitters stores are like 10,000sf or more. At this moment in time, I wouldnt expect to see any new popular national retailers locate to OKC anytime soon. Not including outlet concepts that will open if and when they build the new outlet center at Council and I40.

Most of Penn Square is already 2 stories, though - maybe all of it, I rarely go to that north end.

Yes, I know Penn Square is already 2 stories. I'm proposing going to 3 levels.

There is another aspect to the issue that Steve can't/won't discuss because it involves his own employer. I face-to-face asked the man in charge of setting office locations for my ex-employer why they hadn't opened an office here when it was by far the largest city in the US without a local presence. He told me flat-out that, per capita, OKC is significantly more expensive to advertise in by newspaper than any other major city in the country.

My ex employer has offices in most every major American city. Many of their offices are in much smaller communities than OKC because of concentrations of wealth. This was about 10 years ago so it may have changed some but I would imagine it hasn't changed that much. This company does advertise significantly by newspaper and other media types but probably not enough to warrant huge discounts I know the Oklahoman offers. However, when they do it is designed to catch your eye by being half to full page adds, etc.

Try checking the Dallas Morning News and the Oklahoman on the same day. You will see advertisements by national chains that may be full to multi-page adds in the DMN but are only half to 1/4 page adds here.

Steve's article just verifies what I think we have discussed in this thread previously and basically already know. I believe that there are some inaccuracies in the data many of these retailers go by, however. For example, there is a chicken-or-the-egg aspect. Why do OKCitians go elsewhere to buy certain things? IMO, Part of the reason is that we have gone on shopping trips to Dallas for a long time - as has already been stated. OU-TEXAS weekend is a good case in point. Also, OKCitians go elsewhere to shop BECAUSE these retailers aren't here. If they were, we would shop at them HERE! Finally, when shopping for large ticket items such as furniture, stores in Dallas will ship here with no sales tax. That can be a significant savings factor.

As I work for a company that occasionally advertises in the Oklahoman in conjunction with some national advertisers, I agree. Everyone says the Oklahoman is outrageous in their pricing. It can't encourage outside companies.

As far as shopping out of state, I have lived in the Oklahoma City area all of my 63 years and have never once driven outside of the Oklahoma City area to look for something. I'm sure there is a segment of the population which will do that for some kind of prestige status but it's never interested me. If I can't find it here it's just not something that I need that badly.

maybe you're part of the demographic which brings OKC down then, since one of the claims that retailers make about OKC is the perceived lack of high end shoppers, lack of density (falsely made due to OKC's rural mass), lack of income and disposable income, lack of retailing corridors.

yep, sometimes OKC can't blame their problems on nobody but OKC.

maybe you're part of the demographic which brings OKC down then, since one of the claims that retailers make about OKC is the perceived lack of high end shoppers, lack of density (falsely made due to OKC's rural mass), lack of income and disposable income, lack of retailing corridors.

yep, sometimes OKC can't blame their problems on nobody but OKC.

Exactly, Hot Rod. My intention is to bring OKC down. If I thought for a minute that deannaxing land would benefit OKC in the slightest, I would be all for it. As I said you're looking for short term gains instead of the city's long term interests.

Classen Curve... or maybe Campus Corner in Norman.

I've always advocated a mixed-use development along University Blvd. through the west end of Campus Corner that would attract higher end stores with apartments above. That is if OU can part ways with its parking lots north of Boyd House. That stretch of University with McFarlin church to the north and Evans Hall and the North Oval to the south is one of the most beautiful in the OKC metro, all it needs is mixed use development with retail along it.

While Classen Curve has the potential to be like Utica Square the shopping/dining area that is most similar in the Metro is Norman's Campus Corner.

what long term benefit has come from this strategy?

OKC spends most of it's municipal funds keeping rural ranches with utilities and services while the inner city has crumbled to the point of needing special taxation (aka MAPS) to jumpstart development?

Very nice strategy and definitely why OKC is the most successful city in America. ....

what long term benefit has come from this strategy?

OKC spends most of it's municipal funds keeping rural ranches with utilities and services while the inner city has crumbled to the point of needing special taxation (aka MAPS) to jumpstart development?

Very nice strategy and definitely why OKC is the most successful city in America. ....

You're talking like we have already reached the end of long term benefits. Think 50 or 100 years from now instead.

what long term benefit has come from this strategy?

OKC spends most of it's municipal funds keeping rural ranches with utilities and services while the inner city has crumbled to the point of needing special taxation (aka MAPS) to jumpstart development?

Very nice strategy and definitely why OKC is the most successful city in America. ....

Here are a few benefits so far... A secured water source when cities in the Metroplex are proposing to purchase water at a premium. Continued new growth and added dollars to OKC sales tax. Also "most" of OKC's funds are not spent in the rural areas. Yes maybe an amount not proportionate to the population, but the cost is minimal compared to assured future revenue growth. Tulsa has't annexed so they get a few neat stores and 100 less cops and an outrageous crime rate.

I thought OKC annexed that land decades ago. I thought Urban Renewal began 30 years ago?

My, and others, arguments have always been the suburbanization of Oklahoma City (through annexation, building outside the core, and destruction of the core) is what has killed OKC and held it back.

It has taken MAPS to bring investment back into the core. So, you tell me if annexation has benefitted OKC. ... Tell me how OKC expanded it's tax base.

OKC didn't even expand it's population with this massive 608 sq mile area. And OKC certainly hasn't added any upper end quality of life amenities - again, attributable to lack of density.

So again, tell me how this strategy has benefitted OKC. ....

I'd argue that Tulsa has been far ahead of OKC (and still is) due to it's density and relative lack of area. Tulsa concentrates it's resources into a relatively small area and they have been successful.

Tulsa has other issues that speak of it's crime rate - and it really isn't fair to compare the two cities in the first place, since OKC is a major US city and Tulsa isn't. But despite their being significantly smaller, they have a much stronger corporate base and economic base that is more centralized and more focused (hence, more upscale retail options despite being some 400K smaller than the state's largest urban area). Yet Tulsa is only a fraction of a hair smaller than OKC when it comes to retail economy. ....

Again, tell me how annexation has expanded OKC's tax base, retail offerings, or population....

I do agree that it saved the water supply. But this could also be accomplished without annexation. See Seattle-King County Metro or Denver Metropolitan for information *ill give you a hint, they have MORE water resources without expanding city limits (and Seattle's/Denver's water doesn't come from anywhere touching it's municipal borders). So, actually OKC doesn't even need to 'protect' it's water supply.

time is now to deannex.

Very nice strategy and definitely why OKC is the most successful city in America. ....

I sure hope you're either being sarcastic or I'm just reading this out of context--because if this is a serious statement, well...

I thought OKC annexed that land decades ago. I thought Urban Renewal began 30 years ago?

My, and others, arguments have always been the suburbanization of Oklahoma City (through annexation, building outside the core, and destruction of the core) is what has killed OKC and held it back.

It has taken MAPS to bring investment back into the core. So, you tell me if annexation has benefitted OKC. ... Tell me how OKC expanded it's tax base.

OKC didn't even expand it's population with this massive 608 sq mile area. And OKC certainly hasn't added any upper end quality of life amenities - again, attributable to lack of density.

So again, tell me how this strategy has benefitted OKC. ....


Again, explain to me why this won't benefit the city and why thy suburbs wouldn't get the long term benefits. Do you honestly think that if OKC had kept it's original land area from the 60's that the suburbs wouldn't have taken that land? The density wouldn't have been affected in the slightest which seems to be your main concern. It just means that the outer population which is now in OKC would be in Norman, Moore, Mustang, Yukon, and Edmond and they would be getting all of the taxes.

Here are a few benefits so far... A secured water source when cities in the Metroplex are proposing to purchase water at a premium. Continued new growth and added dollars to OKC sales tax. Also "most" of OKC's funds are not spent in the rural areas. Yes maybe an amount not proportionate to the population, but the cost is minimal compared to assured future revenue growth. Tulsa has't annexed so they get a few neat stores and 100 less cops and an outrageous crime rate.

Most of OKC's funds are spent in rural areas because those areas need infrastructure in order to be settled by those mega ranches and cookie cutter developments and developers sure enough aren't building them. Also, OKC doesn't hardly spend or improve it's inner core - unless it is a special bond.

The core rots while all of the prosperity exists on the fringe. Unless, there is a special tax - then the core has a chance to expand in a few areas.

Again - tell me how having such a large area has benefitted OKC. ...

Well if this was the dense coasts then your absolutely right, annexation is bad. However we have to live in the real world. OKC is in Oklahoma, where land is cheap, and the commutes are easy. If OKC did not annex, it would be like what has happened to OKCPS, imagine if the city limits were represented by OKCPS boundaries, that is not a solid enough tax base to support a major city. Meanwhile like what has a happened in Tulsa would be occurring Edmond, Norman, Moore, Yukon, MWC would be receiving all of the tax revenue. As a result OKC would be forced to lay off police officers, fire fighters in large numbers. Before you can have all these "cool toys" (of which Tulsan's always put before basics, and I say that as someone who grew up in Tulsa) you need to fund basic city services. I think it is too easy to ignore the downsides of not annexing, it that is the city rots. There are just too many people in OK that want to drive their F-250's to work and live on acreage to truly support a dense tax base. Now I will give you an example of an expansive city Houston that has a growing dense central core, with a sales tax base that can support it. The reality is in this part of the country you will be eaten alive by suburbs unless we consolidate government to the county level. OKC is in the middle of the country w/o geographic boundaries, it doesn't make economic sense to go dense with energy prices at their current level. Why would families want to live in high rises when they can afford to build their own homes.

I thought OKC annexed that land decades ago. I thought Urban Renewal began 30 years ago?

My, and others, arguments have always been the suburbanization of Oklahoma City (through annexation, building outside the core, and destruction of the core) is what has killed OKC and held it back.

It has taken MAPS to bring investment back into the core. So, you tell me if annexation has benefitted OKC. ... Tell me how OKC expanded it's tax base.

OKC didn't even expand it's population with this massive 608 sq mile area. And OKC certainly hasn't added any upper end quality of life amenities - again, attributable to lack of density.

So again, tell me how this strategy has benefitted OKC. ....

I'd argue that Tulsa has been far ahead of OKC (and still is) due to it's density and relative lack of area. Tulsa concentrates it's resources into a relatively small area and they have been successful.

Tulsa has other issues that speak of it's crime rate - and it really isn't fair to compare the two cities in the first place, since OKC is a major US city and Tulsa isn't. But despite their being significantly smaller, they have a much stronger corporate base and economic base that is more centralized and more focused (hence, more upscale retail options despite being some 400K smaller than the state's largest urban area). Yet Tulsa is only a fraction of a hair smaller than OKC when it comes to retail economy. ....

Again, tell me how annexation has expanded OKC's tax base, retail offerings, or population....

I do agree that it saved the water supply. But this could also be accomplished without annexation. See Seattle-King County Metro or Denver Metropolitan for information *ill give you a hint, they have MORE water resources without expanding city limits (and Seattle's/Denver's water doesn't come from anywhere touching it's municipal borders). So, actually OKC doesn't even need to 'protect' it's water supply.

time is now to deannex.

Your only concern seems to be having high end retail along with it's status. While that would be nice, it is hardly a statement of why Tulsa, without annexation, is much ahead of OKC. The vast majority of those living in OKC could care less about having a Saks versus having Macy's. You may think that is a bad mindset but it only means that there are more important things in life.

Again, explain to me why this won't benefit the city and why thy suburbs wouldn't get the long term benefits. Do you honestly think that if OKC had kept it's original land area from the 60's that the suburbs wouldn't have taken that land? The density wouldn't have been affected in the slightest which seems to be your main concern. It just means that the outer population which is now in OKC would be in Norman, Moore, Mustang, Yukon, and Edmond and they would be getting all of the taxes.

does OKC get money from homeowners? or does OKC get money from retail and attractions? As long as shopping developments are inside OKC's core or city limits - regardless, then OKC would keep it's tax base.

dont get me wrong, I agree that OKC should retain it's current urban area with a bit of room for expansion, but anything beyond 350 square miles (which is more than generous) is just plain ridiculous and is the biggest reason for OKC being held back.

Annexing to the far NW, N, and SW has given developers an excuse to put retail in those areas. Otherwise, if OKC had not done this so reclessly - we would see emphasis on existing retain in the core and inner city rings.

RELAX simisimple - I was being faceteous (you have to read all of my posts sometimes, lol).

The vast majority of those living in OKC could care less about having a Saks versus having Macy's. You may think that is a bad mindset but it only means that there are more important things in life.
I think this is the central misunderstanding. While Saks is nice it isn't everything. Growing up in Tulsa I can tell you the Saks at Utica is a crappy Saks, its not that great. To be honest most Tulsan's who gloat about Saks never shop their its just something they can use to better OKC. Another important fact high end retailers really don't account for that much sales tax. Here is what most OKC residents care about. Jobs. (Lower unemployment rate the Tulsa) Crime rate. (Number of murders the same event though OKC hass over 100k more ppl.) Roads. (Condition of Roads in Tulsa are rated lower than OKC). Also with online shopping do stores really matter that much?

does OKC get money from homeowners? or does OKC get money from retail and attractions? As long as shopping developments are inside OKC's core or city limits - regardless, then OKC would keep it's tax base.

dont get me wrong, I agree that OKC should retain it's current urban area with a bit of room for expansion, but anything beyond 350 square miles (which is more than generous) is just plain ridiculous and is the biggest reason for OKC being held back.

Annexing to the far NW, N, and SW has given developers an excuse to put retail in those areas. Otherwise, if OKC had not done this so reclessly - we would see emphasis on existing retain in the core and inner city rings.

RELAX simisimple - I was being faceteous (you have to read all of my posts sometimes, lol).

Hotrod, It doesn't mean that retail would be more centralized. It only means that the retail would be within the city limits of a suburban city and they would be receiving the taxes.

Maybe over 350 square miles seems ridiculous now but, as I keep saying, you're not thinking about 50 or 100 years in the future. You're only thinking about the present.

Nick, I disagree.

Tulsa ran into problems because Tulsa residents failed to pass issues to improve their city. They needed to pass bond issues to improve their existing infrastructure - so that it could further densify. because Tulsan's sat on the fence and did not trust their leadership - they faultered. Especially when you combine that with the great recession.

OKC, on the other hand, stood the test - but that is because development was built in it's city limits. You know, 608 square miles of area.

But what if OKC was 400 square miles? OKC would still be well over 500,000 and even using today's urban area - there is only two suburbs that encroach that would threaten OKC's tax base (Edmond and Moore). All other retailing options are so far away from existing suburbs or OKC's boundary - that OKC's actual urban area is well short of it's city limits. All other suburbanites drive far into OKC for their shopping needs, so the tax base would remain in OKC's urban area regardless. ..

so again, if OKC was just as large as it's urban area - it would have this tax base regardless AND would have had more "savings" that could have been invested in the inner city. Instead, we had to have MAPS, Project 180, bond issues, and so forth - to get the inner city up to speed.

So, one more time - how has having such a large land area benefitted OKC?

Nick, I disagree.

Tulsa ran into problems because Tulsa residents failed to pass issues to improve their city. They needed to pass bond issues to improve their existing infrastructure - so that it could further densify. because Tulsan's sat on the fence and did not trust their leadership - they faultered. Especially when you combine that with the great recession.

OKC, on the other hand, stood the test - but that is because development was built in it's city limits. You know, 608 square miles of area.

But what if OKC was 400 square miles? OKC would still be well over 500,000 and even using today's urban area - there is only two suburbs that encroach that would threaten OKC's tax base (Edmond and Moore). All other retailing options are so far away from existing suburbs or OKC's boundary - that OKC's actual urban area is well short of it's city limits. All other suburbanites drive far into OKC for their shopping needs, so the tax base would remain in OKC's urban area regardless. ..

so again, if OKC was just as large as it's urban area - it would have this tax base regardless AND would have had more "savings" that could have been invested in the inner city. Instead, we had to have MAPS, Project 180, bond issues, and so forth - to get the inner city up to speed.

So, one more time - how has having such a large land area benefitted OKC?

That was the approach of Tulsa leaders years ago. It was ridiculous to think the suburbs would ever grow that large. Now Tulsa is landlocked, and the infrastructure is aging. In Tulsa their is much resentment of the Midtown area as much of the civic leaders have focused their attention their neglecting other parts. Whats to say if OKC did not annex all that land that Norman, Moore, Edmond, Yukon and MWC wouldn't have; the truth is they would have. Just as reflection many of the rural areas of OKC are just that rural with dirt roads and unimproved utilities, 100 years from now OKC will be very thankful.

Nick, I disagree.

Tulsa ran into problems because Tulsa residents failed to pass issues to improve their city. They needed to pass bond issues to improve their existing infrastructure - so that it could further densify. because Tulsan's sat on the fence and did not trust their leadership - they faultered. Especially when you combine that with the great recession.

OKC, on the other hand, stood the test - but that is because development was built in it's city limits. You know, 608 square miles of area.

But what if OKC was 400 square miles? OKC would still be well over 500,000 and even using today's urban area - there is only two suburbs that encroach that would threaten OKC's tax base (Edmond and Moore). All other retailing options are so far away from existing suburbs or OKC's boundary - that OKC's actual urban area is well short of it's city limits. All other suburbanites drive far into OKC for their shopping needs, so the tax base would remain in OKC's urban area regardless. ..

so again, if OKC was just as large as it's urban area - it would have this tax base regardless AND would have had more "savings" that could have been invested in the inner city. Instead, we had to have MAPS, Project 180, bond issues, and so forth - to get the inner city up to speed.

So, one more time - how has having such a large land area benefitted OKC?

Hotrod, as I keep saying, you're only thinking about now, not the future. Don't you think that Tulsa would love to have the retail taxes that are going to Jenks, Broken Arrow, and Owasso even though they have a few high end stores?

Hotrod, It doesn't mean that retail would be more centralized. It only means that the retail would be within the city limits of a suburban city and they would be receiving the taxes.

Maybe over 350 square miles seems ridiculous now but, as I keep saying, you're not thinking about 50 or 100 years in the future. You're only thinking about the present.

lj, maybe you have a point and I agree - but ONLY if we continue to encourage unsustainable development and waste. The reason we have development on the fringe, is because that is OKC's city limit. So any developer could use OKC's population (even though it is 20 miles away) to build their proposal to investors dumb enough not to also consider density or sustainability.

I argue, that there is a push all across America (and the world) for sustainability and densification of the world's cities.

You can see in every large city in America (including OKC) that there is a re-focus on the inner city to some extent. Cities are building density or at least encouraging it - including OKC.

So, given this change in the "american dream" - I don't see the need for such a large city limit for the future.

We can protect the watershed using ACOG and Oklahoma County (and other counties) to grant easement for OKC water trust (or form another entity altogether separate from the city of OKC that manages water - ala Seattle-King County Metro).

I think developers would still build inside OKC's limits, if shortened - because EVERY developer uses some of OKC's 550K population to support their market argument to investors. If something is built in a rural area not in OKC's limit - how could any person see it as fruitful?

Again, I agree with some annexation. Definitely the Edmond and Moore/Norman abuttments were successsful in stopping their encroachment mainly because Edmond and Moore/Norman are desirable places to live. So it made $en$e to expand to those areas due north and south.

But I dont really see the other directions.

Actually deannexation would work if we only levied an income tax on residents to make up for lost sales tax, as workers who live outside the city would still use the the roads and city services. Oh but wait the legislature shot down this proposal as the suburban and rural legislators did not want their citizens to pay a fair share. Article about failing sales tax base in Tulsa (http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=29242)

lj, I agree Tulsa would love to have some of that Jenks money. Sure.

but it seems as if both cities made mistakes - 180 degrees.

OKC annexed too much and Tulsa failed to recognize the threat of their bedroom communities.

lj, Ill give you this - if and a big if OKC ever gets over 1million in city population then YES we probably would be happy with the land size.

But look at Dallas, they aren't suffering and they aren't anywhere near 600 square miles and are LINED with suburbs in every direction. Chicago even more so.

all I am saying, is yes I am thinking of today - and yes OKC is not sustainable given such a large area and a relative lack of population to justify having development go ONLY to the fringe (unless there is a tax break). Why didn't OKC take Dallas's model.

I agree Dallas was stupid in not creating a watershed big enough. But again, other cites have shown it to be successful despite having suburbs or unincorporated in the way.

That was the approach of Tulsa leaders years ago. It was ridiculous to think the suburbs would ever grow that large. Now Tulsa is landlocked, and the infrastructure is aging. In Tulsa their is much resentment of the Midtown area as much of the civic leaders have focused their attention their neglecting other parts. Whats to say if OKC did not annex all that land that Norman, Moore, Edmond, Yukon and MWC wouldn't have; the truth is they would have. Just as reflection many of the rural areas of OKC are just that rural with dirt roads and unimproved utilities, 100 years from now OKC will be very thankful.

Tulsa has plenty of empty land as well just not near as much as OKC. The entire northwest quadrant of the city is open land which is why city leaders in Tulsa are pushing to finish the Gilcrease Loop that will open this area up to new development northwest of downtown toward Sand Springs. The same goes for rural parts of east Tulsa north of Broken Arrow that are still within city limits. A long-empty section of Tulsa on the southwest side has really boomed in the past 5 years similar to the rapid growth experienced in far south and far north OKC in recent years. I think the growth of the southwest side greatly contributed to Tulsa recently gaining population after losing for a few years in the early 2000's now expected to pass 400,000 this year.

Actually deannexation would work if we only levied an income tax on residents to make up for lost sales tax, as workers who live outside the city would still use the the roads and city services. Oh but wait the legislature shot down this proposal as the suburban and rural legislators did not want their citizens to pay a fair share. Article about failing sales tax base in Tulsa (http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=29242)

Nick, what revenue does the city of Oklahoma City get from a house that is on the fringe of it's city limit? I argue, little to none. Yet, the city has to build infrastructure and roads out there to service those developments and connect them to the inner city core.

The city imposes sales taxes on purchases made from retail and services in it's area AND most (90+%) of the purchases of the whole OKC metro area are made in OKC's existing urban area (244 square miles).

Isn't this why suburbanites were upset with MAPS? (they were saying Taxation without representation, since almost ALL shopping in the OKC metro is done in the thin corridor of OKC's urban area).

Im not following your argument that the city deannexing rural areas would negatively affect OKC's tax base.

I argue, if OKC deannex'd 200 square miles - it would not affect tax base, population, or watershed - and would improve density computations. If we do it correct, we could still enjoy future growth that jl is talking about.

Tulsa has plenty of empty land as well just not near as much as OKC. The entire northwest quadrant of the city is open land which is why city leaders in Tulsa are pushing to finish the Gilcrease Loop that will open this area up to new development northwest of downtown toward Sand Springs. The same goes for rural parts of east Tulsa north of Broken Arrow that are still within city limits. A long-empty section of Tulsa on the southwest side has really boomed in the past 5 years similar to the rapid growth experienced in far south and far north OKC in recent years.
True, but this development is chump change compared to the growth of Catoosa, Claremore, Owasso, Broken Arrow, Bixby, Jenks, Glenpool, Sapulpa, and Sand Springs. The S.W. area and the part on the Creek Turnpike (by New Tulsa haha) are it 50 years from now their is no new land. With the clowns like Roscoe Jack and John Eagleton on the council refusing to annex areas north of the city, there is little hope, they instead waste their time on a bid for the 2020 games. Most of the SW land is in Jenks schools and its almost gone. The NW area is in Tulsa schools, thats not gonna boom anytime soon, sorry. The leadership of Tulsa, minus Kathy Taylor is not thinking about the future (KT was smart enough to push sales tax growth on Tulsa's borders Tulsa Hills TIF, and Target at 101st and Memorial) however now Tulsa is back in the hands of clowns. As a former Tulsan, the outlook is bleak and the brain drain is on.

Nick, what revenue does the city of Oklahoma City get from a house that is on the fringe of it's city limit? I argue, little to none. Yet, the city has to build infrastructure and roads out there to service those developments and connect them to the inner city core.

The city imposes sales taxes on purchases made from retail and services in it's area AND most (90+%) of the purchases of the whole OKC metro area are made in OKC's existing urban area (244 square miles).

Isn't this why suburbanites were upset with MAPS? (they were saying Taxation without representation, since almost ALL shopping in the OKC metro is done in the thin corridor of OKC's urban area).

Im not following your argument that the city deannexing rural areas would negatively affect OKC's tax base.

I argue, if OKC deannex'd 200 square miles - it would not affect tax base, population, or watershed - and would improve density computations. If we do it correct, we could still enjoy future growth that jl is talking about.

The problem with deannexing any of it is that the suburbs will quickly snap it up and the costs really are not that large. Most the expenses are capital related and OKC has already spent that. Another problem I have is your Dallas example. The reason I only refer to Tulsa is that it is in the same state. Municipalities in Oklahoma are extremely dependent on sales tax, where as in other states they can receive property taxes. You are correct in arguing that shedding area now would cost us tax base in the near term, but in the future, its uncertain. The suburbs would gobble up the land with all of the improvements done by OKC for free, and 100 years down the road, OKC is strangled. If you want to lose the land just get some stores, I find that very shallow. A retailer is going to look at wealth concentration on zip code level, not a city level. The Tulsa zip codes have greater density of wealth, and deannexing land won't change that. I think you are misguided in looking at the city wide density figures, retailers are looking at radius from the store and zip code level data. Quality of life defined by a chain store is just disgusting. Remember when you get rid of all of this "excess" land the crime per sq mile will also shoot up with density!

You people that support a large OKC land area crack me up. The complaint about OKC losing police officers if OKC reduced its size is my favorite because this is EXACTLY the reason OKC should do this. De-annexing drives down the cost of the city doing business. If Mustang wants to expand, and thus incur the expenses of hiring more police officers, then let them. Not only would OKC get by with fewer police officers, but they could have fewer firemen, fire trucks, fire stations, police stations, police cars, sewer lines, roads, stop lights, street lights, road signs, and on and on and on and on and on.........

Like I said before in another thread, at some point OKC will be built out and then what happens? The response was we will just annex more land and expand the city some more. By that logic the 'long term' benefits will never pay-off because we will never make it to the final destination - we'll just keeping moving the goal further out.

If the ultimate destination is 100% build-out why don't we just do that now and start reaping the benefits now. At some point the long term benefit needs to be achieved otherwise it was never a goal, it was just a illusion.

De-annex now.

BTW - how does this logic make sense "OKC doesn't have enough high end shoppers...too many people shop for high end goods in Dallas"? Even Forrest Gump would scratch his head at that one.

does OKC get money from homeowners? or does OKC get money from retail and attractions? As long as shopping developments are inside OKC's core or city limits - regardless, then OKC would keep it's tax base.



Actually, yes, OKC does get tax money from home owners... 14.77 mills, which pays for all of the GO Bond issues that go to infrasturcture replacement or expansion, street improvements, park improvements and public safety.