I'm just going to ignore metro's semantics regarding me...


In all fairness, Vancouver is 3 times bigger than Calgary - but yes, point very well taken.

It is somewhat surprising that more of those oil company hq aren't in Vancouver actually, since it is a much more desirable and liveable city (even on the world scale, it's always #1). Or even Edmonton, since that city is closer to the actual Oil Sands and is the capital of Alberta.

But yes, Calgary is a nice city for OKC to aspire to (downtown wise). It's funny saying that, since Oklahoma City is actually bigger than Calgary. [OKC 1.3M, Calgary 1M]

both cities are 'former' cowtowns, now successful in Energy (with OKC being more diversified). ...

Hmm. Edmonton kind of has a bad rap as an underwhelming urban environment, especially compared to Calgary. Downtown has a glut of hideous, poorly designed apartment towers that are starting to show their age..very little exists in the way of high design. It's nothing like Calgary which is incredibly vibrant, colorful, and busy. The urban center in Calgary spreads out for miles and there is a lot of top-notch development going on unlike Edmonton. They (Edmonton) do however have a much better university campus up there than we have in Calgary, even if our school is "better."

Nearby? The two cities are almost 1000 miles apart.

And you can't discount the impact of the lack of massive urban expressway systems in Canada in how healthy Canadian city centers are. They don't have all our highways to draw people out into the suburbs.

That couldn't be farther from the truth. Calgary is currently working on a massive expansion of the freeway system. They just finished the northern portion of the "ring road" project that will be a loop all the way around the city.

You don't see all of the freeways on a map because of them show up the same color as roads, but there are a lot of controlled access roadways with high speed limits (80 km)..let's just say that. They are urban expressways. They exist in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa, and all the other cities..

It's not really fair to use that picture unless you are going to use a panoramic of OKC that includes St. Anthony, the Aberdeen, St. Luke's, and the Classen.
More like the medical district included in the panorama.

I agree Spartan, - Calgary is very impressive, especially considering it's size and definite proximity to the West Coast giant who could have taken it all.

Im surprised Shake mentioned that, he's usually quite well informed. Canada may not have the freeway network at the US level, but it is very advanced and every city has expressways - especially the big 3 cities (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver).

More importantly than freeways, though - is canadian cities have public transit. Almost every city has some large scale of public transit, from bus networks to light rail (Calgary's is the biggest), to subway (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver).

When you have transit en-mass, you dont need as much freeways. Vancouver's new Canada Line SkyTrain is said to have the same capacity as a 10 lane freeway from downtown to Vancouver International Airport. This was proven during the Olympics, by the way - with loads over 250,000 passengers per day. The system wasn't even at full crush either. I've ridden on it (and the other 2 lines), it's fast - efficient - and reliable, most of all - sustainable.

that's the key to me, Canadian cities tend to be more sustainable than American ones, save the biggest (NY, Chi, SF, DC).

That couldn't be farther from the truth. Calgary is currently working on a massive expansion of the freeway system. They just finished the northern portion of the "ring road" project that will be a loop all the way around the city.

You don't see all of the freeways on a map because of them show up the same color as roads, but there are a lot of controlled access roadways with high speed limits (80 km)..let's just say that. They are urban expressways. They exist in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa, and all the other cities..

I didn't say they didn't have them they don't have to the extent that American Cities do. What does Calgary have, 20% of the expressway miles that OKC does? With 80% of the population? And highways that are being built or have just been finished have not yet impacted the population distribution of the city.

oh, i see.

shake, it's because calgary has a very nice and expansive light rail system.

No Canadian city will really have the freeway expanse that we American's have. They're much more compact,dense. There's no city really that has rampant (Combined Statistical Area-style) sprawl, with MAYBE the exception of Toronto if you consider the "Golden Horseshoe". ...

Heck, Abbotsford should legitimately be part of Vancouver's metro - only 30 km from downtown, but the Canadian census has it separate. Also, Victoria has heavy commuters into/from the Vancouver mainland; but it is a separate metro too. In America, all of this would be called Vancouver-Victoria-Abbotsford-Bellingham CSA, but in Canada it's 3 different metro areas and Bellingham, WA is it's own.

Different strokes for different folks.

Yes, they built 5 major skyscrapers in the last 6 years

Since 2000, 13 buildings 20+ stories have been built, or are nearing completion in Austin. 11 of those are over 300 feet tall.

The tallest are as follows:

Austonian - 56 floors, 683 feet
360 - 44 floors, 563 feet
Frost Bank Tower - 33 floors, 515 feet
W Hotel & Residences - 36 floors, 472 feet
Spring - 43 floors, 434 feet
Ashton - 36 floors, 416 feet

Since 2000, 13 buildings 20+ stories have been built, or are nearing completion in Austin. 11 of those are over 300 feet tall.

The tallest are as follows:

Austonian - 56 floors, 683 feet
360 - 44 floors, 563 feet
Frost Bank Tower - 33 floors, 515 feet
W Hotel & Residences - 36 floors, 472 feet
Spring - 43 floors, 434 feet
Ashton - 36 floors, 416 feet

In the next year Oklahoma City will have removed 4 building - and put grass in their place. Two cities - different directions. At least we have the NBA.

Nearby? The two cities are almost 1000 miles apart.

And you can't discount the impact of the lack of massive urban expressway systems in Canada in how healthy Canadian city centers are. They don't have all our highways to draw people out into the suburbs.

The cities aren't next door but the air mileage distance is about 420 miles. Much closer than 1000 miles.

I was Google searching and came upon this thread and thought I'd chime in. Having lived in OKC twice and Little Rock once for a few years, I think I have a pretty good perspective on the comparison. In most ways, OKC is far above and beyond Little Rock. Little Rock's downtown is impressive for a city its size but outside of downtown there really isn't much else to the city. That said, I think there are a few ideas OKC could take from Little Rock and do better. First of course is the streetcar system which is supposedly in the works. Second, Little Rock has done a very good job, probably better than OKC, at low-rise and mid-rise residential infill surrounding their downtown. A few 15-20 story residential mid-rises would be awesome in downtown OKC and imagine the retail/bars/restaurants that would come with it. Lastly, Little Rock has a much stronger park/recreation/outdoor system than OKC does. OKC doesn't have anything that matches the Pulaski County Trail around the Arkansas river and Alsopp Park. That is in the works though in MAPS 3 and Central Park (the Skydance bridge is OKC's equivalent of the Big Dam Bridge in Little Rock) but it's not there yet. So yes, everything Little Rock has that exceeds OKC is currently in the works here but I have to give props to Little Rock for doing so much in such a small city. One last thing, does OKC have a district filled with large, majestic, historic homes like Little Rock has in the Quapaw Quarter, Hillcrest, and Heights district surrounding the inner city? The historic areas I've seen around here seem a little dilapidated compared to the ones in Little Rock which are very well kept. Maybe I just haven't gone to the right area yet.

The major old oil money area is north of downtown....Heritage Hills. Mostly near MidTown.

Try going up to Nichols Hills for the old money also.

Yeah but that's like 70's money....not classic 20's-30's homes. There's nothing historic about Nichols Hills. It's just where people moved after they left their homes in Heritage Hills and built new, larger, and more stuck-up homes with no character.

Yeah but that's like 70's money....not classic 20's-30's homes. There's nothing historic about Nichols Hills. It's just where people moved after they left their homes in Heritage Hills and built new, larger, and more stuck-up homes with no character.

You sure you've got the right Nichols Hills ? The Oklahoma City Golf and Country Club is part of NH and it opened in 1927. Nichols Hills has the highest per capita income of any city in Oklahoma. It's been around a long time, when I was a kid in the 50's, that's where we went to look at the Christmas displays.

A troubling trend to me, from an aesthetic point of view, is how many of the really pretty, stately homes in NH seem to be falling victim to the "tear down" phenomenon. A graceful 5000 SF with classic beauty but small rooms is razed for a 10,000 SF monster with a 4 car garage. I noticed this when I was home for Thanksgiving. The neighborhood is still very nice, don't get me wrong, but is at risk of losing some of its character to become more like a "Gallardia South."

A troubling trend to me, from an aesthetic point of view, is how many of the really pretty, stately homes in NH seem to be falling victim to the "tear down" phenomenon. A graceful 5000 SF with classic beauty but small rooms is razed for a 10,000 SF monster with a 4 car garage. I noticed this when I was home for Thanksgiving. The neighborhood is still very nice, don't get me wrong, but is at risk of losing some of its character to become more like a "Gallardia South." This is also a disturbing trend in Highland Park in Dallas. Many of the old mansions built in the early 20"s have met with the wrecking ball. So sad as the history of the neighborhood changes drastically when they tear down those old, charming homes with tons of characters and old bones.

One last thing, does OKC have a district filled with large, majestic, historic homes like Little Rock has in the Quapaw Quarter, Hillcrest, and Heights district surrounding the inner city? The historic areas I've seen around here seem a little dilapidated compared to the ones in Little Rock which are very well kept. Maybe I just haven't gone to the right area yet.

Huh? You ever been in...

Heritage Hills
Mesta Park
Edgemere Park
Crown Heights
Edgemere Heights
Cleveland
Shepherd
Linwood
Putnam Heights
Nichols Hills

Huh? You ever been in...

Heritage Hills
Mesta Park
Edgemere Park
Crown Heights
Edgemere Heights
Cleveland
Shepherd
Linwood
Putnam Heights
Nichols Hills

I'll have to check those out. Since moving to OKC, I've mostly gone out in Bricktown and in the Paseo. While I like the Paseo strip, the neighborhood itself is pretty underwhelming (too many post-war tract homes). I've been to Nichols Hills as well. It has more of a modern, upscale suburban feel to it though and doesn't quite have the character I am talking about. I looked up Heritage Hills online and the pictures look very much like that type of place.

One thing to keep in mind is that Little Rock was founded 50 years before OKC. You might say, 50 years big deal but in term of urban development patterns those 50 years were a big deal because it covers the transition of transportation systems from walking, horsecars, electrified streetcars, and then the automobile. The bottom line is that large homes didn't have much time to develope around the urban core after the founding of OKC because the electric streetcar was put in almost immediately which allowed for the first expansion of suburbia (i.e. Nichols Hills - among others). If you look at cities developed after the automobile they don't have any lage homes period, and a most don't even have a defined center.

Take Mesa, AZ as an example. While it was founded before OKC it was not heavily populated until after WWII. Today it is the 38th largest city in the US and if you can find it's downtown, you will find that it isn't surrounded by any large homes. Phoenix does have a downtown, but like Mesa, it was not populated until well after the advent of the automobile.

One thing to keep in mind is that Little Rock was founded 50 years before OKC. You might say, 50 years big deal but in term of urban development patterns those 50 years were a big deal because it covers the transition of transportation systems from walking, horsecars, electrified streetcars, and then the automobile. The bottom line is that large homes didn't have much time to develope around the urban core after the founding of OKC because the electric streetcar was put in almost immediately which allowed for the first expansion of suburbia (i.e. Nichols Hills - among others). If you look at cities developed after the automobile they don't have any lage homes period, and a most don't even have a defined center.

Take Mesa, AZ as an example. While it was founded before OKC it was not heavily populated until after WWII. Today it is the 38th largest city in the US and if you can find it's downtown, you will find that it isn't surrounded by any large homes. Phoenix does have a downtown, but like Mesa, it was not populated until well after the advent of the automobile.

Good points. I didn't think of this. Little Rock, of course, was already a well-established city by the Victorian era while OKC was not. The homes in the Quapaw Quarter were built before the land that is now OKC was even settled. That gives Little Rock an advantage as far as historic, pre-WWII homes. Hillcrest, Little Rock's first street car suburb and today is the trendiest neighborhood in the city, was built around the turn of the 20th century. When I lived in Little Rock I went to a church in Hillcrest for a little while that was built in 1901. Go farther out from that and you get to the Heights, which is similar to OKC's Heritage Hills. Go farther out than that and you finally get to the post-war tract homes similar to the ones that dominate much of inner-city OKC.

I'll have to check those out. Since moving to OKC, I've mostly gone out in Bricktown and in the Paseo. While I like the Paseo strip, the neighborhood itself is pretty underwhelming (too many post-war tract homes). I've been to Nichols Hills as well. It has more of a modern, upscale suburban feel to it though and doesn't quite have the character I am talking about. I looked up Heritage Hills online and the pictures look very much like that type of place.

NH has many 70-80 year old homes, but a lot is new..it's about half and half. I think driving down Penn is a very good stretch. They have a very large wave of home reno's/annexes under way..I just wish they would make the Penn roadway itself more attractive.

I'm a Tulsan and think OKC is the winner but not by much. Tulsa is changing very fast and by 2016 will have turned the table on OKC I have been to the Ford Center and the BOK is better by far and with the new river parks project OKC will not have any thing to compete. I know that OKC has one giant building that looks totally out of place in the skyline.

Tulsa skyline with new buildings.
http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz189/photomakerjohn/TulsaskylinepictureTulsa-AA9947_zps4b664bef.jpg (http://s826.photobucket.com/user/photomakerjohn/media/TulsaskylinepictureTulsa-AA9947_zps4b664bef.jpg.html)
Tulsa picture of Tulsa at sunset.


Tulsa skyline showing the Tulsa BOK center.
http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz189/photomakerjohn/TulsaSkylinepicture_Tulsa-9322_zps467d4977.jpg (http://s826.photobucket.com/user/photomakerjohn/media/TulsaSkylinepicture_Tulsa-9322_zps467d4977.jpg.html)
Skyline of Tulsa Oklahoma showing the Tulsa BOK center and some of the Tulsa skyline.

Tulsa skyline picture looking north.
http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz189/photomakerjohn/Tulsa_skylinepicture9277Tulsa_zps54052f55.jpg (http://s826.photobucket.com/user/photomakerjohn/media/Tulsa_skylinepicture9277Tulsa_zps54052f55.jpg.html )
Tulsa skyline taken at dawn just as the lights in the Tulsa buildings come on. The lights being on is what makes night pictures look good.

Johnsaid, you might want to note that a large number of projects are either under construction or are in the planning stages for downtown OKC, including a new office tower and substantial talks of a second tower.

And while the planned parks for Tulsa are awesome, I believe a lot of Tulsans are underestimating the Core to Shore park that is in the design stages. Both cities are continuing to raise the bar where Oklahoma's standard of living is concerned. Lets unite and show the rest of this country that the dust bowl is yesterday's news.

Personally I think from a distance Tulsa's skyline has a slight edge, but won't after the new tower(s) are built in OKC. Up close and personal, I would have to say the edge goes to OKC. The one thing that annoys me about Tulsa's downtown is all the surface parking in areas surrounding downtown. It's horrendous. OKC has some of this on the western edges of downtown and in Lower Bricktown, but overall the areas surrounding the CBD are more built up in OKC.

Tulsa Wins Blog's 'Parking Madness' Championship In Landslide Vo - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com | (http://www.newson6.com/story/21946893/tulsa-wins-blogs-parking-madness-poll-in-landslide-vote)

I'm a Tulsan and think OKC is the winner but not by much. Tulsa is changing very fast and by 2016 will have turned the table on OKC I have been to the Ford Center and the BOK is better by far and with the new river parks project OKC will not have any thing to compete. I know that OKC has one giant building that looks totally out of place in the skyline.

Tulsa skyline with new buildings.
http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz189/photomakerjohn/TulsaskylinepictureTulsa-AA9947_zps4b664bef.jpg (http://s826.photobucket.com/user/photomakerjohn/media/TulsaskylinepictureTulsa-AA9947_zps4b664bef.jpg.html)
Tulsa picture of Tulsa at sunset.


Tulsa skyline showing the Tulsa BOK center.
http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz189/photomakerjohn/TulsaSkylinepicture_Tulsa-9322_zps467d4977.jpg (http://s826.photobucket.com/user/photomakerjohn/media/TulsaSkylinepicture_Tulsa-9322_zps467d4977.jpg.html)
Skyline of Tulsa Oklahoma showing the Tulsa BOK center and some of the Tulsa skyline.

Tulsa skyline picture looking north.
http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz189/photomakerjohn/Tulsa_skylinepicture9277Tulsa_zps54052f55.jpg (http://s826.photobucket.com/user/photomakerjohn/media/Tulsa_skylinepicture9277Tulsa_zps54052f55.jpg.html )
Tulsa skyline taken at dawn just as the lights in the Tulsa buildings come on. The lights being on is what makes night pictures look good.

I've been to both the BOK and CHK and after the NBA retrofit and additions, the only aspect of BOK that exceeds CHK is its exterior appearance. Inside, CHK blows BOK away. Then of course there is CHK's major tenant, which far exceeds any type of entertainment offered at BOK.

Also, as far as Tulsa passing OKC. The only edges Tulsa has right now are more bar districts, slightly better retail, and better scenery. With OKC's expanding bar districts, the former will no longer be an edge in 3 years, the retail playing field is also quickly leveling, though we can't do much about the scenery.

Despite having a better river, Tulsa has nothing and will not have anything remotely close to what is being done on the Oklahoma River in the boathouse district. Also, the MAPS 3 projects alone far exceed any public investment in Tulsa currently. I've seen the river park renderings, and it will be nice, but not any nicer than the combination of the Myriad Gardens, Central park, and our River parks + the boathouse district. Tulsa has nothing close to the private residential developments that have been built in downtown OKC, are under construction or that have been proposed. Also, with 3+ towers at some stage of planning, the CBD skyline will also soon blow Tulsa's away, though we will never have as many cool art deco buildings. I like that you pointed out the two new EFIS clad, underwhelming buildings built in Tulsa, so congratulation on that I guess... the towers in planning here will most likely be near the same height or taller than the Williams tower.

So to summarize, no Tulsa will not be passing OKC by anytime soon.

Wow, first post on OKC talk is used to throw shade. Alrighty then...

I think it says something when you have to point out the two new buildings in your picture because they are so bland looking.

As far as the new Gathering Place, yeah it looks great. We'll just ignore the fact that OKC is planning a major park itself and A Gathering Place wasn't pushed until MAPS3 was passed. Also, its wonderful that Tulsa's local billionaire George Kaiser is footing the bill for it, largely because taxpayers up there refuse to invest in their city.

And maybe I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a lot in the way of new construction planned in the immediate DT area. So how can Tulsa pass anybody if you aren't adding anything new?

Would have helped Tulsa if Cityplex were in the CBD.

Otherwise...it's really not that close. The only reason Tulsa is remotely close on a looks perspective is because it spreads out over more land area. That, as far as I'm concerned, is a net loss in points. Clump Tulsa's CBD together and it would look not so great.

Also, the addition of Aloft and Hilton Garden in and Suites helps OKC just a little less than the 2 new buildings pointed out in Tulsa's above...Deep Deuce in general definitely provides a boost in urban expanse.

One thing this discussion brought to mind is that if we screw the pooch and have no high rise development on the Cox site, then OKC's skyline will never be incredible. We need the height density that that would bring from the Eastern perspective, which is the best view of OKC's skyline and Urban fabric.

OKC is better from certain angles, while Tulsa is better from other angles. The view from the pedestrian bridge looking north over the river toward downtown Tulsa cannot be matched in OKC. The Oklahoma River just doesn't have the same beauty as the tree-lined and water-filled river in this part of the city due to the dam. However I love the OKC skyline from the east and west now that Devon is complete, and from inside the Myriad Gardens. Once other towers are built it will be even better. For Tulsa to catch up there would need to be at least one modern glass tower built (the new Cimarex tower doesn't count since it's ugly). Something like the One Technology Center that was finished in 2001 would look great if it was taller. Tulsa doesn't have the same dynamic energy companies that are building these types of buildings downtown, at least not right now.

I like both skylines.

I'm a Tulsan and think OKC is the winner but not by much. Tulsa is changing very fast and by 2016 will have turned the table on OKC I have been to the Ford Center and the BOK is better by far and with the new river parks project OKC will not have any thing to compete. I know that OKC has one giant building that looks totally out of place in the skyline.

Tulsa skyline with new buildings.
http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz189/photomakerjohn/TulsaskylinepictureTulsa-AA9947_zps4b664bef.jpg (http://s826.photobucket.com/user/photomakerjohn/media/TulsaskylinepictureTulsa-AA9947_zps4b664bef.jpg.html)
Tulsa picture of Tulsa at sunset.


Tulsa skyline showing the Tulsa BOK center.
http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz189/photomakerjohn/TulsaSkylinepicture_Tulsa-9322_zps467d4977.jpg (http://s826.photobucket.com/user/photomakerjohn/media/TulsaSkylinepicture_Tulsa-9322_zps467d4977.jpg.html)
Skyline of Tulsa Oklahoma showing the Tulsa BOK center and some of the Tulsa skyline.

Tulsa skyline picture looking north.
http://i826.photobucket.com/albums/zz189/photomakerjohn/Tulsa_skylinepicture9277Tulsa_zps54052f55.jpg (http://s826.photobucket.com/user/photomakerjohn/media/Tulsa_skylinepicture9277Tulsa_zps54052f55.jpg.html )


The BOK looks good, but that's about it. There is no Founders Suites and lounge in the BOK such as in the 'Peake. Go count the suites in the BOK (37) compared to 49 suites and 7 super suites in the Peake. NBA caliber locker rooms and press facilities.....BOK can not compete with the amenities that the Peake has..there are NO Loge seating at the BOK, the Peake has 2 different sections of these seats....some folks that post here are just NOT in the know about the 2 facilities.

Devon Tower kicks the best 3 buildings combined in Tulsa's Azz...... enough said. I do like the Mid Continent Bldg in Tulsa though.

The Peake might have it on the inside, but the BOK has it on the outside. The original footprint of both buildings is almost identical from the air, but even this historic Tulsa downer has to give them props on the BOK. It doesn't really "fit in" with the rest of downtown, but so what....it's cool. Sort of like the Sprint Center in Kansas City....doesn't look anything like anything else in downtown, but stands out with a cool factor of 12!

Could the location of Tulsa's CBD be hurting redevelopment projects?

In OKC, you have a centrally located CBD where people pass by/through the downtown area on their way to other destinations. In Tulsa, the CBD is actually in the far NW edge of the city and not centrally located. I have never lived in Tulsa but have been there several times and driven though. If I have not been going INTO the CBD for a concert/game I have never casually driven by the CBD on my way to another destination. I think the CBD location hurts Tulsa because the majority of Tulsans and suburbanites do not regularly come into contact with the downtown area as one would in Oklahoma City.

I don't think it is Tulsa relative location to sprawl that is the problem as much as it is just the sprawl. Chicago, Detroit, Miami, Toledo, Cleveland, Toronto, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, and lots of other cities have their downtown skewed to one side. Then there are places like Phoenix and LA which pretty much have their downtowns right in the center and have a hard time creating a significant downtown skyline.

The Peake might have it on the inside, but the BOK has it on the outside. The original footprint of both buildings is almost identical from the air, but even this historic Tulsa downer has to give them props on the BOK. It doesn't really "fit in" with the rest of downtown, but so what....it's cool. Sort of like the Sprint Center in Kansas City....doesn't look anything like anything else in downtown, but stands out with a cool factor of 12!

I agree, but the team inside the Peake is hard to beat for cool factor.

I don't think it is Tulsa relative location to sprawl that is the problem as much as it is just the sprawl. Chicago, Detroit, Miami, Toledo, Cleveland, Toronto, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, and lots of other cities have their downtown skewed to one side. Then there are places like Phoenix and LA which pretty much have their downtowns right in the center and have a hard time creating a significant downtown skyline.

Outside of Toledo/Cleveland (I realize Cleveland is on a great lakes coast, but next to downtown it's kind of gross), the rest of those are major destination downtowns that are centered along some type of scenic coast. That's a big difference over Tulsa.

Tulsa's problem is similar to Little Rock's - lots of surface parking and no plan to build over it. Little Rock is in fact still demolishing structures and building surface parking. Little Rock's downtown is in the eastern fringe of the city. Most people who live in suburban West Little Rock never go downtown.

I agree, but the team inside the Peake is hard to beat for cool factor.

Touché

The Peake might have it on the inside, but the BOK has it on the outside. The original footprint of both buildings is almost identical from the air, but even this historic Tulsa downer has to give them props on the BOK. It doesn't really "fit in" with the rest of downtown, but so what....it's cool. Sort of like the Sprint Center in Kansas City....doesn't look anything like anything else in downtown, but stands out with a cool factor of 12!

The Thunder has a cool factor of 14.

Touché

As well as the inside amenities that definitely trump BOK. The new entrance also greatly improves the exterior, although still definitely not up to the level of BOK. However, as you said...which one has a major league, perennial contender as the anchor tenant and is considered a professional level quality sports arena? Everyone also talks about how BOK is one of the top concert venues in the world... the Peake was ranked higher than BOK until that certain tenant significantly reduced the available booking dates.

So yeah the BOK is pretty and has more concerts, but...

Outside of Toledo/Cleveland (I realize Cleveland is on a great lakes coast, but next to downtown it's kind of gross), the rest of those are major destination downtowns that are centered along some type of scenic coast. That's a big difference over Tulsa.

St Louis, Memphis, Omaha, Cincinnati, and Sacramento have very little development on the opposite river bank from their downtowns.

St Louis, Memphis, Omaha, Cincinnati, and Sacramento have very little development on the opposite river bank from their downtowns.

Fair enough :)

St Louis, Memphis, Omaha, Cincinnati, and Sacramento have very little development on the opposite river bank from their downtowns.

True. Most major coastal cities, with the exception of Los Angeles, also have their downtowns on the coastline which makes it on the edge of development. Likewise, one could live in Edmond or Norman and never go to downtown OKC despite it being in the center of the metro.

True. Most major coastal cities, with the exception of Los Angeles, also have their downtowns on the coastline which makes it on the edge of development. Likewise, one could live in Edmond or Norman and never go to downtown OKC despite it being in the center of the metro.

What does this have to do with anything. Theoretically one could live in SOHO and never visit Harlem........say what? If you live in Norman or Edmond and never visit downtown OKC then you are probably on house arrest or in long term care. But then again, I believe you posted elsewhere you live in OKC but aren't familiar with anything north of Paseo. Either way, what does this have to do with OKC skyline?

What does this have to do with anything. Theoretically one could live in SOHO and never visit Harlem........say what? If you live in Norman or Edmond and never visit downtown OKC then you are probably on house arrest or in long term care. But then again, I believe you posted elsewhere you live in OKC but aren't familiar with anything north of Paseo. Either way, what does this have to do with OKC skyline?

A few people above had said that Tulsa's development may be hindered by the fact their downtown isn't in a central location and mentioned that people can live in Tulsa and never go downtown. I was simply saying it doesn't make a difference and giving examples of why. And I do know several people who live in Edmond, work in the Memorial area, and never go south of Penn Square Mall.

A few people above had said that Tulsa's development may be hindered by the fact their downtown isn't in a central location and mentioned that people can live in Tulsa and never go downtown. I was simply saying it doesn't make a difference and giving examples of why. And I do know several people who live in Edmond, work in the Memorial area, and never go south of Penn Square Mall.

Quoting rare and absurd examples doesn't make it common or normal though. We can always find examples to prove a point.

Tulsa downtown hasn't grown because of their non aggressive posture as a result of complacency. They also destroyed downtown momentum in the 70s by putting in a pedestrian "mall" downtown and with the routing of streets. The Williams Center Mall also destroyed the concept of retail downtown with the failed indoor mall there. DT Tulsa has some serious catching up to do. If people aren't going downtown it has been because there has been less and less to do downtown and no real growth in downtown employment for some time. Tulsa was/is overly dependent on oil. At least OKC has the Med Center downtown and grew in the gas business.

Quoting rare and absurd examples doesn't make it common or normal though. We can always find examples to prove a point.

Tulsa downtown hasn't grown because of their non aggressive posture as a result of complacency. They also destroyed downtown momentum in the 70s by putting in a pedestrian "mall" downtown and with the routing of streets. The Williams Center Mall also destroyed the concept of retail downtown with the failed indoor mall there. DT Tulsa has some serious catching up to do. If people aren't going downtown it has been because there has been less and less to do downtown and no real growth in downtown employment for some time. Tulsa was/is overly dependent on oil. At least OKC has the Med Center downtown and grew in the gas business.

Good points. I think Tulsa has excelled in terms of neighborhood gentrification and developing entertainment districts (like OKC is currently doing with the Plaza, Midtown, and Uptown) but in terms of revitalizing their downtown on a mass scale and really shifting their business there, they have a lot of catching up to do.

Could the location of Tulsa's CBD be hurting redevelopment projects?

In OKC, you have a centrally located CBD where people pass by/through the downtown area on their way to other destinations. In Tulsa, the CBD is actually in the far NW edge of the city and not centrally located. I have never lived in Tulsa but have been there several times and driven though. If I have not been going INTO the CBD for a concert/game I have never casually driven by the CBD on my way to another destination. I think the CBD location hurts Tulsa because the majority of Tulsans and suburbanites do not regularly come into contact with the downtown area as one would in Oklahoma City.

While it probably does give the sprawl they have an amplified effect, it really is not past the point people will dive to Tulsa for something, at least for now. It is at increase the risk of loosing more attractions to suburbs like Dallas since sprawl tends to keep growing in the same direction.

Good points. I think Tulsa has excelled in terms of neighborhood gentrification and developing entertainment districts (like OKC is currently doing with the Plaza, Midtown, and Uptown) but in terms of revitalizing their downtown on a mass scale and really shifting their business there, they have a lot of catching up to do.

I agree 100%. Tulsa's midtown is where most of the vibrancy and investment has been for many years while downtown languished. Things are turning around with the Brady and Blue Dome areas really being developed in the past 5-6 years, and attractions like the BOK Center and ONEOK Field are less than 5 years old. Downtown Tulsa is now seeing the bulk of new investment, outside of some smaller infill-type projects in Cherry Street and Brookside and the Gathering Place mega-project on the river south of downtown. In terms of businesses though OKC has had Tulsa beat for several years with the growing energy presence in downtown OKC (highlighted by Devon's $700+ million investment) and of course the Thunder which has had a major positive effect on OKC.

Then there are places like Phoenix and LA which pretty much have their downtowns right in the center and have a hard time creating a significant downtown skyline.

I'm assuming you're joking about LA. Right, Kerry?

4321

I've always liked Tulsa's skyline.

I'm assuming you're joking about LA. Right, Kerry?

4321

Not to mention, LA has the Wilshire Grand development which will be about 1,100 ft. :)

I don't think it is Tulsa relative location to sprawl that is the problem as much as it is just the sprawl. Chicago, Detroit, Miami, Toledo, Cleveland, Toronto, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, and lots of other cities have their downtown skewed to one side. Then there are places like Phoenix and LA which pretty much have their downtowns right in the center and have a hard time creating a significant downtown skyline.

Slight Correction: Replace above with Vancouver and this sentence makes sense; since Downtown Vancouver is in the inner NW section of the city. Downtown Seattle is in the geographic center of the city.

Honolulu has a huge skyline for its size.