Of course there are areas in which Oklahoma City could improve.....lots of them. But, I've yet to see anger improve any of them. Those of us who are willing have to do what we can to improve things. This being a democracy and all, if we're the silent minority, we're in trouble. If we can be the loud and obnoxious minority we have a chance. If we're the majority, there are still going to be factions within the minority (this forum is evidence enough) with differing opinions. We're not going to be able to wave a magic want. But, the point of a previous post I made is that huge strides HAVE been made. You may just be too young to be more than intellectually aware of them Spartan. And those strides have been made by people who care about Oklahoma City.

We're doing what we can to reverse sprawl. But there is natural selection in cities as well, and I'm sure Oklahoma City has selected out people who either like or don't mind sprawl. Those of us who don't simply tolerate it. Sidewalks will help. Improving the downtown and closer in neighborhoods will help. Better mass transit in our core will help. Every restaurant and entertainment option that becomes available in or near downtown makes living closer to downtown more attractive for people. It's going to be a slow process, though, and you're young and impatient. That's good because sometimes people like you get things done that the more patient among us might not. But, it makes it harder to see the big picture and take the long view. It makes it easier to get angry and give up, which helps nothing and no one.

It seems to me its the OKC crowd that is smug and looks down on Tulsa not the other way around. You OKC people are like Texans, "all hat and no cattle".

Most of us don't think about Tulsa unless we see the word in a thread here. I do not understand the value of this thread, as it seeks out the minority who think this is a competition. I'm including you, since your last comment is actually rather smug and appears to look down on OKC. A rising tide lifts all boats. I don't think that can be said enough.

Spartan, I've never said we can't improve, and by reading my posts you should know better. Sure OKC can improve by leaps and bounds and still be behind the curve, but our point is the title of this thread, and that we disagree with the point of this thread, we strongly disagree that DT Tulsa development is ahead of OKC that's all, nothing more.

It seems to me its the OKC crowd that is smug and looks down on Tulsa not the other way around. You OKC people are like Texans, "all hat and no cattle".

Isn't Lake Yahola in Tulsa?

Isn't Gilcrease Hills considered North Tulsa? Anyway, my understanding is streets like Pine Street are considered North Tulsa where the ghetto is and the chicken shack killing occurred. So yes there is an area considered North Tulsa.You can debate all you want Spartan, but Tulsa IMO is a faded former great city that is slowly dying and diminishing.

To Spartan’s point,

West Tulsa and North Tulsa (north of Admiral, including Gilcrease Hills) have very small populations. For example, less than 2% of the city of Tulsa’s population is in Osage County (which is Gilcrease Hills) while over 50% lives south of 61st Street. I’ve heard estimates that only about 15,000 people live in West Tulsa north of I-44. These areas you are noting are very small parts of Tulsa. East Tulsa has a larger population but it’s a heavily immigrant area with large Hispanic and Asian populations. Those areas do tend to be more run down in all cities. Outside of a small area at 61st and Peoria there are almost no parts of Tulsa south of 61st that are “run down”, and that’s fully half the entire city. And you still have most of the best areas of Tulsa in midtown. And in Tulsa midtown is huge. There are far more people in midtown than in North Tulsa and West Tulsa combined. The bulk of the city of Tulsa, by far, IS midtown and south Tulsa.

As for "dying", while the city did lose some population early in the decade it has been growing over the last 4-5 years and according to city estimates is now larger than during the census in 2000 and is right at about 400,000 people.

The city of Oklahoma City is going to grow faster than Tulsa, OKC has far more prime developable land than Tulsa. Most of the city of Tulsa’s empty land is way far out east (annexed for industrial purposes) and undesirable land (for residential purposes) north near the airport. Tulsa has no land left in growing south Tulsa area to speak of and growth in the north of the metro is far north of the city. The only real area where there is land for residential growth is in Southwest Tulsa south of 71st and that area is hampered by large parts of it being in flood plains or right by Jones Riverside Airport, which is actually even busier than TIA. The whole region is only like 6-7 square miles anyway.

Growth in the larger metro area is right on par with the "booming" growth of Oklahoma City’s metro. Since 2005 Tulsa’s MSA has grown by 5.4% while Oklahoma City’s MSA has grown by 6.2%. In fact, the inner part of Tulsa’s MSA, Tulsa County, has grown faster than Oklahoma County since 2005, 5.6% vs 4.5%, a lot of the Oklahoma City MSAs growth (and OKC's city growth) has been in Cleveland and Canadian counties. The truth is that growth in both metro areas is pretty mediocre. While neither city is dying, Tulsa and OKC aren’t even close to booming either. The Dallas-Ft Worth CSA in this same time grew by 10.4% and added 642,441 people. That’s a lot closer to booming.

But certainly, carry on with the Oklahoma City is booming and Tulsa is dying meme for this site.

Tulsa backwards spells "A slut". That has nothing to do with this thread, I just find it humorous.

Isn't Lake Yahola in Tulsa?

Yahola is clearly a Tulsa antagonist, read his 7 posts. Here's one of them.


Yahola Yeah go ahead and move the 66'ers to Wichita. OKC is so much better the streets are paved with gold and money falls from the sky.

The truth is that growth in both metro areas is pretty mediocre.

Here you have someone from Tulsa who, after getting through several paragraphs spouting the facts and defending Tulsa, cuts through the bull**** on both sides and nails the real issue here. The real issue here is that Oklahoma's cities aren't growing as fast as Dallas, and smaller competition..Nashville, Orlando, Charlotte, San Antonio, Salt Lake City, Indianapolis, Austin, and so on. The issue is not whether OKC or Tulsa are doing better, although my entire point has just been that neither cities are above looking up to each other and in fact Tulsa does have things that we can admire and hope to replicate.

Metro, you're so good at rationalizing Tulsa's successes especially when they come to downtown: So rationalize this, determine what they did, and how OKC could replicate it if we shoud..look at the first wave of DT Tulsa projects. 1st Street Lofts. Mayo Hotel. 420 Mayo. And other projects.


Spartan, I've never said we can't improve, and by reading my posts you should know better. Sure OKC can improve by leaps and bounds and still be behind the curve, but our point is the title of this thread, and that we disagree with the point of this thread, we strongly disagree that DT Tulsa development is ahead of OKC that's all, nothing more.

Yeah, I know that your perspective IS pushing for change just like mine..so I was just hoping that I could get you to agree that critical analysis is important. Perhaps the thread title is bad, and I have admitted a few times before in this thread that the thread title could be better. If we had active moderators on this website I would get it changed to something more prudent, "Things we can learn from DT Tulsa.." I'm not sure it would be as active, though.

Who is "our point" and "we strongly disagree?" I would point out that the generally unified urbanist posters here are all relatively split on the Tulsa issue. I'm unabashedly pro-Tulsa always have been, you're unabashedly anti-Tulsa always have been..there's a split right there.


Of course there are areas in which Oklahoma City could improve.....lots of them. But, I've yet to see anger improve any of them. Those of us who are willing have to do what we can to improve things. This being a democracy and all, if we're the silent minority, we're in trouble. If we can be the loud and obnoxious minority we have a chance. If we're the majority, there are still going to be factions within the minority (this forum is evidence enough) with differing opinions. We're not going to be able to wave a magic wand. But, the point of a previous post I made is that huge strides HAVE been made. You may just be too young to be more than intellectually aware of them Spartan. And those strides have been made by people who care about Oklahoma City.

We're doing what we can to reverse sprawl. But there is natural selection in cities as well, and I'm sure Oklahoma City has selected out people who either like or don't mind sprawl. Those of us who don't simply tolerate it. Sidewalks will help. Improving the downtown and closer in neighborhoods will help. Better mass transit in our core will help. Every restaurant and entertainment option that becomes available in or near downtown makes living closer to downtown more attractive for people. It's going to be a slow process, though, and you're young and impatient. That's good because sometimes people like you get things done that the more patient among us might not. But, it makes it harder to see the big picture and take the long view. It makes it easier to get angry and give up, which helps nothing and no one.

Well, Betts perhaps it's kind of like a revolution, be it the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution. Once you give the people the first taste of change, they suddenly want more and are willing to fight even harder, even if the first taste was part of a "compromise" approach. There is no denying how much improvement OKC has made just in terms of euphoria. Before MAPS the general sense really was that, man, this town sucks. After MAPS, the general sense is overwhelmingly optimistic and proud of how far we've come as a city.

As for the sprawl, I would disagree that we're doing even a fraction of what we can to reduce sprawl. We are investing capital in downtown, that is true, and I absolutely agree how every new restaurant and entertainment venue makes downtown just that much more attractive, and nobody disagrees that it is a long process. But as for sprawl, in order to assess OKC's stance on sprawl you gotta go out to Memorial Road and not downtown. We are currently widening every single arterial street up to 179th to 4 lanes and beyond, and that will have a major effect..tract housing will explode after the road construction. We are still not adding new sidewalks out in the far reaches of the residential explosion. We are currently on track to be fined by the EPA for the first time ever for our poor air quality standards. Previously we were the largest city in the US to not have that poor distinction. 70% of OKC streams and lakes are also deemed polluted. Since 1970, despite the energy efficiency revolution, our city's energy consumption has increased 60%. Our growth in new lane miles has increased by 275%. Our population growth that is supposedly causing this: Only 40%, since 1970.

Speaking of population growth..
Let's identify Oklahoma City's real growth by decade, which I looked at closely in this post:
A Downtown ontheRange: Out of the woods yet? (http://downtownontherange.blogspot.com/2009/04/out-of-woods-yet.html)

Population growth in OKC may actually be on the decline. Population of course is not on the decline, but the growth rate appears to be. It will be interested to see what we end up with for this last decade. I don't think it will be the 15.3% we had last decade, as of 2007 it was ONLY 8%.

Look at the cities we're competing with (growth rates for 1990-2000, and 2000-latest available):

Austin..47.7%, 36.4% (00-09)
Nashville..25%, 18.2% (00-08)
San Antonio..20.2%, 27.2% (00-08)
Orlando..34.3%, 38.6% (00-08)
Jacksonville..21.4%, 18.3
Indianapolis..16.5%,
Salt Lake City..24.4%, 16.7% (00-09)
Charlotte..29.2%,
Denver..29.9%,
Raleigh..

Ah screw it..this is taking too long and I'm at work. Here's the chart:

http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/820120321_JMTJ5-M.jpg
http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/820120329_DvB9M-M.jpg
http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/820120342_AJgZV-M.jpg
http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/820120348_uypSQ-M.jpg
http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/820120359_iXUit-M.jpg
http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/820120359_iXUit-M.jpg
http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/820120369_ZXxaL-M.jpg

Spartan, I do agree critical analysis IS important, I never stated the contrary. My point was the title/topic of your thread, not a broader topic you keep referring to. Despite Tulsa's "1st wave", we still have seen more new DT housing developments than DT Tulsa in recent history. I agree we're both 2 mediocre cities on the national or international stage, however I think OKC still has FAR more momentum going for it regardless of what Tulsa might be doing or proposing. I agree with the analysis so much, that I actually participate in DT organizations for the last 5 years or so; and am often the only critical one. The majority of the DT crowd just want to be the "in crowd" and socialize.

Well it's a matter of city limits v. overall metro. I think Tulsa is going to be most interesting to watch because of the growth challenges they face..the main city has no land to sprawl so if it wants to retain growth, it is going to have to focus on infill and redevelopment. Tulsa is a 20th Century city that, because of geopolitical boundaries, has been expedited to be in the exact same position that cities such as Boston, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia are in.

I think it's an advantage they have over us because we will likely never be in a do-or-die situation where we have to get serious about sustainability. We can sprawl for eveerrrrr basically and I think City Hall is perfectly content to do so. I'm not going to deny that there are also advantages to having sheer volume of economic growth on your side, which we do. But to me the bigger battle is livability and sustainability and not sheer economic growth. Reality is that no city in Oklahoma will ever have a 50% population growth rate from one decade.

Well it's a matter of city limits v. overall metro. I think Tulsa is going to be most interesting to watch because of the growth challenges they face..the main city has no land to sprawl so if it wants to retain growth, it is going to have to focus on infill and redevelopment. Tulsa is a 20th Century city that, because of geopolitical boundaries, has been expedited to be in the exact same position that cities such as Boston, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia are in.

I think it's an advantage they have over us because we will likely never be in a do-or-die situation where we have to get serious about sustainability. We can sprawl for eveerrrrr basically and I think City Hall is perfectly content to do so. I'm not going to deny that there are also advantages to having sheer volume of economic growth on your side, which we do. But to me the bigger battle is livability and sustainability and not sheer economic growth. Reality is that no city in Oklahoma will ever have a 50% population growth rate from one decade.

Tulsa still has land to sprawl and I've watched as the area around 71st/81st & US 75 on the southwest side of Tulsa has sprawled just like the suburbs around the city. The only 'good' thing about it is that the growth is in the city, around the Tulsa Hills big box shopping center which is as suburban as it gets. The area is also Jenks school district so the growth hasn't helped TPS but has contributed to Tulsa growing in the past few years when at the beginning of the decade the city lost population. After peaking at 393,000 in 2000 the population fell to 385,000 but now is estimated at near 400,000.

It will be really interesting to see how the proposed Gilcrease Turnpike in the northwest corner of Tulsa will impact development in that area. That is the largest amount of empty land in city limits and has numerous challenges, namely low-performing existing schools and hilly terrain. However that same hilly terrain has the best views in the city. New housing would bring new schools (and property tax) to the area which could be a boon for TPS. As we've seen in OKC the school district boundaries are a big driver of future housing growth for families, the primary demographic in each city.

Yahola is clearly a Tulsa antagonist, read his 7 posts. Here's one of them.
Just defending T-town. I stand by my comments. A number of posters on this site look down their noses at Tulsa as if OKC is New York and Tulsa is some backwater town.

Just defending T-town. I stand by my comments. A number of posters on this site look down their noses at Tulsa as if OKC is New York and Tulsa is some backwater town.
To be fair there were Tulsa people who did that for many, many years and rather smugly as well.
I never understood why some people have to bash others to elevate themselves in their mind, I like both cities. I hear/read some of the same stuff between San Antonio/Austin, Houston/Dallas, Fort Worth/Dallas, etc.


Tulsa backwards spells "A slut". That has nothing to do with this thread, I just find it humorous.
ALTUS has the same letters as TULSA.

Sorry I can't post the entire story.

Zeigler: Momentum to fuel downtown Tulsa growth (http://journalrecord.com/2010/06/14/zeigler-momentum-to-fuel-downtown-tulsa-growth-real-estate/)


Zeigler: Momentum to fuel downtown Tulsa growth
By Kirby Lee Davis
The Journal Record
Posted: 04:10 PM Monday, June 14, 2010

TULSA – Lee Anne Zeigler doesn't fret over the recession's chill on downtown Tulsa redevelopment, or the state's moratorium on historic real estate tax credits. Between its new entertainment venues and growing residential options, the executive director of the Tulsa Foundation for Architecture sees a building momentum reaching critical mass within Tulsa's central core, promising a

Ugh, Journal Record. The term is deferral, not moratorium.. where were you during that debate?