I know that Tulsa has stuff going on in it's downtown, and that the Brady District is filling in nicely, but it all seems very small potatoes by comparison. I think around here we can all agree perception is a lot and OKC's problem pre-MAPS was the perception of falling behind every peer city. It also goes without saying that Little Rock, Albuquerque, Des Moines, Omaha, Louisville, etc are all moving forward with awesome things.

How far behind do you think Tulsa has fallen now? How much further behind has it got before it hits rock bottom? Maybe then we'll see a real "Vision" that involves more than just corporate handouts. Don't think Tulsa's leaders understand how a community visioning process is supposed to work or even really care.

#oldmoneyprobz if you ask me. Obviously Tulsa is still a very beautiful city, but a sustained area like Midtown Tulsa can probably hold on even if Tulsa fails to attract another young college graduate. It's the river, downtown, uptown, etc that won't develop if Tulsa doesn't find a spark and the further out suburbs that will decline more (could Memorial, w all its apartments, look a lot like South Peoria soon? No doubt)

I think Tulsa still bests OKC in a few areas. Tulsa has better critical mass in its entertainment districts (compared with Midtown, Plaza, etc), a better local music scene, better concerts, better shopping, better parks, and is an overall prettier city. Question is though, for how long? OKC is improving much faster than Tulsa is currently, but thats not necessarily a bad thing for Tulsa.

Given that OKC is a good deal larger than Tulsa, it should be expected to offer more. The fact OKC is just starting to catch up with Tulsa shows how far OKC really fell behind its peer cities. There is still a ways to go before OKC catches its own peer cities of Louisville, Memphis, Richmond, etc, but its on its way. Tulsa's position should be above Little Rock and Wichita but below OKC, and I think that's how it will ultimately shape up. Tulsa isn't stagnant by any means though, there is a lot going on there and it still remains one of the more attractive cities in the region. Just because within the next decade, Tulsa will likely no longer be the premier city in Oklahoma doesn't mean its any less of a city or failing in any way. Tulsa is still well above Little Rock and Des Moines and those cities have a very little chance of catching Tulsa in the near future.

Des Moines????? (gag)
But seriously . . . There isn't any truth to the rumor that they are planning to move The Philbrook to OKC and plop it down on the current location of that Stage Center eyesore, is there? The Philbrook and The Gilcrease are the only two reasons I can think of not to simply drive right through Tulsa which is what we do 90% of the time we are in that area on the way to Grand Lake or Minnesota. (background for the Des Moines???(wtf???) lead-in.)

Des Moines????? (gag)
But seriously . . . There isn't any truth to the rumor that they are planning to move The Philbrook to OKC and plop it down on the current location of that Stage Center eyesore, is there? The Philbrook and The Gilcrease are the only two reasons I can think of not to simply drive right through Tulsa which is what we do 90% of the time we are in that area on the way to Grand Lake or Minnesota. (background for the Des Moines???(wtf???) lead-in.)

Des Moines is impressive for a metro of less than 600k people. It's nicer than Little Rock, but its nowhere near Tulsa or OKC. It's more of a Wichita and even that is pushing it. Des Moines and Little Rock really don't belong in the same conversation with Tulsa, OKC, Memphis, Louisville, etc.

I highly doubt the Philbrook would move to OKC.

I saw a comedian one time, named Ron Shock, who claimed to be from Iowa . . . and not only from Iowa, but from Des Moines. He said that the literal translation of "Des Moines" was "Without Life." I would have to add " . . . but with lots of traffic jams." You're right: What is Des Moines doing in this conversation?

Des Moines????? (gag)
But seriously . . . There isn't any truth to the rumor that they are planning to move The Philbrook to OKC and plop it down on the current location of that Stage Center eyesore, is there? The Philbrook and The Gilcrease are the only two reasons I can think of not to simply drive right through Tulsa which is what we do 90% of the time we are in that area on the way to Grand Lake or Minnesota. (background for the Des Moines???(wtf???) lead-in.)

It seems really unlikely any non profit museum will relocate between metro's, generally their boards are going to have a vested interest in the city/region they are in and unless they just can not keep up the property which is owned by Tulsa why would they. Possibly one or more of the collections might be loaned, traded or bought by one here.

A large percentage if not most people go to Philbrook to see the house and the gardens. Everything about Philbrook is Tulsa history, aside from some of the art collections, which could move to or visit other museums. Philbrook is all Tulsa, it makes no sense anywhere else.

As for Tulsa falling behind....well I don't really think it is. There are other cities that look much better on paper, but I think a huge part of that is that Tulsa sucks at marketing itself. If we had a serious marketing campaign, Tulsa would look much better from the outside looking in. We really seem to finally be catching the eye of many retailers that haven't been here before, as Costco is rumored to have picked a location to build, and we have several new grocery stores but I can't remember their names as of now. A second Whole Foods is under construction....etc.

No, there's nothing huge going on in Tulsa right now, but living here and seeing the little things advance one doesn't get the impression of a stagnant or dying city. We're not a boom town, probably never will be, but it's getting better here. I have faith in Tulsa, it's been my city forever and likely will continue to be for many years ahead.

A large percentage if not most people go to Philbrook to see the house and the gardens. Everything about Philbrook is Tulsa history, aside from some of the art collections, which could move to or visit other museums. Philbrook is all Tulsa, it makes no sense anywhere else.

As for Tulsa falling behind....well I don't really think it is. There are other cities that look much better on paper, but I think a huge part of that is that Tulsa sucks at marketing itself. If we had a serious marketing campaign, Tulsa would look much better from the outside looking in. We really seem to finally be catching the eye of many retailers that haven't been here before, as Costco is rumored to have picked a location to build, and we have several new grocery stores but I can't remember their names as of now. A second Whole Foods is under construction....etc.

No, there's nothing huge going on in Tulsa right now, but living here and seeing the little things advance one doesn't get the impression of a stagnant or dying city. We're not a boom town, probably never will be, but it's getting better here. I have faith in Tulsa, it's been my city forever and likely will continue to be for many years ahead.

This is a pretty good analysis. In my opinion Tulsa is a well-balanced city in a way OKC is not yet. What OKC has done a far better job on is marketting itself so people outside Oklahoma are finally starting to take notice of what's going on here.

Some people in Tulsa seem to think differently...

OKC's Impressive New Marketing Campaign (http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=19795.0)

Yeah everybody in that link was saying exactly what I was saying. OKC is doing a far better job at marketting itself.

If I were the Tulsa Chamber of Commerce, I would really try to market Tulsa's arts scene, historic neighborhoods, shopping, outdoor recreation, and young (single) professional-oriented nightlife. Those are areas in my opinion Tulsa really outshines OKC and if marketed well could put Tulsa on the radar for young grads looking to relocate.

Tulsa is probably the least-known city its size nationally, and that's not because it doesn't offer anything.

One thing that stood out to be is the posters in that forum talk about how OKC is going to leave Tulsa in the dust. Shouldn't OKC be the superior city by default with nearly 33% more population in its metro?

The only things Tulsa and OKC have in common is that they are both in Oklahoma. Tulsa is Southeastern (culturally), OKC Western. Tulsa is compact and has had historically better bus transport (for obvious reasons). OKC is totally built by the "car culture" and spread out (though some of this spread was actually accomplished initially with light rail).
The basis of employment in OKC is government (City, State, and Fed. - both Tinker and FAA). Tulsa has always been fed by big company - oil or aviation. Tulsa's limit on growth was geographic - large river, hills. OKC could spread because it lacked both of these elements. Tulsa is regional - capital of "green country" and the hills of the Southwest Ozarks. OKC - state government and deals equally with Lawton, Enid, Stillwater, Ada, and Henryetta. Tulsans don't even know the Witchita Mts. and Salt Plains exist.

Though it is true that Tulsa has had some 'hard-knocks' of recent, it still manages to find its way without OKC's help. This is a good thing, having two major metro areas that are dissimilar in a small state (population-wise) is a blessing. The 'fighting' between the two cities is amusing as it is impossible for them to function the same. It is also healthy as it encourages growth in each city. Oklahoma's leaders in the last century understood this - thus the creation of the Turner Turnpike. What Oklahoma needs to do now is to follow-up this growth engine (transportation) by creating self-funded (like MAPS) rapid transport speed train that runs between the two cities and in the 2 cities (light rail). I always like both cities - for what they offer that the other does not.

I study cities and research them on a daily, especially cities like Tulsa, Memphis, Omaha, Nashville, and Louisville.

I live in Oklahoma City and have positives and negatives about Tulsa and OKC.

Starting with Tulsa: Tulsa has better architecture, infrastructure planning, city beautification, and a lot cleaner than OKC, they also have the only true suburban office park with high rises in Warren Place. They have a fantastic arts scene and city park system. The problem with Tulsa is they lack job creation, city branding, and vision, they don't have a plan to build from and gain momentum. There is also no true leadership in city hall, and no forward thinking city council.

Now Oklahoma City: Oklahoma City's transportation infrastructure sucks, lacks city beautification, and overall poor city planning for road infrastructure, and commercial and residential developments. Oklahoma City is the only city I know with dirty industry aligning the interstates instead of nice midsized office buildings and homes. All the nice midrise office buildings are clustered in one area in Quail Springs Office Park and NW Expressway with no real planning. The crime rate here is higher than it should be for a city our size, our public safety system lacks. Now what Oklahoma City has is great job creation and retention, established and dynamic districts, energy, booming retail developments, river developments, and true vision. The good thing about OKC is we have plans in place to better our city for the future. The problem is that we are doing things now that we should have done 20 years ago, now we are going back and redoing things that got messed up in the 80's. Okc has vision and momentum, and a forward thinking chamber which helps. I could care less if we get new office towers, office towers don't make a city, they are just good for skyline pictures. Okc needs to focus more on transportation, city beautification, and our public safety and education system.

OKC is building its downtown up at a rate that exceeds any normal peer city and suggests a rise like Austin or Charlotte. It is gaining corporations and towers left and right. Tulsa is losing major employers, after a decade of population loss, has a city hall is political disarray, and is not building its downtown. I'm not stoking the flames either, that's just the way it is. I used to be Tulsa's biggest defender on here, but I feel like the two cities are seriously growing apart and moving in opposite directions. OKC is achieving its big city aspirations and Tulsa doesn't even aspire to be any bigger.

I also don't understand this critical mass that Tulsa allegedly has. Only one city has a Bricktown. I understand wanting to ignore Bricktown and not frequenting its clubs and bars, but come on, that's what happens with true critical mass - you unfortunately attract more people from all over the state rather than just the neighborhood.

Downtown Tulsa has significantly more grayfield than OKC. To say it's such a beautiful city that it doesn't need the development of OKC is absurd, no offense.

What is so special about Bricktown? It's a nice little area to go visit for a while, not much more. There's nothing overly creative, special or unique about it. Bricktown does not scream "Oklahoma City!" to me. It's just a fairly run of the mill district.

I haven't been to OKC since the summer, but I can say that the city gets better every time I'm there. Last time I was there I enjoyed driving around downtown and seeing all the new developments and progress that has been made. Devon Tower is awe inspiring. However, I don't go back home to Tulsa disappointed at all that we don't have.

Tulsa is not the same city as OKC. Tulsa does not have the aspirations to be the same city as OKC. They will never be the same. Tulsa will, more than likely, be the smaller less economically important city when compared to OKC. And I really do not care. Most Tulsans don't care. The job market in Tulsa doesn't suck. The city doesn't seem to be losing population. The sky seems to be staying well above our heads.

I am highly frustrated, however, when people from out of state don't know where Tulsa is. There is no marketing of this city! It is pathetic! Our city leaders don't take what we have and show the world, heck I really don't know what they do. The city government is a mess, I 100% agree with that, and its beyond frustrating. But...the mindset of the citizens of Tulsa is changing. I can see and feel it happening. There is a lot of progress behind the scenes right now, I just think we're in between waves of development. Give it a while, and I think we'll see some amazing things for the city of Tulsa.

The only things Tulsa and OKC have in common is that they are both in Oklahoma. Tulsa is Southeastern (culturally), OKC Western. Tulsa is compact and has had historically better bus transport (for obvious reasons). OKC is totally built by the "car culture" and spread out (though some of this spread was actually accomplished initially with light rail).
The basis of employment in OKC is government (City, State, and Fed. - both Tinker and FAA). Tulsa has always been fed by big company - oil or aviation. Tulsa's limit on growth was geographic - large river, hills. OKC could spread because it lacked both of these elements. Tulsa is regional - capital of "green country" and the hills of the Southwest Ozarks. OKC - state government and deals equally with Lawton, Enid, Stillwater, Ada, and Henryetta. Tulsans don't even know the Witchita Mts. and Salt Plains exist.

Though it is true that Tulsa has had some 'hard-knocks' of recent, it still manages to find its way without OKC's help. This is a good thing, having two major metro areas that are dissimilar in a small state (population-wise) is a blessing. The 'fighting' between the two cities is amusing as it is impossible for them to function the same. It is also healthy as it encourages growth in each city. Oklahoma's leaders in the last century understood this - thus the creation of the Turner Turnpike. What Oklahoma needs to do now is to follow-up this growth engine (transportation) by creating self-funded (like MAPS) rapid transport speed train that runs between the two cities and in the 2 cities (light rail). I always like both cities - for what they offer that the other does not.


I love that you pointed out the regional differences between the cities. I think of Tulsa of being in the south. Not Dixie, deep south, but south. Definitely not the midwest or southwest. OKC feels more western, if not even southwestern to me. I think the terrain has a lot to do with this, but the design of the cities is pretty different as well.

Honestly, I think Tulsa and Birmingham are more similar in terms of "the feel" of them than are Tulsa and OKC.

I also don't understand this critical mass that Tulsa allegedly has. Only one city has a Bricktown. I understand wanting to ignore Bricktown and not frequenting its clubs and bars, but come on, that's what happens with true critical mass - you unfortunately attract more people from all over the state rather than just the neighborhood.


OKC lacks a district like Blue Dome or Brady, a magnet for hipsters and young professionals. There are a few budding districts like the Paseo, Midtown, Plaza, and most recently Film Row, but none of them have really taken the lead as the go-to place for that type of scene. Once one of the aforementioned districts hits critical mass, that district will begin to support businesses that nowhere in OKC could currently support.

Bricktown is the only district in OKC that has critical mass, but it attracts an entirely different scene than the Blue Dome or Brady districts in Tulsa do. Compared to Charlotte where I moved from, Bricktown is like the Epicentre and NC Music Factory. Brady and Blue Dome are like NoDA and Southend, which OKC doesn't currently anything comparable.

Yay, another OKC vs. Tulsa thread!

I will say, until this past November I would disagree that Tulsa is still "falling behind" OKC. It seemed like the city was making real progress. And then that mayor of yours slapped together that Vision 2 disaster and I was just like :doh::doh::doh:

And therein lies the problem. Until the leadership of Tulsa starts getting it I think Tulsa will continue to grow slowly, or at least slower than it should.

When it comes to job growth, besides Austin, you really cannot beat OKC right now. There is a real dynamism here that is breeding a lot of entrepreneurship. That chamber video released this week may have dripped with breathless optimism, but its really not that far off from reality. It really amazes me how many young people here own their own businesses, and this motivates me personally to reach for more in my own career.

I speak as someone who has some business connections in both Tulsa and OKC. In Tulsa, you can probably make a little more money, especially if you are working outside oil and gas and aerospace. But the opportunities here are just so much better. There are a handful of people at my job who are from Tulsa, and all have varying opinions of this area. But all say moving to OKC has been great for their careers and none are moving back any time soon. With more disposable income comes more arts, shopping and restaurants. And you can already see this in OKC, although maybe not as fast as some would like.

This certainly isn't to suggest that the economy is terrible in Tulsa; quite the contrary. But the biggest thing I noticed is it is incredibly difficult to network in Tulsa. It is the ultimate old-money, "who you know" type of place. That can be quite intimidating, especially for transplants. And I hate to go there, but as a minority, Tulsa has a bit of a reputation of not being the most inclusive community. Its frankly something that the entire state needs to work on. But I know several African american and hispanic professionals who say moving to Tulsa is a no-no.

In America post-Great Recession, people are going to move to where they can make a living, so long as it is not a cultural wasteland. That's why places like Boston and Chicago, both much superior to anything around here, are bleeding out population at an alarming rate. In this sense, I think OKC is in a good spot, but its precarious. We still have some ways to reverse some very poor planning in the past 30 years. And there are a lot of external events that could happen. Chesapeake getting bought, a bombthrower getting elected to the city council, really any number of things could throw off OKC's progress. So lets just knock on wood and hope good times continue.

The problem in comparing Tulsa to Oklahoma City is that its not a fair comparison anymore. Maybe 15 years ago it was a equal comparison, but in the last 15 years Oklahoma City has grown and expanded much more rapidly than Tulsa. Its hard to compare metros when there is a 300,000 population difference. Of course Oklahoma City is going to have more momentum and more developments because its a bigger city. Tulsa should be compared to a city its size like Omaha. Oklahoma City should be compared to cities like Louisville and Memphis. Austin and Charlotte are so far ahead of us in development that its no even close, Austin doesn't even have a pro sports franchise and they are one of the fastest, urban, and dynamic growing cities in the nation, that's intriguing. If OKC want to look at a city to model after Nashville is our best option. The developments and growth in Nashville are astonishing and its not that far out of reach from OKC.

Omaha and Tulsa are about the same size, and have some of they same characteristics. Both are beautiful cities, well planned, and have nice up and coming districts. What give Omaha a little edge over Tulsa is that they have a good marketing campaign and their population growth rate is faster. The Shamrock Development in downtown Omaha is going to be something both Tulsa and OKC will envy once completed. Moreover, Omaha has a nice river development with high rise condos and pedestrian access. A lot of young professionals call downtown Omaha home, Omaha has a lot of buying power also. After OKC, I believe Omaha is the next medium sized city to start booming with new office towers and mixed-use developments.

The Shamrock Development (Omaha)
Status: Approved
Location: Downtown Omaha
Note: This would have been great on the old Ford site where the proposed convention center is going.

http://www.leoadaly-omaha.com/images/stories/PostImage/2011-10-28_MECA/view6_1018_sm.jpg

http://www.leoadaly-omaha.com/images/stories/PostImage/2011-10-28_MECA/view5_1018_sm.jpg

Oklahoma City has the thunder while Tulsa has the "SHOCK". Enuf said.

When it comes to job growth, besides Austin, you really cannot beat OKC right now. There is a real dynamism here that is breeding a lot of entrepreneurship. That chamber video released this week may have dripped with breathless optimism, but its really not that far off from reality. It really amazes me how many young people here own their own businesses, and this motivates me personally to reach for more in my own career.

I speak as someone who has some business connections in both Tulsa and OKC. In Tulsa, you can probably make a little more money, especially if you are working outside oil and gas and aerospace. But the opportunities here are just so much better. There are a handful of people at my job who are from Tulsa, and all have varying opinions of this area. But all say moving to OKC has been great for their careers and none are moving back any time soon. With more disposable income comes more arts, shopping and restaurants. And you can already see this in OKC, although maybe not as fast as some would like.

This certainly isn't to suggest that the economy is terrible in Tulsa; quite the contrary. But the biggest thing I noticed is it is incredibly difficult to network in Tulsa. It is the ultimate old-money, "who you know" type of place. That can be quite intimidating, especially for transplants. And I hate to go there, but as a minority, Tulsa has a bit of a reputation of not being the most inclusive community. Its frankly something that the entire state needs to work on. But I know several African american and hispanic professionals who say moving to Tulsa is a no-no.


I've heard many people say that Tulsa is very old-money and "who you know." When I was in college researching where I wanted to live afterwards, that was one of the things that really concerned me about Tulsa. I've lived in places like that before and they aren't fun. In college I got cheated out of a paid internship which I was very qualified for and should have had, but some guy in management had a nephew coming out of high school who needed a first job so it was given to him over me. The guy was totally unqualified but he was related to management and that's all that mattered. It was 2 more years of minimum wage retail work for me after that. I have several other similar stories from that time period and that kind of stuff really gets under my skin.

Des Moines????? (gag)
But seriously . . . There isn't any truth to the rumor that they are planning to move The Philbrook to OKC and plop it down on the current location of that Stage Center eyesore, is there? The Philbrook and The Gilcrease are the only two reasons I can think of not to simply drive right through Tulsa which is what we do 90% of the time we are in that area on the way to Grand Lake or Minnesota. (background for the Des Moines???(wtf???) lead-in.)

. . the way rumors get started!!

A large percentage if not most people go to Philbrook to see the house and the gardens.

and the special exhibitions, and the class offerings (adults and children), and the concerts, and the special events, and the. . .

I study cities and research them on a daily, especially cities like Tulsa, Memphis, Omaha, Nashville, and Louisville.

I live in Oklahoma City and have positives and negatives about Tulsa and OKC.

Starting with Tulsa: Tulsa has better architecture, infrastructure planning, city beautification, and a lot cleaner than OKC, they also have the only true suburban office park with high rises in Warren Place. They have a fantastic arts scene and city park system. The problem with Tulsa is they lack job creation, city branding, and vision, they don't have a plan to build from and gain momentum. There is also no true leadership in city hall, and no forward thinking city council.

Now Oklahoma City: Oklahoma City's transportation infrastructure sucks, lacks city beautification, and overall poor city planning for road infrastructure, and commercial and residential developments. Oklahoma City is the only city I know with dirty industry aligning the interstates instead of nice midsized office buildings and homes. All the nice midrise office buildings are clustered in one area in Quail Springs Office Park and NW Expressway with no real planning. The crime rate here is higher than it should be for a city our size, our public safety system lacks. Now what Oklahoma City has is great job creation and retention, established and dynamic districts, energy, booming retail developments, river developments, and true vision. The good thing about OKC is we have plans in place to better our city for the future. The problem is that we are doing things now that we should have done 20 years ago, now we are going back and redoing things that got messed up in the 80's. Okc has vision and momentum, and a forward thinking chamber which helps. I could care less if we get new office towers, office towers don't make a city, they are just good for skyline pictures. Okc needs to focus more on transportation, city beautification, and our public safety and education system.

All good points, but apparently you haven't studied Memphis like you've claimed, there is plenty of dirty industry along major highways in Memphis, almost apocalyptic in some areas. I agree, poor city planning and zoning holds us back from achieving even more success.

All good points, but apparently you haven't studied Memphis like you've claimed, there is plenty of dirty industry along major highways in Memphis, almost apocalyptic in some areas. I agree, poor city planning and zoning holds us back from achieving even more success.

That is why I said Memphis is comparable to Oklahoma City...lol...Memphis is more established than Oklahoma City though, they have more of an identity. Memphis has more established districts, a phenomenal Blue's music scene, and a blue collar work environment. Oh they also have Beale St., lol. Memphis's history is also richer and more dynamic that OKC's, especially with the civil rights movement in the 60's. They have also had an NBA team since 2001, Memphis is dirty like OKC, but Memphis is a cool little city...

Dirty like OKC? What in the world are you talking about?

As long as OKC and Tulsa keep comparing themselves to each other neither one will mature. Do you think Charlotte sits around comparing itself to Raleigh? Hell no. Atlanta is who they are chasing (although lately the have wised up that Atlanta isn't exactly a 21st century role model worth emulating).

As long as OKC and Tulsa keep comparing themselves to each other neither one will mature. Do you think Charlotte sits around comparing itself to Raleigh? Hell no. Atlanta is who they are chasing (although lately the have wised up that Atlanta isn't exactly a 21st century role model worth emulating). And this doesn't mean Dallas is a 21st century city we should be modeling ourselves after either - because truth be told, Dallas is going have a hard time adjusting to the 21st century world.

Only a few cities in the world are still building this kind of crap - and Dallas is one of them (and they do it with gusto).

http://www.dallasnews.com/incoming/20111016-highfive_main.jpg.ece/BINARY/w620x413/HighFive_MAIN.jpg

I love that interchange. I think that is amazing infrastructure model that I wish OKC would start incorporating on our highways.

Dirty like OKC? What in the world are you talking about?

I'm sure he means like gritty. Memphis isn't a trashy city -- in the sense of trash all over the place -- from my experience, but it has gritty, rundown areas that you don't tend to think of as nice, high society, destination points. Memphis is a wonderful city and I have my connections to it through the suburbs on the Mississippi side. It compares well to OKC, but has more history and more of an identity and that's not a knock on OKC.

I'm sure he means like gritty. Memphis isn't a trashy city -- in the sense of trash all over the place -- from my experience, but it has gritty, rundown areas that you don't tend to think of as nice, high society, destination points. Memphis is a wonderful city and I have my connections to it through the suburbs on the Mississippi side. It compares well to OKC, but has more history and more of an identity and that's not a knock on OKC.

Agreed. Both Memphis and OKC are not what you would called "polished" cities like Dallas and Charlotte. I agree Memphis has a unique identity that OKC doesn't have. I think part of that can be blamed on the Pei Plan but not all of it. OKC is a much younger city than most major cities in this country.

For such a young city that hasn't exactly had the best of events happen to it, OKC is a pretty legit city that betters itself and grows in the right direction everyday. OKC has weathered a few pretty harsh storms better than a lot will give credit for, but a lot of the growing pains have been self inflicted. Still though, Kudos to this city and its leaders for doing what they've done so far as it makes the future that much more exciting and the day dreams will soon enough be reality if we keep up the momentum.

As long as OKC and Tulsa keep comparing themselves to each other neither one will mature. Do you think Charlotte sits around comparing itself to Raleigh? Hell no. Atlanta is who they are chasing (although lately the have wised up that Atlanta isn't exactly a 21st century role model worth emulating).

Amusing. It is natural for cities to look at similar or familiar cities to 'compare' or stimulate dicussion on projects. I love OKC, Tulsa ... because they are different. I lived in Raleigh 7 years, they never much wanted to be like Charlotte - larger city, smaller metro. Raleigh was part of the Triangle (Raleigh, Durham, Chappel Hill - though Cary was bigger than Durham). The greatest growth was were the cities merged, the individual personalites were on the edges. A significant portion of the metro population lived next to the cities, but outside the boundries for tax purposes - Raleigh alone would increase by another 1/2 if surrounding non-incorporated communities built on roads that Raleigh paid for were included. They don't (Cary does) because Raleigh would have to then increase utilities to them (water, power, etc). The population of Wake county - not very large county - is greater than the county that Charlotte is in - and that does not even include Durham or other 'Triangle' counties. Having moved from Dallas TX, the 'hidden' metro of the Triangle was a shock to realize how extensive it was. Charlotte is much more centralized and traditional. So, it appears to be the largest metro in NC - but it is not, and is in a 3 way tie with the Triangle and the Triad ... they are called the Carolina Panthers for a reason (not even counting the S. Carolina cities adjacent to Charlotte). Even though GA and NC have about the same population - in NC it is spread around several metro areas - here in GA more than half is near Atlanta (Atlanta itself is smaller than OKC - metro area as big -population wise- as DFW). Charlotte is correct not to want to emulate Atlanta - look here for mistakes made and avoid them.

Tall buildings downtown don't always mean big city, if they did then Bartlesville OK would be bigger than Durham, Cary, Wilmington NC - and it's not even close.

As long as OKC and Tulsa keep comparing themselves to each other neither one will mature. Do you think Charlotte sits around comparing itself to Raleigh? Hell no. Atlanta is who they are chasing (although lately the have wised up that Atlanta isn't exactly a 21st century role model worth emulating). And this doesn't mean Dallas is a 21st century city we should be modeling ourselves after either - because truth be told, Dallas is going have a hard time adjusting to the 21st century world.

Only a few cities in the world are still building this kind of crap - and Dallas is one of them (and they do it with gusto).

http://www.dallasnews.com/incoming/20111016-highfive_main.jpg.ece/BINARY/w620x413/HighFive_MAIN.jpg

I lived just a few miles south of this interchange when it was being built - moved to Raleigh before they finished it. Can tell you one thing, Dallas does a better job of transportation than Atlanta. It has better roads, better buses, better light rail. This makes no sense as DFW in not as concentrated as Atlanta, you would think Atlanta would be better at mass trans, but it really falls short of Dallas. Of-course, Dallas is but a part of the Metro - the eastern end, Atlanta is the heart of this metro, but can not get its 'act together'. That is what counts in the end. Tulsa has naturally more going for it, more centralized, wealthier, better river, hills, lakes.... but it's leadership is more divided. So, for now, OKC is growing itself better - but time stands still for no one, this too could change.

I humbly disagree that Memphis is a "cool" little city. But there a couple of great barbecue spots.

I humbly disagree that Memphis is a "cool" little city. But there a couple of great barbecue spots.

Beale St alone makes it a cool little city.

I humbly disagree that Memphis is a "cool" little city. But there a couple of great barbecue spots.

That's the purpose of opinions. There are many that disagree with you and there are many that agree with you. It's appealing to me because of its history, its nightlife, and all the pretty areas in and around the city that mix in with the grittiness of it. Also as you mentioned, they have some sweet barbecue joints.

I'm not sure why you don't find it cool, but that's your business and I totally respect that.

Tulsa-Los Angeles nonstop flights canceled; Tulsa losing flights as OKC gains | Tulsa World (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=45&articleid=20130203_45_E1_CUTLIN975988)

This was posted in the Commercial Aviation forum. Interesting article comparing the air service of both cities. OKC is adding service, while TUL is having some trouble keeping certain routes.

Beale St alone makes it a cool little city.

Yep

Pretty much any city is cool if you know where to go.

Pretty much any city is cool if you know where to go.

This. But Memphis, to me, is far from a cool city. Beale St. is cool. Memphis is not.

Just finished business in Memphis - and I agree with that the city itself has nothing on OKC and has a terribly inferior skyline.

But Beale is a destination on its own along with the Elvis/Graceland area.

Memphis is a neat city with lots of culture, but living there is an entirely different matter.

Lots of crime (usually in the top 5 MSA's for crime rates), unreal racial tension, and frankly a bit depressed economically. My dad's extended family is from that area and they've been trickling out for years now.

One thing I will say is Memphis has a much larger inventory of downtown residential real estate compared to OKC. It makes me so jealous to see what you can get there as I struggle here to find a condo.

The Peadbody Hotel in Downtown Memphis is a great, grand old hotel! The epitomy of old Southern hospitality. The time honored tradition of the ducks marching down the stairs into the lobby. Beale Street is fun. Lots of great BBQ. Memphis has a certain old Southern charm, however, I would have to agree that the city is a bit depressed economically. I also hear about the violent crime rates. Mud Island and the Pyramid are interesting!

Just finished business in Memphis - and I agree with that the city itself has nothing on OKC and has a terribly inferior skyline.

But Beale is a destination on its own along with the Elvis/Graceland area.

Nooo...Graceland's area of town is a dump. The skyline is actually really impressive along the Mississippi River.

A lot of Memphis is dirty and run-down, and frankly not very safe. The skyline from certain angles is okay but not better than Tulsa or OKC.3489

Had a good friend living in Memphis for a while and he hated it.

I visited a couple of times and quickly put it on my list of least desirable places to live.

Nashville is a million times better in pretty much every way.