Crossroads District, River Market and Westport are all incredible places for young people. Crossroads is easily my favorite place in KC. Crown Center and the Plaza also draw young people, but they are more expensive.

I am fairly familiar with the Westport area. My girlfriend and a few of my friends from school are at KUMC so I have been around there a bit. I'm not too familiar with Crossroads or the River Market though. I'll have to be sure to check those out when I go home and visit in a few weeks. I wouldn't count the Plaza or Crown Center in the types of neighborhoods I'm talking about though. I was thinking more along the lines of an area with residential space, and that doesn't seem all that prevalent in those areas. They are both really nice places though.

I have to throw it out there that I haven't had the luxury of spending much time in KC since I've been old enough to really go out anywhere. I was at KU since high school so most of my school years were spent in Lawrence, and my summers I was usually gone for internships. So most of the recent things I hear are just from talking with friends back home or reading about them online.

Interesting you say that. I was reading an article in the NY Times a few months ago about the ridiculous incentive "border war" between MO and KS. Lots of companies have been, for the most part, bribed into moving into Kansas. It doesn't seem like it is having a positive effect on their overall economy. Last time I looked KC is growing much slower than OKC and is under-performing compared other "I-35" metros. Which stinks because they do have a ton of engineering and R&D-type firms.

That is one thing I really like about OKC. City and suburbs here may compete on some level here, but when it comes to big economic development projects everyone falls in line for 'the greater good'. Also, even at its worst, downtown and surrounding districts have always had the largest concentration of jobs in OKC, which is still true to this day.

As far as the P&L district, when I went there it was alright, but seemed a bit contrived. OTOH, I really did like the Country Club Plaza area. There are also some nice areas like Brookside and Westport.

I think I know the article you're talking about. That is one of the things that kind of sucks about KC being right on a state border is that KS and MO are always competing for everything. Cerner, one of if not the biggest employer in KC, had it's original campus in North KCMO. But now they're building a lot of their newer facilities on the KS side of the metro over by Legends and the Kansas Speedway. Like you said, that's one cool thing about OKC is how all of the growth seems to be centralized within the city limits and not sprawled out all across the metro.

Edgar - I hope your goal in life is not to stir the pot as a teenager....cause you're trying awful hard with mis facts and inuendo. LOL

Just offering my impressions from a recent visit to T-Town in defense of the place based on what others said. How is that stirring the pot. I had a nice time and was impressed with the energy downtown. In the next couple of months I'll be again visiting to see my hero Buddy Guy, Vintage truble and Gov't Mule are appearing, Widespread Panic. You should take a trip up the pike and check it out.

Just offering my impressions from a recent visit to T-Town in defense of the place based on what others said. How is that stirring the pot. I had a nice time and was impressed with the energy downtown. In the next couple of months I'll be again visiting to see my hero Buddy Guy, Vintage truble and Gov't Mule are appearing, Widespread Panic. You should take a trip up the pike and check it out.

You'll have a good time, I just got back from a trip to Red Rocks in Morrison Colorado, the best outdoor venue in the world, to see OneRepublic. Next week we go to London and Paris but not for music.
One thing Tulsa has that I go up there occasionally for, and I know this is crazy to some folks, but the Arkansas River has a lot of Indian artifacts, with about 10% of recovery considered Paleo.....now this is an advantage Tulsa has over OKC.....

Edgar, you're fine, everyone on this board is entitled to their opinions......but it can teach us all to grow a little thick skin.

Is Edgar from Tulsa? Tulsans can't stand OKC's prosperity.

As for the science museum...had visitors from Plano two weeks ago. They took their two kids there twice in three days. The kids absolutely loved it.

Is Edgar from Tulsa? Tulsans can't stand OKC's prosperity.

As for the science museum...had visitors from Plano two weeks ago. They took their two kids there twice in three days. The kids absolutely loved it.

That's good to hear. The Science Museum is great, it just needs a lot of updates and repairs. If they are really sinking the kind of money into it that Pete mentioned, it should become a top notch attraction.

As for Tulsa, most states that have multiple major cities of similar size have somewhat of a rivarlry. The OKC vs Tulsa situation is unique though because recently the longtime status quos are being challenged. Tulsa was top dog in the state for decades thanks to the effect the oil crash + the Pei Plan had on OKC. Now OKC is starting to get more attention. I can somewhat understand how they feel. Having lived in Little Rock, a city very much in Tulsa's position, I witnessed some people had become very jealous of Northwest Arkansas' growth and prosperity. If the NBA hypothetically would have chosen to put a team in Northwest Arkansas instead of Little Rock, people in Little Rock would be a little ticked off about that.

However, OKC's successes do not detract from Tulsa though and T-town is still great for what it is. This is simply OKC becoming what it should have been all along being the largest city in the state.

Is Edgar from Tulsa? Tulsans can't stand OKC's prosperity.

As for the science museum...had visitors from Plano two weeks ago. They took their two kids there twice in three days. The kids absolutely loved it.Kids will like pretty much anything. Just saying

Kids will like pretty much anything. Just saying

Absolutely false.

However, OKC's successes do not detract from Tulsa though and T-town is still great for what it is. This is simply OKC becoming what it should have been all along being the largest city in the state.

Excellent post. This is the way both cities should look at each other, not one over the other.

Absolutely false.Ok, well take your kids or someones kids to the Perot Museum Dallas and then take them to the Science Place and ask them which one they like more.

(this argument is actually pointless as Pete has pointed out there are renovations on the way, but I'm talking about the museum now.)

Ok, well take your kids or someones kids to the Perot Museum Dallas and then take them to the Science Place and ask them which one they like more.

(this argument is actually pointless as Pete has pointed out there are renovations on the way, but I'm talking about the museum now.)

That's besides the point. He was just pointing out that kids do not, "like pretty much anything". Kids, depending on the age, definitely do not shy away from telling their parents they hate something and want to go home.

My 3.5 year olds LOVED Science Mussum Oklahoma when they went for the first time earlier this summer. They're a bit young to get the point of it all, but it's exposure at a young and and whatnot.

I was a bit saddened to see a lot of the same old crap there that was crap when i was a kid in the 80s though. Some of the same old experients are still there, and just as broken as they were when i was a kid. You can't touch some of the stuff you used to be able to (like sitting in the old space capsules and actually flipping switches). But on the flip-side, there were a LOT more things for the toddler age kid. My boys LOVED the water/bubble stuff. Of course, they didn't get what dams are and whatever, but we still tried to explain. And they had more fun playing in the big treehouse than anything, but i'm not really sure that's "science" as a time occupier. Toddler, not so much friendly to them still, but way better than it ever used to be and you have to keep it in a realistic perspective on what they can/will do.

Some of the stuff, i just dont understand why it's there. Gymnastics? Really? And what happened to the piece of the Berlin Wall and the large rocket models? The air/space portion seems a bit unorganized. A lot of the place feels a big unorganized still....like they aren't sure what to do with the space of the item they have. I'm hoping the renovations can help spur some of that change.

The pieces of the Berlin Wall have on been on loan since 2010 to the city where the wife of the guy who bought them is from, apparently they are coming back to the states within the year but the article I saw was a little ambiguous on if they were returning to the a private collection or to a museum. It seems likely they will be on public display since it seems like they have pretty much always have been since they were brought over from Germany.

Kids will like pretty much anything. Just saying

Must be too young to have kids yet if you believe this is true.

I guess people will continue to ignore the good things we do have here. Complaining is more satisfying than appreciating I guess.

Must be too young to have kids yet if you believe this is true.

I guess people will continue to ignore the good things we do have here. Complaining is more satisfying than appreciating I guess.The first part is true. I generally always point out the amazing things this city has to offer. I love science and was still intrigued by the exhibits there and will always be. They were just in disrepair and the whole place was really run down. It was disappointing. There is a difference between complaining and just pointing out a simple observation.

I just hope they really do a good job with this place.

Having been to more than my fair share of science museums I must say - our sciences museums need to step up their games big time. Kids who play on tablets and have 3D video games aren't really interested or inspired by powering a light bulb with a hand crank (especially since we don't even have filament based light bulbs anymore). 1879 called, they were their experiment back.

Yeah - I don't expect a recreation of the Field Museum or the Museum of Science and Industry in OKC (although it would be nice), but it would be nice for the Science Museum to be regarded more highly. The news isn't all bad for museums in OKC - the OK History Center is very well done, the OKCMOA, and the OKC Zoo are very nice.

If these were walkable in the downtown core. Man. You'd have something really neat.

The large majority should be eventually connected via the street car and Adventure Line.

If these were walkable in the downtown core. Man. You'd have something really neat.

Museum of Discovery in Charlotte, which is quite an amazing science museum, is located downtown. The one nice thing about the science museum where it is at is it complements the zoo pretty well.

Now it just needs updated to the 21st century.

In any event, KC is most definitely a Tier 2 city and OKC is Tier 3.

And we STILL have a bigger and faster growing urban district.


And Tulsa has absolutely nothing that even holds a candle.


When was the last time you were in Tulsa?

When was the last time you were in Tulsa?Can't speak for Pete, but I was there 3 weeks ago and Tulsa has nothing on OKC. Imo, If retail were better in Tulsa, it would give me the means to drive down there to shop, but there is nothing in Tulsa, I can't buy or want that isn't here in OKC. Nothing in Tulsa even comes close to rivaling Bricktown, at all. The facts are facts and the time is coming when even Tulsans will realize that OKC is better.

BTW, Tulsa itself, is nice little city, but I'm not a big fan of the people. I have met good folks down there, but overall, I just don't like the vibe.

Can't speak for Pete, but I was there 3 weeks ago and Tulsa has nothing on OKC. Imo, If retail were better in Tulsa, it would give me the means to drive down there to shop, but there is nothing in Tulsa, I can't buy or want that isn't here in OKC. Nothing in Tulsa even comes close to rivaling Bricktown, at all. The facts are facts and the time is coming when even Tulsans will realize that OKC is better.

I was there in December & April & it's just nothing for OKC to envy. It's nice & the people seem happy there, but to steal Pete's phrase, Tulsa has nothing that holds a candle to OKC.

When was the last time you were in Tulsa?

I was there for 3 days this past June, and Tulsa has some scenic value about it, but they've become the ginger step child in the last dozen years or so. I spoke with length to folks in a few clubs......and no matter what you hear, they love the OKC Thunder though. They just wish they'd get some regular season games scheduled.

I was there for 3 days this past June, and Tulsa has some scenic value about it, but they've become the ginger step child in the last dozen years or so. I spoke with length to folks in a few clubs......and no matter what you hear, they love the OKC Thunder though. They just wish they'd get some regular season games scheduled.

Just out of curiosity (and not just asking Bellaboo, but all OKC resident Thunder fans): What would you think of any regular season games taking place at the BOK center?

When was the last time you were in Tulsa?

Not recently, so please enlighten me.

Is there one urban district with 50+ restaurants, clubs and bars plus a AAA stadium, canal rides, large movie theater, bowling alley, 2 hotels with 2 more under construction with several more on the way and hundreds of living units with almost a thousand more set to start construction?


I'm not saying Tulsa doesn't have some nice urban districts -- it obviously does and that's fantastic.

Just out of curiosity (and not just asking Bellaboo, but all OKC resident Thunder fans): What would you think of any regular season games taking place at the BOK center?

Years ago, the KC Kings used to split games with Omaha.....don't know if it would happen again though. I think an NBA organization wants to keep homecourt advantage when possible, and if playing in a different arena lessens that, then maybe not. I do think it's great that the BOK does get an annual pre season game, plus last year they held the training camp game there at the Spirit Arena in Bixby.....It's great publicity from the Thunder's point. Let's not forget though, that the Thunder's Developmental team the 'Phillips 66ers' , plays in the Tulsa area. I did notice they are having a developmental game at the 'Peake on Feb 4 this season. I know they have played developmental games in the past in the practice facility in Edmond also.

I was there in December & April & it's just nothing for OKC to envy. It's nice & the people seem happy there, but to steal Pete's phrase, Tulsa has nothing that holds a candle to OKC.you're obviously not a fan of live music.

you're obviously not a fan of live music.

True. Most musicians, especially the indie artists that are very popular now, if they play in Oklahoma at all it will be in Tulsa. It will be interesting to see if that ever changes when/if OKC gets a proper live music venue.

you're obviously not a fan of live music.

I'm not. Is live music supposed to convince me Tulsa is superior?

you're obviously not a fan of live music.

OKC has gotten a whole hell of a lot better in live music recently. The Diamond Ballroom, although it may not look like much, is bringing in some great acts recently. It may not be bringing them in every other day, but their lineup recently, especially for hard rock, has been great. I went and saw Sevendust there in April and am going to see Halestorm tonight, Jimmy Eat World on 10/11, Jamey Johnson on 10/25, Clutch on 11/2 and Blue October in 12/6. The BOK Center may be bringing in some bigger names that can sell out the arena but The Peake has some great acts coming in as well as one of the best NBA teams in the country 41+ home games a year. The Chameloen Room and Conservatory are a few other place in OKC that are bringing in smaller acts a few nights a week.

The big argument for Tulsa's live music scene versus OKC is that most of Tulsa's descent live music venues are all in a confined area with the Brady and Cain's being four blocks away from each other and the Brady and BOK being five blocks away from each other. Whereas the Diamond Ballroom is south of I-240 on Eastern, The Chameleon Room is in a strip shopping center at 30th and Portland, the Conservatory is on Western between Wilshire and Britton. But Bricktown, with the growing popularity of ACM and the addition of the live music venue on the south side of Sheridan across from the new apartments will begin to get better whereas I think Tulsa is not growing, but stagnant in that area.

you're obviously not a fan of live music.

The live music you're talking about though isn't something that a ton of people want to see. You're talking about small venues and indie performers.

The live music you're talking about though isn't something that a ton of people want to see. You're talking about small venues and indie performers.

All genres actually- Buddy Guy, Lucinda Williams, Steely Dan, Widespread Panic, Gov.t Mule, Junior Brown, Black Crowes, Alice Cooper, Wierd Al, Vintage Trouble..... Not trying to be a contrarian, just Tulsa has an awesome music scene going on. We have a cool historic venue in the Zoo Amp but the Zoo trust ran off Howard Pollack and Innervisions and so far the results have been very disappointing unless your soley a fan of RedDirt and/or Christian rock. Thought the Farmers Market had great potential, the Black Crowes show there was epic, but it never got good crowds out I guess. Diamond Ballroom is ok went to the Kenny wayne Sheperd show there. Lots of those indie acts. Not a real nice part of town though. The coca cola events center should be banned from live music due to the acoustics, as should the ford center. Truth hurts apparently, but Tulsa has something really special going on with the live music scene. Travel up the pike and check it out. They're putting on a 2 day blues festival by the river Sept 12,22.

If Tulsa has a 'special' something going on with a music scene, then that's just great, they need something. Just wonderful.

I think we can give Tulsa their due on live music. But I think we all can agree that OKC is clearly the big brother who from now on will surely carry the state in most of not all areas, as it rightfully should given the population difference. Nothing wrong with Tulsa assuming their natural role as the #2 and both cities working together to bring the state more urban and progressive progress.

other states have two dominant cities and it works when they don't fight each other but instead fulfill their natural role and make the state better: Philly + Pitt, LA + SF, Minn + StP, Miami + Jax + Tampa + Orl, Sea + Tec + Spo, Stl + KC, Hou + Dal + SAT + AUS, and OKC + Tul.


Like those pairs, it can work being a one, two punch while still having both being amazing cities outright.

If Tulsa has a 'special' something going on with a music scene, then that's just great, they need something. Just wonderful.

I don't think Tulsa has something special as much as OKC lacks a quality music venue like Cain's or the Brady. Edgar mentioned the ones OKC does have but none of them really compare to what Tulsa has. The Diamond is probably as good as it gets here and that leaves a lot to be desired and is in an out of the way location. A renovated Tower Theater however would fill that void. I think things like live music and other cultural attractions are important for a city and its ability to attract and retain young talent, especially as the national economy improves.

Music in Oklahoma is not special.

Music in Oklahoma is not special.

This seems a little dramatic. You may not like it, but there's a lot of good music in Oklahoma.

This seems a little dramatic. You may not like it, but there's a lot of good music in Oklahoma.

Good and special are two very VERY different adjectives.

Good and special are two very VERY different adjectives.

Fair enough. What do you consider special music and why do you feel music here isn't special?

I think what's being discussed here is the nurturing, support, and venues given to homegrown talent. I have to agree any reasonable person gives Tulsa the easy win there.

But the industry as a whole, you always read about how everything has been reversed. Bands used to tour only to promote record sales. Now, the records are released to time with the kick-off off the all-important and overpriced tours. To explain how much different things are today, The Beatles stopped touring in 1966. Take a look at all the great albums that were released and great songs that hit #1 after that. Times have changed.

But local musicians, they need our support with our dollars, our support, and hopefully more and better venues.

ACM @ UCO in Bricktown is just getting rolling and could lead to much more live music in OKC.

Fair enough. What do you consider special music and why do you feel music here isn't special?

Probably the most special a place can be is one of the place that artists go to get discovered by record labels like LA, NY or London. Genres tend to have some other spots. After that it is most likely just a numbers game on population, where they know they have fans and with some impact of geograph to where the tour cities path goes.

Truth hurts apparently, but Tulsa has something really special going on with the live music scene. Travel up the pike and check it out.

I was raised in Muskogee, so I spent my whole life checking it out. If that is the one cool thing Tulsa can claim, then so be it.

Allow me to turn the question on you, OnlyOne...what is "OKC music" or "Oklahoma Music"? Is the answer to that question genuine in.light of the answer for the same question for Memphis, New Orleans, NYC, Nashville, Philadelphia, Atlanta?

Spent time in St. Louis last week. Other than enjoying a great sweep of Pittsburgh, it really wasn't very exciting or interesting. It makes you appreciate what we have going on in OKC...especially downtown. Yes, there are some nice pockets and the trees and hills are picturesque. However, in total, St. Louis is sad. Many, many, many boarded up and falling down buildings. Big areas of downtown that are downright depressing. At night downtown seems very unsafe. You don't want to walk around and driving around is maddening. I sincerely hope we are NOT a peer city of St. Louis. I lived in St. Louis briefly years ago and had hoped it had progressed....it has not.

Allow me to turn the question on you, OnlyOne...what is "OKC music" or "Oklahoma Music"? Is the answer to that question genuine in.light of the answer for the same question for Memphis, New Orleans, NYC, Nashville, Philadelphia, Atlanta?

Oklahoma (and OKC) music is most certainly red dirt country and various brands of gospel music. Tulsa's music scene however has that 'hipster' element and they are able to attract the type of bands that play in Austin, something OKC is not yet able to do. I would be willing to bet money though that once OKC has a respectable venue, we will start seeing those tours more split between OKC and Tulsa instead of them ALWAYS going to Tulsa.


Spent time in St. Louis last week. Other than enjoying a great sweep of Pittsburgh, it really wasn't very exciting or interesting. It makes you appreciate what we have going on in OKC...especially downtown. Yes, there are some nice pockets and the trees and hills are picturesque. However, in total, St. Louis is sad. Many, many, many boarded up and falling down buildings. Big areas of downtown that are downright depressing. At night downtown seems very unsafe. You don't want to walk around and driving around is maddening. I sincerely hope we are NOT a peer city of St. Louis. I lived in St. Louis briefly years ago and had hoped it had progressed....it has not.

Really? I have never been to St. Louis, but for the most part it is a more respected city than KCMO, and I think KCMO's downtown is pretty polished and vibrant (like Charlotte's). Is St. Louis really that bad?

Oklahoma (and OKC) music is most certainly red dirt country and various brands of gospel music. Tulsa's music scene however has that 'hipster' element and they are able to attract the type of bands that play in Austin, something OKC is not yet able to do. I would be willing to bet money though that once OKC has a respectable venue, we will start seeing those tours more split between OKC and Tulsa instead of them ALWAYS going to Tulsa.



Really? I have never been to St. Louis, but for the most part it is a more respected city than KCMO, and I think KCMO's downtown is pretty polished and vibrant (like Charlotte's). Is St. Louis really that bad?

Rover had it right. St. Louis has its pockets, but overall I'd take KC any day. And they have their problems too.

I think we can give Tulsa their due on live music. But I think we all can agree that OKC is clearly the big brother who from now on will surely carry the state in most of not all areas, as it rightfully should given the population difference. Nothing wrong with Tulsa assuming their natural role as the #2 and both cities working together to bring the state more urban and progressive progress.

other states have two dominant cities and it works when they don't fight each other but instead fulfill their natural role and make the state better: Philly + Pitt, LA + SF, Minn + StP, Miami + Jax + Tampa + Orl, Sea + Tec + Spo, Stl + KC, Hou + Dal + SAT + AUS, and OKC + Tul.


Like those pairs, it can work being a one, two punch while still having both being amazing cities outright.
Have you spent much time in those cities and time with long time residents? Most of them squabble like crazy between themselves and in many cases people in the less "popular" city despises the other. St Paul despises Minneapolis, Fort Worth despises Dallas, Houston despises Dallas, San Antonio despises Austin, in most cases the other city doesn't really care. That is just my experience from the time that I lived in Texas (Dallas and Austin) and did work in most of the major cities, I got the same feeling working in our office St. Paul.

I for one never understood that mentality, a strong Tulsa helps OKC and vice versa and that is the case for all of those pairs.

Rover-
I realize this is an OKC message board, not St. Louis, so I don't want to dwell on this. But it is apparent to me that you didn't know where to go in St. Louis. St. Louis is miles ahead of OKC in all things urban, cultural and nightlife-oriented. There are a thousand interesting and fun places in St. Louis. I think, when I see this, of how easy it is to characterize a town when you go as a tourist. I hope the average visitor to OKC is more adept at figuring out our hometown than you obviously were in STL. I don't mean this as a put-down. You were a visitor. How is OKC marketing itself to visitors, are they able to adequately find OKC's gems? Hope so. OKC won't be a "peer" to STL for at least a couple of decades.

Have you spent much time in those cities and time with long time residents? Most of them squabble like crazy between themselves and in many cases people in the less "popular" city despises the other. St Paul despises Minneapolis, Fort Worth despises Dallas, Houston despises Dallas, San Antonio despises Austin, in most cases the other city doesn't really care. That is just my experience from the time that I lived in Texas (Dallas and Austin) and did work in most of the major cities, I got the same feeling working in our office St. Paul.

I for one never understood that mentality, a strong Tulsa helps OKC and vice versa and that is the case for all of those pairs.

In North Carolina, there is definitely a Charlotte vs Raleigh rivalry, though there it definitely helps that the cities are farther apart in that Raleigh's gain isn't Charlotte's loss and vice versa. I would say the Houston/Dallas, St Louis/Kansas City, and Little Rock/Northwest Arkansas rivalries are similar in that they are far enough apart they don't really affect each other negatively or positively. I can definitely see San Antonio despising Austin. They are right down the road and are the larger, most historic city, but are treated like a red headed stepchild almost compared to Austin. Ft Worth/Dallas and MPLS/St Paul are unique in that they share metro areas, so what happens to one benefits the other easily.

OKC and Tulsa on the other hand are just far enough to be completely separate entities, but close enough where sometimes the success of one comes at the cost of the other. That is one reason I think there is so much tension between Oklahoma's two largest cities compared to other states. Tulsa has enjoyed its time in the sun since the 1980s and now the focus is shifting back in the direction of OKC. Tulsans despise that. On the flipside, OKCitians have envied Tulsa especially during the bust years and years after when it seemed like Tulsa was really moving forward while OKC was stagnant or in decline. It will take some time for those mindsets to completely change.

Rover-
I realize this is an OKC message board, not St. Louis, so I don't want to dwell on this. But it is apparent to me that you didn't know where to go in St. Louis. St. Louis is miles ahead of OKC in all things urban, cultural and nightlife-oriented. There are a thousand interesting and fun places in St. Louis. I think, when I see this, of how easy it is to characterize a town when you go as a tourist. I hope the average visitor to OKC is more adept at figuring out our hometown than you obviously were in STL. I don't mean this as a put-down. You were a visitor. How is OKC marketing itself to visitors, are they able to adequately find OKC's gems? Hope so. OKC won't be a "peer" to STL for at least a couple of decades.

I tend to agree with this. St Louis is a solid Tier 2 city while OKC is, in my opinion, at the lower end of Tier 3 (moving up though each year). I have friends who live in St. Louis and they all love it. I've never been myself though.

OKC's real gems aren't easy to find. Most tourists aren't going to be able to find the Plaza district, the Paseo, or even Midtown unless they've done their research before. I imagine St. Louis has tenfold the amount of vibrant neighborhoods given its prestige and history.

This is my own ranking of tier 3 cities, all which would be peers to OKC.

1. New Orleans
2. Hartford, CT
3. Salt Lake City
4. Richmond
5. Louisville
6. Buffalo
7. Memphis
8. Rochester
9. Jacksonville
10. Birmingham
11. Oklahoma City
12. Omaha
13. Albuquerque
14. Tulsa
15. Tuscon

Rover-
I realize this is an OKC message board, not St. Louis, so I don't want to dwell on this. But it is apparent to me that you didn't know where to go in St. Louis. St. Louis is miles ahead of OKC in all things urban, cultural and nightlife-oriented. There are a thousand interesting and fun places in St. Louis. I think, when I see this, of how easy it is to characterize a town when you go as a tourist. I hope the average visitor to OKC is more adept at figuring out our hometown than you obviously were in STL. I don't mean this as a put-down. You were a visitor. How is OKC marketing itself to visitors, are they able to adequately find OKC's gems? Hope so. OKC won't be a "peer" to STL for at least a couple of decades.

Sure, as an ignorant visitor I couldn't really see that the rows of boarded up and dilapidated buildings throughout downtown were actually vibrant cool hangouts. Or that the car traffic downtown was horrible and that pedestrian activity was light except from the ballpark to the surface parking lots.

Every city has good neighborhoods if you know where to look.

By the way, I have lived in St. Louis and done much business there, including the Weston across from the stadium. Am familiar with downtown. And, I think KC is twice the city that St. Louis is.

Rover-This will be my last reply because seriously, the "inside baseball" of STL does not matter (nor should it) to the OKC people on this board.
I know that you lived in STL, and, OK, you've stayed at the Westin. Fine. Surely as a former resident, you're familiar with Soulard and it's dozens of bars reminiscent of New Orleans. I'm going to assume you know about Lafayette Square and South Grand. I'm going to assume you've forgotten about the 20 or 30 square blocks of the Central West End, which are more urban and more vibrant than anything between here and the west coast. Uptown Dallas is a new-age theme park with zero character by comparison. You're not stupid, so for your sake, I'm just going to assume that you've momentarily forgotten about the Hill or the University City Loop. And, you haven't lived here in a while so you're probably unaware of Washington Avenue which happens to be in the central business district (although not in the parking lots surrounding Busch). Midtown OKC might be as cool as Wash Ave in 10 or 20 years. Clayton (OK, an edge city, but intensely urban and New York-sophisticated). There are parts of the CBD that are struggling, there are a few boarded-up buildings. OK. I grant you. But if you are going to take a few blocks of the CBD as your touchstone, I'll just tip my hat and move on. Back to OKC and a topic that interests the readers of this website.

Love the condescending mode. Glad you love you some St. Louis.

Btw, didn't say I stayed at the Westin....I was involved in its reconstruction. Anyway, I am not as giggly about the city.

Oh, and this thread is about peer citiies..oops, guess you forgot. So I'll just tip my hat...

I lived in STL for ten years while in HS and College...I loved it. I moved there from LA and it just felt so real and genuine. Lots of great attractions, great cultural experiences, first class sports...and just a darn solid place for a kid to grow up. I return there about every year to see family, and some things I see there make me miss it...but that just might be nostalgia talking more than anything.

But it really is not fair to compare OKC to many, many, other cities. I would like to see a list of major metro areas (1mil. people+) and when they were founded/settled (C'mon I know someone on here wants to compile it and post it!). OKC was founded in 1889. Compared to most other major cities both east, west, north and south of OKC, I bet, comparatively, that is a pretty late year to start a major city from scratch. Most other major cities had been growing for decades and decades before. The country expanded west really before OKC was on the map, so it never became a stopover city or a city that was a major part of the nation's commercial transportation network. That stuff matters! Those elements would have brought people, money, and development long before 1889 as the country moved west. I mean, CA became a state in 1850(!) a full 39 years before OKC was even settled!

STL on the other hand...founded in 1764 (!) and incorporated in 1822. They have several decades on OKC and its geographic location during the westward expansion of the US made it an important and very wealthy city...the last bit of civilization as one went west. And, as Pete always says, it is next to a navigable waterway, so the city grew out from that geographic feature in a dense, methodical way...giving it that urban character.

It is not OKC's fault that it is the way it is, that is just called history. So we have to embrace where we are today and make a commitment to this moment to make OKC a great urban place. Perhaps history will show this is our golden era. What are we going to do with our opportunity?

Celebrator...love your post. You're exactly right. 100 years from now people will be looking at today's era the way they currently look at the "gilded age" of urban development. Which cities took this current era of history the way STL and KC and Chicago assembled themselves a century ago? OKC does have the opportunity now...how will we use it? And what are our "peers?" Which cities are our age? Precious few big ones. There's not a significant city in the country coming of age that is our age. Every significant city in this country is older than OKC. We can define the next century on our terms. I'm excited.

Alright, so I couldn't help myself, I did a very quick and dirty survey of other cities and their settling dates and only ONE, ONE city that is larger than OKC is younger...and its Las Vegas. NOT a city known for the type of (genuine) urban fabric that people in this city are envious of in other cities. So, see, these cities have "better" urban density, architecture, etc., because of the mere fact they are older. Plain and simple. Nothing to blame OKC for (except for the Pei Plan). If OKC had been around a few decades earlier, we'd have a richer urban legacy most likely.

Sure, could better urban planning have happened as the city grew in the mid,late 20th Century, I don't think we can dispute that, but again, the approach to urban planning in that era is somewhat a product of its time and the dynamics of the period's economic, social, and transportation trends. Can't do anything now but do it better in the future.

Basically, we can't change the era OKC developed in, so it is hard to get down on the city for not being like other cities that developed earlier. It is what it is.

Surprising info: Orlando and Phoenix were the closest big cities to being founded when OKC was (remember it was a quick and dirty survey)...and I can tell you, having lived in Orlando for 8 years, it has less urban fabric than OKC does. But, again, not near a major waterway, and its original driving industry (agriculture) is not an industry known for generating major wealth. The city eventually found another way to generate wealth though...the greedy Mouse!

Not sure about PHX though, have not spent more than a few days there, and that was in the burbs, so...

I haven't done even a "quick and dirty" look but just from my recollection, the fast-growing cities with significant populations today are places like Plano, Texas and Mesa, Arizona. Basically, suburbs that would not exist were it not for their central cities. And I consider Las Vegas one step above Disneyland. Maybe not even one step. It's basically a theme park. Some big cities like Austin are growing fast because they had land to spare in the 20th century. We are the ONLY real city that was founded as late as 1889. We are the ONLY real city in the United States that came from nowhere and developed fully in the automobile era.

Back to the subject of the OKC vs. Tulsa music scene. I think it's at least worth mentioning that the OKC metro area (Guthrie) just hosted a massive music festival featuring several of the most popular alternative rock/folk bands in the world right now and was one of only 3 US stops for that tour. It brought in 40,000 people from 48 states and 8 countries, hosted something like 20+ bands... And it was in our metro, not Tulsa's. Granted, The Gentlemen of the Road tour was in all likelihood a one time event in Oklahoma, it was a huge deal for Guthrie and, though obviously to a lesser extent, the OKC metro. Hopefully it opens the door for more festivals of that type around here. I enjoy mumford and sons so in the least hopefully they were encouraged to come back.