Bentonville and Ft. Smith are 82.7 miles apart. Oklahoma City and Tulsa are separated by 97.6 miles. Dallas now claims Durant, OK some 87.1 apart.

If OKC (1,477,426} -TUL (1,044,757) were designated as one MSA, it would currently represent 2,522,183.

The OKC and TUL MSA's were promoted by former Mayor Mick Cornett as one TV market which boasts more than 1.15 million TV sets back in 2008 when the NBA arrived in Oklahoma. Now the combined TV set households have leveled at 1.28 million,
Why don’t we just count Wichita and Amarillo as ours too. Lol.

Mayes County can see a big change. It's not even a micropolitain area because Pryor doesn't have 10,000 people. Yet. With the explosive growth at Mid-America park, Mayes County should be part of the Tulsa CSA and maybe even MSA someday based on commuting patterns to the park. But by US Census rule the primary city in a county has to have 10,000 people for the county to become a Micropolitan Area. Pryor needs 433 more people to get there. Once that happens I would expect Mayes to be added to the Tulsa CSA.

Cherokee County has gone back and forth with being part of the Tulsa CSA based on commuting patterns (I assume to Muskogee). It currently is not. Eventually as the Broken Arrow area grows towards Muskogee and the Owasso area grows towards Bartlesville, Washington and Muskogee counties will be part of the Tulsa MSA.

If it met the criteria to be added, it’d be added. It doesn’t. It’s that simple.

Do you not know how the census works? They donÂ’t add cities or counties to a MSA or CSA because itÂ’s close by or some other nonsensical or anecdotal reasons. They go off commuter patterns and commuter percentage.

Also, if numbers are revised in one direction or the other, itÂ’s very minimal. ItÂ’s not a drastic number. Ever.

That is absolutely incorrect, but thanks for your opinion. There has been and will always be both minor and moderate changes in yearly numbers on anything the Census reports. BLS numbers can swing by thousands or even hundreds of thousands as well on national stats and even metro level stats. The data collection methods to estimate these are not the greatest - it is certainly a clear case of garbage in, garbage out. I deal with these data points every day of my life. So I'm well versed in how these all work, thank you. I also see the revisions nonstop. Go back a few months and look at inflation numbers and see how they were eventually revised down for many months. Every data piece collected and report is prone to errors and under/over estimates.

I am more than aware that commuter patterns are a big part of it as well. It's also an incredibly dumb metric to use with comparing how regions function together. You really think Muskogee, Bartlesville, and Pryor are so far removed from Tulsa they shouldn't be analyzed as part of the MSA while portions of Osage County are literally an hour further away than those cities? The biggest reason they are currently excluded is because they have large employment centers locally with is very a typical of exurb areas. Conoco Phillips in Bartlesville, Port of Muskogee/VA in Muskogee, Mid America in Pryor, etc. all reduce the dependency of those areas to Tulsa for commuting patterns. Doesn't mean this area doesn't function as one. Just like thinking Seminole, Kingfisher, and Pottawatomie County isn't part of the OKC metro when the OKC city limits literally extend into one of those counties and is less than 10 miles from the southeast edge of Kingfisher County.

Why don’t we just count Wichita and Amarillo as ours too. Lol.

Well when looking at TV markets and regional pull ins - Wichita and Amarillo are in the scope of influence of Oklahoma City. You do realize Wichita is closer to both Oklahoma City and Tulsa than it is to Kansas City right? Look at a map. Oklahoma City pulls in a lot of regional visitors, etc. from Amarillo too - one of the major areas Oklahoma City is pulling in new population from out of state is the Amarillo MSA.

Mayes County can see a big change. It's not even a micropolitain area because Pryor doesn't have 10,000 people. Yet. With the explosive growth at Mid-America park, Mayes County should be part of the Tulsa CSA and maybe even MSA someday based on commuting patterns to the park. But by US Census rule the primary city in a county has to have 10,000 people for the county to become a Micropolitan Area. Pryor needs 433 more people to get there. Once that happens I would expect Mayes to be added to the Tulsa CSA.

Cherokee County has gone back and forth with being part of the Tulsa CSA based on commuting patterns (I assume to Muskogee). It currently is not. Eventually as the Broken Arrow area grows towards Muskogee and the Owasso area grows towards Bartlesville, Washington and Muskogee counties will be part of the Tulsa MSA.

Cherokee County is another example like you mentioned. The Tulsa area has always been vastly under estimated in terms of regional population. When you consider those areas the population of the Tulsa area is easily over 1.2 million and pushing 1.3 million. Oklahoma City's chamber even includes Payne County (Stillwater) as part of the OKC metro area in marketing materials. It's dumb to dismiss the idea that these areas aren't connected and function together as a collective region just because some BS metric about commuting the Census uses especially given remote work. It's an antiquated model. There is a reason why the Thunder was successful because it was able to build up a big fan base in Wichita, Tulsa, etc. and any pro sports in this region would benefit from that as well. The Thunder is also pretty popular in NWA/SW Missouri too. OKC leadership pitching the broader reason was absolutely correct and should be done more often.

That is absolutely incorrect, but thanks for your opinion. There has been and will always be both minor and moderate changes in yearly numbers on anything the Census reports. BLS numbers can swing by thousands or even hundreds of thousands as well on national stats and even metro level stats. The data collection methods to estimate these are not the greatest - it is certainly a clear case of garbage in, garbage out. I deal with these data points every day of my life. So I'm well versed in how these all work, thank you. I also see the revisions nonstop. Go back a few months and look at inflation numbers and see how they were eventually revised down for many months. Every data piece collected and report is prone to errors and under/over estimates.

I am more than aware that commuter patterns are a big part of it as well. It's also an incredibly dumb metric to use with comparing how regions function together. You really think Muskogee, Bartlesville, and Pryor are so far removed from Tulsa they shouldn't be analyzed as part of the MSA while portions of Osage County are literally an hour further away than those cities? The biggest reason they are currently excluded is because they have large employment centers locally with is very a typical of exurb areas. Conoco Phillips in Bartlesville, Port of Muskogee/VA in Muskogee, Mid America in Pryor, etc. all reduce the dependency of those areas to Tulsa for commuting patterns. Doesn't mean this area doesn't function as one. Just like thinking Seminole, Kingfisher, and Pottawatomie County isn't part of the OKC metro when the OKC city limits literally extend into one of those counties and is less than 10 miles from the southeast edge of Kingfisher County.

What I stated wasn’t opinion. It’s factual.

Also, you don’t think the Census and government entities don’t monitor the very things necessary to fit the criteria for the Census to deem a city or county viable to add to another metro,
Etc.


They sure as hell do. If they haven’t added or merged or included a place yet, it’s because it hasn’t met the requirements and criteria, no matter how much you THINK or BELIEVE it should.

A long list of all cities in Oklahoma comparing 2020 population with 2024 population. OKC's suburbs are growing faster than Tulsa's.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/cities/oklahoma

Cherokee County is another example like you mentioned. The Tulsa area has always been vastly under estimated in terms of regional population. When you consider those areas the population of the Tulsa area is easily over 1.2 million and pushing 1.3 million. Oklahoma City's chamber even includes Payne County (Stillwater) as part of the OKC metro area in marketing materials. It's dumb to dismiss the idea that these areas aren't connected and function together as a collective region just because some BS metric about commuting the Census uses especially given remote work. It's an antiquated model. There is a reason why the Thunder was successful because it was able to build up a big fan base in Wichita, Tulsa, etc. and any pro sports in this region would benefit from that as well. The Thunder is also pretty popular in NWA/SW Missouri too. OKC leadership pitching the broader reason was absolutely correct and should be done more often.
There’s a difference in considering a marketing area and a metropolitan area. Quit conflating the two to try to promote Tulsa.

Well when looking at TV markets and regional pull ins - Wichita and Amarillo are in the scope of influence of Oklahoma City. You do realize Wichita is closer to both Oklahoma City and Tulsa than it is to Kansas City right? Look at a map. Oklahoma City pulls in a lot of regional visitors, etc. from Amarillo too - one of the major areas Oklahoma City is pulling in new population from out of state is the Amarillo MSA.
Wow. You actually took me seriously. lol. There is a difference in marketing areas and MSA and ADI. I was reflecting on arbitrarily drawing lines around areas to skew the appearance of growth, size and influence. These designations aren’t arbitrary. There are definitions and it isn’t opinion.

If it met the criteria to be added, it’d be added. It doesn’t. It’s that simple.

That's my point, Mayes county does yet meet the criteria, not based on commute patterns, but based on the central city of Pryor not having at least 10,000 people, which it will have in the next couple of years.

If Stillwater can ever reach 50,000 it will be considered a metro area. Then it will be interesting if they will include it in the Tulsa CSA or OKC CSA. Logistically Stillwater is exact same distance from both cities, and I would think there are more commuters and economic indicators in OKC than Tulsa.

Then we would have a Oklahoma City-Shawnee-Stillwater CSA.

If Stillwater can ever reach 50,000 it will be considered a metro area. Then it will be interesting if they will include it in the Tulsa CSA or OKC CSA. Logistically Stillwater is exact same distance from both cities, and I would think there are more commuters and economic indicators in OKC than Tulsa.

Then we would have a Oklahoma City-Shawnee-Stillwater CSA.

Wow..great question. I consider it part of OKC's outlying market, but Tulsa could make an equal justification based upon as you stated "as the crow files" in distance from the city. I don't know how many people the OSU-Tulsa campuses impact with commuters heading east? I would assume for OSU purposes, Tulsa has a higher percentage of OSU Alums, compared to OKC?

From a non-milage standpoint, Stillwater is rarely included in "Green Country" and is in the OKC TV Market, but the east side of Payne County (Cushing, Yale, etc) I would assume claims Tulsa more than OKC?

Wow..great question. I consider it part of OKC's outlying market, but Tulsa could make an equal justification based upon as you stated "as the crow files" in distance from the city. I don't know how many people the OSU-Tulsa campuses impact with commuters heading east? I would assume for OSU purposes, Tulsa has a higher percentage of OSU Alums, compared to OKC?

From a non-milage standpoint, Stillwater is rarely included in "Green Country" and is in the OKC TV Market, but the east side of Payne County (Cushing, Yale, etc) I would assume claims Tulsa more than OKC?

Also, Stillwater is in the 405 area code designation area, so there's that.

OSU has significantly greater ties to Tulsa with its urban campus, health science center and hospital all in downtown Tulsa. Overall economic ties are likely 50/50 split between OKC and Tulsa - the north side of Edmond and west side of Stillwater are growing faster than the west side of Tulsa and east side of Stillwater

If Stillwater can ever reach 50,000 it will be considered a metro area. Then it will be interesting if they will include it in the Tulsa CSA or OKC CSA. Logistically Stillwater is exact same distance from both cities, and I would think there are more commuters and economic indicators in OKC than Tulsa.

Then we would have a Oklahoma City-Shawnee-Stillwater CSA.

Stillwater is a micropolitan area today and would be included in a CSA if commuter patterns were large enough with OKC or Tulsa. .

Yes, but a designated metro area holds more weight than a micro area. We will see, unfortunately it probably won't be actually designated until the 2030 census.

If Stillwater can ever reach 50,000 it will be considered a metro area. Then it will be interesting if they will include it in the Tulsa CSA or OKC CSA. Logistically Stillwater is exact same distance from both cities, and I would think there are more commuters and economic indicators in OKC than Tulsa.

Then we would have a Oklahoma City-Shawnee-Stillwater CSA.

It wouldn’t be based on size. It’s about commuting patterns. How hard of a concept is this for some of y’all to understand?

It wouldn’t be based on size. It’s about commuting patterns. How hard of a concept is this for some of y’all to understand?

No, you should learn how to read and not reply just to troll. No one here is refuting commuting patterns being part of the consideration. In this example, it's perfectly reasonable to think as Stillwater grows and the fact that Guthrie is nearly a suburb of OKC now that Stillwater may eventually develop enough ties between either Tulsa or OKC to be grouped in. No where did anyone say it should at this second or that it is.

Just like my past comments you either didn't read/comprehend (I know they were challenging topics of discussion) or you just ignored them to be a troll. I stated my option on how dumb I think commuting patterns being such an important factor. People like you are insufferable to debate or discuss a topic over.

Stillwater is a micropolitan area today and would be included in a CSA if commuter patterns were large enough with OKC or Tulsa. .

I wouldn't be that surprised if Enid ends up dropping its MSA designation, I think it's losing a few hundred people a year now. Stillwater I think is probably insulated enough that commuting patterns and other factors will never pull it into OKC or Tulsa MSA anytime soon. It's more likely to be a solo MSA area like Enid is now. I don't recall ever seeing the Census take into consideration student commuting patters I believe it is just employment commuting only. There's not many professors/ect with the university that commute into Stillwater from outside, it's mostly students who can't relocate or are working part or full time in addition to school and have to stay in Tulsa or OKC.

That's my point, Mayes county does yet meet the criteria, not based on commute patterns, but based on the central city of Pryor not having at least 10,000 people, which it will have in the next couple of years.

I don't think he reads or if he does he's a troll or can't comprehend basic discussions.

There’s a difference in considering a marketing area and a metropolitan area. Quit conflating the two to try to promote Tulsa.

What a ridiculously dumb response. Yes. I want to promote Tulsa AND Oklahoma City. Where did I say anything negative? I am literally pointing out stupid things about how the Census looks at MSA/CSA and gave examples of both areas. Do you read either? Tell me exactly where that response hurt you lol

What a ridiculously dumb response. Yes. I want to promote Tulsa AND Oklahoma City. Where did I say anything negative? I am literally pointing out stupid things about how the Census looks at MSA/CSA and gave examples of both areas. Do you read either? Tell me exactly where that response hurt you lol
Ouch. You got me. My turn to lol

Ouch. You got me. My turn to lol

I guess with you someone could just jump out and say "Tulsa" instead of "Boo" and you'd freak out. I guess it's a forbidden word. Thou shall not say Tulsa on OKCTalk unless it's to **** on the city.

I guess with you someone could just jump out and say "Tulsa" instead of "Boo" and you'd freak out. I guess it's a forbidden word. Thou shall not say Tulsa on OKCTalk unless it's to **** on the city.

Got me again. That’s probably why I lived in Tulsa.

Now, if we can stop the school yard banter…

The earlier point made earlier is that some on here try so hard to promote the Tulsa area even when data doesn’t support it, and they don’t let it grow. A thread about OKC growth gets hijacked again.

You should start a thread on Tulsa growth.

Got me again. That’s probably why I lived in Tulsa.

Then pull the stick out of your a** - must be difficult living there if you can't deal with anything halfway positive said.

Then pull the stick out of your a** - must be difficult living there if you can't deal with anything halfway positive said.

I understand your pretzel logic arguments, but the bottom line is that Tulsa is stagnant and OKC is growing. You know you're stretching when you're trying to pull in places like Tahlequah and Locust Grove to find areas of growth. One is not like the other.

I understand your pretzel logic arguments, but the bottom line is that Tulsa is stagnant and OKC is growing. You know you're stretching when you're trying to pull in places like Tahlequah and Locust Grove to find areas of growth. One is not like the other.

Again, that’s true of the city proper, but both census MSAs are growing. OKC is growing faster.

I understand your pretzel logic arguments, but the bottom line is that Tulsa is stagnant and OKC is growing. You know you're stretching when you're trying to pull in places like Tahlequah and Locust Grove to find areas of growth. One is not like the other.

I’d imagine lots of things seem like pretzel logic if you conflate any growth below boomtown status as being stagnant.

I’d imagine lots of things seem like pretzel logic if you conflate any growth below boomtown status as being stagnant.

Exactly lol. Just shows how some people spout off such dumb opinions not remotely based on any facts or even doing a simple google search to see if what they're saying is slightly based in reality. The two counties with significant growth in the Tulsa area are Rogers and Wagoner which have been in the MSA definition for a very long time. If I was "looking for growth" it wouldn't be adding in Cherokee County, Mayes County, etc. as most of those have been stagnant growth wise. Mayes County has a huge lack of housing issue and that's pushed a lot of growth into Rogers County toward the Claremore area. Mayes County has barely grown population wise. Cherokee County I believe is growing population wise again but it hasn't been anything massive. Mayes County has a lot of potential to boom population wise if they can get out of their own way and make it easier to build housing. The Tulsa MSA is growing +1% per year since 2020 while OKC MSA is pushing +2% almost anymore consistently. Both are growing faster than a lot of major metros, far from "stagnant".

No, you should learn how to read and not reply just to troll. No one here is refuting commuting patterns being part of the consideration. In this example, it's perfectly reasonable to think as Stillwater grows and the fact that Guthrie is nearly a suburb of OKC now that Stillwater may eventually develop enough ties between either Tulsa or OKC to be grouped in. No where did anyone say it should at this second or that it is.

Just like my past comments you either didn't read/comprehend (I know they were challenging topics of discussion) or you just ignored them to be a troll. I stated my option on how dumb I think commuting patterns being such an important factor. People like you are insufferable to debate or discuss a topic over.

This insult riddled sad excuse of a response is just pure irony. I doubt you’ll understand why it’s ironic but oh brother, it is.

I’d imagine lots of things seem like pretzel logic if you conflate any growth below boomtown status as being stagnant.

Which is odd because by that logic that he seems to be using, OKC growth is stagnant as because OKC metro growth sure as heck isn’t “booming”.

Exactly lol. Just shows how some people spout off such dumb opinions not remotely based on any facts or even doing a simple google search to see if what they're saying is slightly based in reality. The two counties with significant growth in the Tulsa area are Rogers and Wagoner which have been in the MSA definition for a very long time. If I was "looking for growth" it wouldn't be adding in Cherokee County, Mayes County, etc. as most of those have been stagnant growth wise. Mayes County has a huge lack of housing issue and that's pushed a lot of growth into Rogers County toward the Claremore area. Mayes County has barely grown population wise. Cherokee County I believe is growing population wise again but it hasn't been anything massive. Mayes County has a lot of potential to boom population wise if they can get out of their own way and make it easier to build housing. The Tulsa MSA is growing +1% per year since 2020 while OKC MSA is pushing +2% almost anymore consistently. Both are growing faster than a lot of major metros, far from "stagnant".

The OKC and Tulsa metro areas have literally the same percentage growth the last three years.

In the last two years the difference was nothing. 1 percent growth in OKC to .8 percent growth in Tulsa,

Neither metro area is booming or close to booming but neither is stagnant.

OKC really has nothing to boast about or hold over Tulsa’s head when it comes to population growth.

Both regions are experiencing moderate healthy growth.

If you really analyze the numbers, what really gives OKC the population growth advantage is their much higher birth rate. Tulsa basically has no growth from new births as the birth/death rate is nearly identical.

There should just be a separate OKC-Tulsa Argument thread or something for this stuff.

Both metro areas are healthy & growing which is great for the state. We like to take short trips to Tulsa frequently. That said, it's not on the same level as OKC and we will continue to experience more growth here. Many people who can work remotely that are moving to OK or even investing in property here are considering both areas often times. I've lost several folks who opted for Tulsa but win more that end up in OKC. For one thing it's still a good bit cheaper in Tulsa & with inflation still alive and well both areas should continue to grow. OKC is just catching up to the other top 20 cities and what's good for us should be good for Tulsa to some degree.

The OKC and Tulsa metro areas have literally the same percentage growth the last three years.

In the last two years the difference was nothing. 1 percent growth in OKC to .8 percent growth in Tulsa,

Neither metro area is booming or close to booming but neither is stagnant.

OKC really has nothing to boast about or hold over Tulsa’s head when it comes to population growth.

Both regions are experiencing moderate healthy growth.

If you really analyze the numbers, what really gives OKC the population growth advantage is their much higher birth rate. Tulsa basically has no growth from new births as the birth/death rate is nearly identical.

I have nothing against Tulsa, love visiting there and OKC, have no dog in the hunt...but to characterize the growth of the two metropolitan areas as "literally the same" is simply untrue and looking at it through Green Country colored glasses.

It does appear that since the last census the growth rates have seemingly become at least less lopsided toward OKC, but three years doesn't a trend make. Nonetheless, according to the US Census, OKC metro growth rate from 2020-2023 is 3.66% vs. Tulsa's 2.90%. I'm sorry, that's not "literally the same percentage". And in terms of a statistically short 3-year period of population growth, a 0.76% difference is not insignificant.

Looking at the recent decadal census numbers, it's not even close.

OKC
2000-2010 1,252,987 15.7%
2010-2020 1,425,695 13.8%

Tulsa
2000-2010 937,478 9.1%
2010-2020 1,015,331 8.3%

Tulsa's "little brother" complex is annoying.

I have nothing against Tulsa, love visiting there and OKC, have no dog in the hunt...but to characterize the growth of the two metropolitan areas as "literally the same" is simply untrue and looking at it through Green Country colored glasses.

It does appear that since the last census the growth rates have seemingly become at least less lopsided toward OKC, but three years doesn't a trend make. Nonetheless, according to the US Census, OKC metro growth rate from 2020-2023 is 3.66% vs. Tulsa's 2.90%. I'm sorry, that's not "literally the same percentage". And in terms of a statistically short 3-year period of population growth, a 0.76% difference is not insignificant.

Looking at the recent decadal census numbers, it's not even close.

OKC
2000-2010 1,252,987 15.7%
2010-2020 1,425,695 13.8%

Tulsa
2000-2010 937,478 9.1%
2010-2020 1,015,331 8.3%

To be fair the other poster was just talking about the last 3 years which is true but OKC is still growing slightly faster even in the last 3 years but it has evened out some. It's a good thing to see Tulsa growing comparable finally. It gets this region closer to hitting critical mass for a lot of things like retailers, business expansions, etc.

OKC has by far been growing faster since 2000. While others may not call it 'booming' for either - there is a point when you cross into 'booming' that it is good for no one. Infrastructure can only be built so fast and just look at places like Austin, Research Triangle in NC, etc. and tell me what about that growth rate is desirable outside of the pure population growth numbers. It creates horrific traffic, unaffordable rent/housing cost rises, etc. etc. Having a growth rate between 0.75% a year and 2% a year is the ideal range, even if others hate that and consider it 'stagnant'

To be fair the other poster was just talking about the last 3 years which is true but OKC is still growing slightly faster even in the last 3 years but it has evened out some. It's a good thing to see Tulsa growing comparable finally. It gets this region closer to hitting critical mass for a lot of things like retailers, business expansions, etc.

OKC has by far been growing faster since 2000. While others may not call it 'booming' for either - there is a point when you cross into 'booming' that it is good for no one. Infrastructure can only be built so fast and just look at places like Austin, Research Triangle in NC, etc. and tell me what about that growth rate is desirable outside of the pure population growth numbers. It creates horrific traffic, unaffordable rent/housing cost rises, etc. etc. Having a growth rate between 0.75% a year and 2% a year is the ideal range, even if others hate that and consider it 'stagnant'
Sounds like a Yogi Berra ism…. No body wants to move to those boomtowns because they are growing so fast.

Austin and Raleigh have lots of good things going on as a result of their prosperity and growth.

Tulsa's "little brother" complex is annoying.

Yes. It seems like there are some on here who try to turn every thread into an “ oh, yeah, but Tulsa has….” thread. They need a “Tulsatalk” site so we can all go there tell them how OKC compares and is better. There are Tulsa threads here and they can be interesting. I love knowing what is going on there, and having lived there am glad for them. But their insecurity on OKC threads gets old.

I have nothing against Tulsa, love visiting there and OKC, have no dog in the hunt...but to characterize the growth of the two metropolitan areas as "literally the same" is simply untrue and looking at it through Green Country colored glasses….
You’re wasting your time in thoughtfully replying to an avowed and demonstrated OKC hater, but to be clear he’s not looking through Green Country glasses. I would encourage anyone considering engaging with this poster to (I’m being very serious here) click on his profile (https://www.okctalk.com/member.php?u=31700) and read through a few pages of his posts. They speak for themselves. He has two types of posts on this board:


Promoting projects happening in San Antonio (as a reader I appreciate those and find them interesting…I assume he lives in SA)
Throwing cold water (and worse) on anything happening or being discussed in a positive manner regarding OKC

I’m not kidding about this…just go check his history. Let me know when you find a single one speaking positively regarding activity in OKC. His negativity toward OKC is predictable to the point of being cartoonish. And his demeanor to other posters has also become increasingly insulting and abusive, often without provocation. Again, go check the posts. It’s in black and white.

Yes. It seems like there are some on here who try to turn every thread into an “ oh, yeah, but Tulsa has….” thread. They need a “Tulsatalk” site so we can all go there tell them how OKC compares and is better. There are Tulsa threads here and they can be interesting. I love knowing what is going on there, and having lived there am glad for them. But their insecurity on OKC threads gets old.

There are dozens of threads and thousands of posts just like that on TulsaNow, especially on the 'the burbs' sub-board.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?board=32.0

There are dozens of threads and thousands of posts just like that on TulsaNow, especially on the 'the burbs' sub-board.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?board=32.0

Yeah TulsaNow kinda sucks. I feel like the people running it stopped giving a crap in like 2012.

Tulsa's "little brother" complex is annoying.

Between the overcompensating from Tulsans and the haughty projecting from Texans, God bless Wichita and Kansas for stabilizing the attitudes around here.

There are dozens of threads and thousands of posts just like that on TulsaNow, especially on the 'the burbs' sub-board.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?board=32.0

And I would suggest nobody go to r/Tulsa on Reddit. The insecurity and OKC bashing is insane. There’s one recent thread about why Tulsa should be the state capital, lol. I just don’t understand the obsession. Most people here rarely even think of Tulsa.

Most people here rarely even think of Tulsa.

which is both very true and also makes them furious ...

And in terms of a statistically short 3-year period of population growth, a 0.76% difference is not insignificant.

And the base is significantly different, too.

which is both very true and also makes them furious ...

And here's what I don't get Tulsa is a fine city. Lot's to like about it, and I'm fine with with their pride. At the same time you can tell them you agree that they live in a nice city, and yet that still won't keep them from insulting OKC somehow. I used to quip back something like oh that must be why they are the Tulsa Thunder or something else along the line. Now I just ignore them.

The thing that cracks me up the most is the people I know that are the worst about this, live in Broken Arrow.

The OKC and Tulsa metro areas have literally the same percentage growth the last three years..

What?

LOL.

OK

I've told this story a few times...

A few years ago I met friends from California who were in Tulsa for a wedding. I drove up there Sunday morning and they insisted on Dilley's Diner which was fine by me.

When the waitress came by, made small talk and discovered they were from Cali, I had to point out that that's where I knew them from but now lived in OKC.

This nice young woman proceeded to go on the most negative tirade about OKC, how it was ugly, how the Tulsa art scene and creative classes were miles superior, etc. I had JUST told her I was from there and it was so ridiculous it was all I could do to stop from blurting out, "You just messed with the wrong guy. Allow me to eviscerate your opinions with tons of facts."

I decided against it and later told my friends that I couldn't imagine this working the other way; that a server in OKC would bash Tulsa to no end. I never hear anybody doing that here.


I honestly wish Tulsa well. Anything they can do to raise the bar in Oklahoma is positive for everyone.

^^^

In my experience, most of that sentiment is really just informed by ignorance at this point. Tulsa does have a good local art scene and has strong creative organizations doing good things in and around the city. What you will find, though, when talking to someone who feels it is superior to OKC in that respect, is how little they know about OKC's art scene specifically, its creative class, or basically OKC in general.

I'll just say that anyone saying either city is "miles ahead" of the other in that respect is simply revealing that they do not attend or participate in cultural / arts events in both cities.

Metros ranked by % increase from 2022-23. OKC at #11, Tulsa at #13
https://i.imgur.com/cGJormX.png

The most surprising to me in that chart is the relatively moderate growth in Denver, Las Vegas, and Kansas City

Metros ranked by % increase from 2022-23. OKC at #11, Tulsa at #13

What that shows is that OKC's growth rate was 18% higher rate than Tulsa's growth rate during that time (1.04% vs. 1.23%)

And, because the base for that percentage growth is higher in OKC by about 40%, the result is that OKC's gross growth in population was about 67% more than Tulsa's during that time.

But we're literally talking about 7,000 people, so the comparison is stupid on its face to begin with.

DFW at 8.1M! That’s basically the population of the entire state of Oklahoma x 2.

The most surprising to me in that chart is the relatively moderate growth in Denver, Las Vegas, and Kansas City

Exactly. All grew by less percentage, but by more people.

Metros ranked by % increase from 2022-23. OKC at #11, Tulsa at #13
https://i.imgur.com/cGJormX.png

It's crazy how Florida and Texas just dominates the top 10!

Metros ranked by % increase from 2022-23. OKC at #11, Tulsa at #13
https://i.imgur.com/cGJormX.png

It's crazy how Florida and Texas just dominates the top 10!

Metros ranked by % increase from 2022-23. OKC at #11, Tulsa at #13
https://i.imgur.com/cGJormX.png

Holy smokes, OKC being just behind Nashville really puts our growth in context given how quickly that region is taking off

It's crazy how Florida and Texas just dominates the top 10!

Weather has taken a huge priority in most people's QOL. Especially since the internet easily connects us to everything. If OKC had better weather, we would be right there with TX, but unfortunately winters here are still pretty bad relative to the TX cities.

Weather has taken a huge priority in most people's QOL. Especially since the internet easily connects us to everything. If OKC had better weather, we would be right there with TX, but unfortunately winters here are still pretty bad relative to the TX cities.

I think the DFW and OKC weather is almost identical. I'm guessing the average high temperature is one degree warmer in DFW than in OKC.

Now, that arctic region that is Tulsa I might agree with.