I for one like hearing about St Louis. As for relative 'origination' dates, sure OKC was settled last but in the first 30 years OKC caught and passed nearly every city in America. Don't ask me to find it now but in the early 1950s OKC was the #3 convention city in the US. We had a massive streetcar system and urban density that was on par with nearly every city in America regardless of the 'start' date. Then sprawl happened and then Pei tore everything down and what he did replace was a bunch of auto-based Le Corbusier concrete crap. It is like OKC got botched plastic surgery in a 3rd world country - that we are only now able to start correcting.

And St. Louis also had their share of problems during the same time. Since 1950 St Louis has lost 63% of its population. Watch the Pruitt-Igoe Myth to get an idea. America may have won WWII but we lost what made our cities special in the aftermath.

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.

Spent a few weeks with a UCO friend from the St. Louis area and we went over to East St. Louis, IL and I was devastated. Tried to give my host that impression that things were cool (all the time trying to avoid a nervous breakdown). Man, I couldn't wait to get back to Oklahoma. There were housing projects that the police wouldn't enter unless a swat team went in to claim a body or something. It reminded me of a visit to Patterson, NJ (Parkchester) back in the late 60s after Woodstock. Sorry, didn't mean to penetrate that section of my brain; anyway, it gave me a great appreciation for Oklahoma.

Growth here in OKC is moderate and manageable; we're lucky that cities like Fort Worth-Dallas, St. Louis & Houston are bursting at the seams because we have been able to learn from their experiences 'how to handle things moving forward.' Growth brings a whole set of concerns but it's good that we have been able to gauge what other cities have been doing to handle and manage those activities. We're getting ready to phase in and expand mass transit and our police force has various units and divisions being added to anticipate potential problems. You're seeing more and more people of different nationalities and ethnic groups you didn't see thirty years ago. Growing up in OKC has been pleasant and the cultural shock that many of my relatives complain about in their cities in (Texas, Missouri, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia & DC) other states leads me to believe that we are going about this the right way. When they visit OKC, sometimes they don't want to return home.

Sure, there are some impressive structures in St. Louis, Dallas, Houston, Newark, Baltimore and Philadelphia; however, I would trade them for the other concerns that people in those cities have.

I for one like hearing about St Louis. As for relative 'origination' dates, sure OKC was settled last but in the first 30 years OKC caught and passed nearly every city in America. Don't ask me to find it now but in the early 1950s OKC was the #3 convention city in the US. We had a massive streetcar system and urban density that was on par with nearly every city in America regardless of the 'start' date. Then sprawl happened and then Pei tore everything down and what he did replace was a bunch of auto-based Le Corbusier concrete crap. It is like OKC got botched plastic surgery in a 3rd world country - that we are only now able to start correcting.

And St. Louis also had their share of problems during the same time. Since 1950 St Louis has lost 63% of its population. Watch the Pruitt-Igoe Myth to get an idea. America may have won WWII but we lost what made our cities special in the aftermath.

Interesting. I see pics of OKC prior to the Pei Plan and weep. While its true many other cities had urban renewal that destroyed massive portions of their downtowns, I don't think any were as extensive and catastrophic as what happened in OKC. If it wasn't for the combined effect of the Pei Plan and the 80s oil bust, we would likely have a very different city today and would likely compare favorably to St. Louis.

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.
Well if OKC is going to claim Norman and Guthrie, Tulsa can surely claim the Port of Catoosa. Forgot to mention all the acts booked at the Joint at Hard Rock- Skynard, Steve Miller, lionel Richie, John Fogerty, ZZ, Joan Jett, one for the ladies Harry Connick, Brian Setzer.... The main problem with live music in OKC isn 't as much venues, it's people don't come out and support live music.

Well if OKC is going to claim Norman and Guthrie, Tulsa can surely claim the Port of Catoosa. Forgot to mention all the acts booked at the Joint at Hard Rock- Skynard, Steve Miller, lionel Richie, John Fogerty, ZZ, Joan Jett, one for the ladies Harry Connick, Brian Setzer.... The main problem with live music in OKC isn 't as much venues, it's people don't come out and support live music.

I'm not really sure what you're talking about on support. You obviously haven't been to many live shows here. Every show I go to, regardless of venue, is packed.

And what is there to claim? Guthrie is considered part of the OKC metropolitan area, which is what I said. If the Port of Catoosa is officially part of the Tulsa metro, then more power to you. Shawnee, Newcastle, and Norman are also part of the OKC metro and Casinos there often have shows featuring acts similar in quantity and quality to the Hard Rock.

Interesting. I see pics of OKC prior to the Pei Plan and weep. While its true many other cities had urban renewal that destroyed massive portions of their downtowns, I don't think any were as extensive and catastrophic as what happened in OKC. If it wasn't for the combined effect of the Pei Plan and the 80s oil bust, we would likely have a very different city today and would likely compare favorably to St. Louis.

I used to be right with you. Seeing all those old pictures really sucks, but I've pretty much made peace with it at this point. Can't change the past, all we can do now is move forward.

I used to be right with you. Seeing all those old pictures really sucks, but I've pretty much made peace with it at this point. Can't change the past, all we can do now is move forward.

That's like making peace with OU losing a National Championship game or the 2012 NBA finals...not entirely possible.

Considering that every week in Steve's chat at least somebody comments how Tulsa is better than OKC, what are some real, current examples of where OKC is better than Tulsa? Tulsa residents have a lot to be proud of with their natural beauty, upscale retail, live music, and arts scene which is undoubtedly a notch above OKC's. Here is what I can think of, objectively speaking, that OKC has that is better than Tulsa.

-The Thunder (of course)
-Bricktown: Not for hipsters but still the most successful and consistently active district in the state
-More continuous urban fabric downtown i.e. less parking craters
-Oklahoma River development

What else can you all think of?

Considering that every week in Steve's chat at least somebody comments how Tulsa is better than OKC, what are some real, current examples of where OKC is better than Tulsa? Tulsa residents have a lot to be proud of with their natural beauty, upscale retail, live music, and arts scene which is undoubtedly a notch above OKC's. Here is what I can think of, objectively speaking, that OKC has that is better than Tulsa.

-The Thunder (of course)
-Bricktown: Not for hipsters but still the most successful and consistently active district in the state
-More continuous urban fabric downtown i.e. less parking craters
-Oklahoma River development

What else can you all think of?

Probably the most important - Until Ed came along, political cohesiveness.

A stronger corporate energy industry presence.

Ability to have a vision and do something about it - MAPS +

I'd say trasportation - you can hardly get to Tulsa unless you are on a toll road.

Contamination/Pollution - The Arkansas River is re-known for it's high level of metals contaminants.

The air is awful in Tulsa, if you happen to be downwind of the refineries.

-Growing at more than double the rate (+3.48% in past 2 years vs+1.54% in Tulsa)
-Economy that is kicking ass, OKC at about 104% of prerecessionary job levels as of Q2 2013, Tulsa not only less than 100% but lagging state and nat'l average.
-Much more new construction in central core area
-Much more investment in infrastructure
-Metro governments that are much more united; former hick towns like Jenks and Owasso think they are something special and could care less what Tulsa does
-Slightly more diverse, and far more racially and economically integrated
-Much better sports town

Better shopping and art in Tulsa is highly subjective. People are attracted to such things, especially shopping, would likely not move to Oklahoma anyway. So I really don't see how that is a strength for Tulsa.

That's like making peace with OU losing a National Championship game or the 2012 NBA finals...not entirely possible.

True, but just like every national championship that OU lost in the last decade and the NBA Finals...I don't think about them all the time and get pissed off. Used to do that with the Pei Plan stuff as well, but it's not worth the time. Too many good things going on now to dwell on it.

OKC is filling in huge holes right now with some very large projects for urban districts.

Once a good chunk of these things are done, the next step is knitting all of the urban fabric together through smaller infill, which will be increasingly easy due to the critical mass, success records and things like the street car.

Imagine Bricktown, Deep Deuce, Auto Alley, Midtown, the CBD and Film Row all tied together in a somewhat continuous flow of walkable development.

We are moving quickly in that direction and once that happens, we will have an urban setting of pretty grand proportions.


I have no doubt cities like Tulsa have some great pockets of development but OKC is doing this on a much larger scale over a much bigger geography.

I believe the end result will be far beyond what most people can currently comprehend.

True Pete, in 2020 this will be an entirely different debate, providing there is no economic disasters and that the planned developments come to fruition. I doubt Tulsa will have a street car. They probably will have made little progress in infilling their parking craters (I could be wrong though), and they won't have anything that compares to OKC's river development. Core 2 Shore should be well underway by then.

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.

He's at Lucky Star in Concho Nov 16, so you're in business. Also, Martina McBride, Mike Epps Cheech & Chong in Oct and Nov. We probably get the same acts, I once saw ZZ Top twice in 4 months, at the Peake and Riverwind, just a few years ago.

Well if OKC is going to claim Norman and Guthrie, Tulsa can surely claim the Port of Catoosa. Forgot to mention all the acts booked at the Joint at Hard Rock- Skynard, Steve Miller, lionel Richie, John Fogerty, ZZ, Joan Jett, one for the ladies Harry Connick, Brian Setzer.... The main problem with live music in OKC isn 't as much venues, it's people don't come out and support live music.

It's also worth mentioning that not of those acts by themselves hold a candle to the music festival last weekend. It was a major, well run, first class event. I don't think any of those concerts drew people from all over the country/world.

It's also worth mentioning that not of those acts by themselves hold a candle to the music festival last weekend. It was a major, well run, first class event. I don't think any of those concerts drew people from all over the country/world.

48 states & 8 countries

Just wondering, how is New Orleans remotely a peer city to OKC or any of the others on that list? Is it a comparison to metro populations?

That's about the only metric I think you can use to compare the two. NOLA is a 300 year old city with deeply established traditions in architecture, food, music, language, etc. from a conglomeration of French, Spanish, American, Caribbean, and African influences merging together. You could be dropped anywhere in NOLA and know what neighborhood you are in because no neighborhood's architecture looks like the other. French Quarter (everyone knows that architecture), the Garden District, Gentilly, the Marigny, Broadmoor, and on and on. There is virtually ZERO cookie cutter sprawl.

Look at an aerial map of the city on Google. This is why I was confused with the comparison. No knock on OKC or any other city at all. It's just more of an apples to oranges comparison to me. So is the thinking more population-based?

Just wondering, how is New Orleans remotely a peer city to OKC or any of the others on that list? Is it a comparison to metro populations?

That's about the only metric I think you can use to compare the two. NOLA is a 300 year old city with deeply established traditions in architecture, food, music, language, etc. from a conglomeration of French, Spanish, American, Caribbean, and African influences merging together. You could be dropped anywhere in NOLA and know what neighborhood you are in because no neighborhood's architecture looks like the other. French Quarter (everyone knows that architecture), the Garden District, Gentilly, the Marigny, Broadmoor, and on and on. There is virtually ZERO cookie cutter sprawl.

Look at an aerial map of the city on Google. This is why I was confused with the comparison. No knock on OKC or any other city at all. It's just more of an apples to oranges comparison to me. So is the thinking more population-based?

Population and economy. New Orleans has a similar population to OKC, but it pulls far above its weight in just about every category. There is no comparing New Orleans to OKC in terms of culture. In economics, New Orleans is still a good deal ahead but not by much. New Orleans is #41 in national GDP while OKC is #48.

Population and economy. New Orleans has a similar population to OKC, but it pulls far above its weight in just about every category. There is no comparing New Orleans to OKC in terms of culture. In economics, New Orleans is still a good deal ahead but not by much. New Orleans is #41 in national GDP while OKC is #48.

I didn't know that about the national GDP. Interesting. I'm very much looking forward to seeing what happens after the Panama Canal expansion is finished. That will be a game changer. Unlike other ports around the U.S. that are scrambling to make their channels deeper, New Orleans has the luxury of the Mississippi River being very very deep, negating the need for any manmade intervention. This will help other inland port cities (Kansas City, Baton Rouge, Memphis, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, etc.) as well. It should be interesting.

The Port of New Orleans is a port located in New Orleans, Louisiana. It is the 1st in the United States based on volume of cargo handled, second-largest in the state after the Port of South Louisiana, and 13th largest in the U.S. based on value of cargo. It also has the longest wharf in the world, which is 2.01 miles (3.4 km) long and can accommodate 15 vessels at one time.[1]

The Port of New Orleans handles about 62 million short tons of cargo a year. The port also handles about 50,000 barges and 700,000 cruise passengers per year with several ships from Carnival, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian cruise lines making it one of the nation's premier cruise ports. The Port of South Louisiana, based in the New Orleans suburb of LaPlace, Louisiana handles 193 million short tons. The Port of New Orleans and the Port of South Louisiana combined forms one of the largest port systems in the world by bulk tonnage, and ranked top 10 in the world by annual volume handled.

The Port of New Orleans is the United States' only deep-water port served by six major railroads, which is more than any other port in the country, that give it cost-effective rail service to the destinations throughout the country. These six railroads are linked by the New Orleans Public Belt, a 25 mile long railroad. The productive private maritime industry in the Port of New Orleans helps it produce year after year and giving it the United States' largest market share for imported steel, plywood, coffee, and natural rubber.

Port of New Orleans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_new_orleans)

It's geography like this you just can't buy, and is the reason the French decided it was the ideal place to build the city in 1718. Contrary to popular belief, the downtown area and the sliver by the river Uptown is up to 25 feet above sea level. They didn't have pumps in 1718 to drain swamp so it HAD to be suitable land back then. :)

Ok ending my thread jack.

However, OKC is at the crossroads of three interstates, so I would imagine OKC could see benefits from the Panama Canal expansion as well shipping grain and other food from the Great Plains to New Orleans and Houston to ship overseas.

One small correction - they had water pumps in 1718. People had been draining swamps and low-lying costal areas for centuries before New Orleans was founded. The corkscrew water pump was invented around 450 BC. The first dikes in the Netherlands were build over 2000 years ago and they started using windmills to pump the water out around 1200 AD.

He's at Lucky Star in Concho Nov 16, so you're in business. Also, Martina McBride, Mike Epps Cheech & Chong in Oct and Nov. We probably get the same acts, I once saw ZZ Top twice in 4 months, at the Peake and Riverwind, just a few years ago.

Being a long time Norman I was very excited about the prospects of a new music venue in town, and it was great for awhilw. Saw Bonnie Raitt, Black Crowes, some others, and then the place seemed to go dormant for soem reason. Heard from an employee a bean counter put in charge of running the casino so many it was some mgmt issues. Now it seems to be pretty much strictly a Red Dirt venue. Going for the cheap safe bet. Never been to Chonco. My friends went to the Hall&oates show and said it was a tent on the parking lot with godawful acoutistics. They left early. What was your impression? maybe Howard Pollack and Innervisions will get the new Airpark venue going but it surely can't be as cool as the Zoo. The Farmers Market could be a really cool venue but it guess it didn't go.

Being a long time Norman I was very excited about the prospects of a new music venue in town, and it was great for awhilw. Saw Bonnie Raitt, Black Crowes, some others, and then the place seemed to go dormant for soem reason. Heard from an employee a bean counter put in charge of running the casino so many it was some mgmt issues. Now it seems to be pretty much strictly a Red Dirt venue. Going for the cheap safe bet. Never been to Chonco. My friends went to the Hall&oates show and said it was a tent on the parking lot with godawful acoutistics. They left early. What was your impression? maybe Howard Pollack and Innervisions will get the new Airpark venue going but it surely can't be as cool as the Zoo. The Farmers Market could be a really cool venue but it guess it didn't go.

I've been to Concho only once, just a few months ago to see Miranda Lambert. I was fortunate enough to sit in the Platinum section, so it was actually pretty good. Free food, but you had to buy the beer. The stage is built high so you can see, but we were about 8 rows front and center. I would not go to Concho unless you can buy a reserved seat, otherwise, you would be miserable. They have reserved seating next to the Platinum section, just no free food. They put a rail across the mid section of the building, and for general admission, they turn you loose in that back section of the building. I looked back and it was a sea of people standing at the rail.....no thanks.
Now that venue is a huge quanset hut, permanent structure. They do use a large tent outside for the smaller acts though.

It is not a bad venue, but it's not near as good as the theater in Riverwind.

Finished reading the Kansas City Star's examinating criteria used to rank Kansas City among its peer cities.

My observation:

The statistical profile camparison using their designated peer cities (Denver, Fort Worth, Indianapolis, Memphis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, Omaha, St. Louis and Tulsa) were definitely a gauge used to highlight whatever they felt was inadequate (Landing on or near the bottom of any list is bad.) about Kansas City. These cities were chosen because of their proximity to Kansas City and corporate city population; KC has a larger corporate city population than four (St. Louis, Minneapolis, Omaha & Tulsa) of those cities listed? This would place Kanas City one slot below the median among those peer cities (below corporate city populations of Indianapolis, Fort Worth, Memphis, Denver, Oklahoma City & Milwaukee). Although this involved corporate Kansas City, a more meaningful gauge would have been to look at the overall area's metropolitan (MSA) or combined cities (CSA) in the KC area.

Who knows why these cities were selected and referred to as peer cities?

'Peer cities' appear to be a good catch phrase for a fishing expedition; large cities in Kansas City's vacinity. Why was Fort Worth used and not Dallas? Would Dallas' statistical profile in those catagories have screwed the writer's agenda? Or did it have more to do with corporate size and proximity?

Peer cities? Would you define that as cities in proximity, demographics or what?



OKC HAS been with those cities but is leaving pretty much all of them behind. Growing much faster than all, far more progressive in terms of public/private investment and leadership and light years ahead in terms of employment, both present and future...

...I think all the cities lumped in with OKC in the quote above look at OKC as doing many things they aspire to. For OKC it's Nashville, Charlotte, Indy, Denver, Austin and yes even Dallas that we can look to for leadership and ideas that could be directly applied in our setting.

Good observation Pete...

What if Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Cleveland had been included--cities more aligned with the MSA or CSA populations of Kansas City instead of Memphis, Oklahoma City, Omaha & Tulsa? Kansas City might have come out smelling like a rose?

A good peer cities list for OKC would probably include cities like Austin, Denver, Fort Smith, Fort Worth, Kansas City, Little Rock, Memphis, St. Paul, Wichita and Tulsa.

It depends on how you define peer city. My definition would be cities that are similar in population and economic clout. Fort Smith, Wichita, and Little Rock may very well be peers of OKC in terms of culture and geographic proximity, but everybody knows those cities are a notch below by most metrics. Wichita and Little Rock would be peers, and Fort Smith and Lawton would be peers. These are the cities I believe OKC should be compared to. As I've mentioned before, New Orleans is world renowned culturally, but in terms of population and economic development, they aren't that far ahead of OKC. These are the cities I think are our true peers.

New Orleans
Salt Lake City
Richmond
Louisville
Memphis
Jacksonville
Birmingham
Omaha
Albuquerque
Tulsa

By MSA population:
40. Jacksonville, FL
41. Memphis, TN
42. OKC
43. Louisville, KY
44. Richmond, VA
45. New Orleans, LA
46. Hartford, CT
47. Raleigh, NC
48. Birmingham, AL
49. Buffalo, NY
50. Salt Lake City, UT

By MSA population:
40. Jacksonville, FL
41. Memphis, TN
42. OKC
43. Louisville, KY
44. Richmond, VA
45. New Orleans, LA
46. Hartford, CT
47. Raleigh, NC
48. Birmingham, AL
49. Buffalo, NY
50. Salt Lake City, UT

I agree with this list, except for Raleigh, NC. Raleigh is part of the Raleigh-Durham CSA which functions much like Dallas/Ft Worth or Minneapolis/St Paul. It wouldn't surprise me if one day soon, the census bureau redefines it as one metro area. Raleigh, like Fort Worth, is a peer in and of itself but considering its place in its larger urban region it isn't quite an apples to apples comparison.

I fully expect OKC to soon pass up Memphis in population. Memphis' hub airport helps keep their GDP above however.

I fully expect OKC to soon pass up Memphis in population. Memphis' hub airport helps keep their GDP above however.

That hub in Memphis will be disappearing so that is a non-issue.

Delta to Close Memphis Hub In the Fall, 230 Jobs Will Be Eliminated : Leisure : TravelersToday (http://www.travelerstoday.com/articles/6532/20130607/delta-close-memphis-hub-fall-230-jobs-will-eliminated.htm)

Will be interesting to see how the Enable deal affects OKC's economic standing...

I think geography does play a role in discussing "peer cities." For example, even if population and GMP are similar, I would not consider Buffalo or Hartford to be peers of OKC. Probably not Raleigh either. Not suggesting they are on a higher level, I don't think they are. But their particular economies and histories and compositions are just different. In many ways, we're more a peer of Dallas than those similarly-sized cities.

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.

KC hits well above its weight in urbanism. It's a beautiful, classic city.

Oklahoma City metro area leads state in GDP growth | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-metro-area-leads-state-in-gdp-growth/article/3883989)

The OKC metro handily beat Tulsa in GDP growth for 2012. Neither metro's numbers are stellar, but OKC had a 2.2% growth vs Tulsa's 0.3%. It's surprising OKC's GDP growth is so low given the low unemployment, which in most of 2012 was SIGNIFICANTLY lower than peer cities.

I'll be interested to see if OKC's population growth will slow as the economy improves in other cities and what impact the recent Chesapeake reorganization will have.

..but OKC had a 2.2% growth vs Tulsa's 0.3%.

This only tells part of the story. OKC has a bigger GDP than Tulsa so even if OKC only had a 0.3% growth it would still be bigger than Tulsa's 0.3% growth.

I'm not too worried about us growing a bit slower than national average. If anything the rest of the country's metros are just catching up with us. A GDP number only tells you half the story. Job growth, income growth, housing starts, tax collection, etc. are much better indicators taken together.

I was reading somewhere that a lot of gains in these areas were due to increased real estate valuations. That doesn't sound like something to celebrate. "Hey I can't find job but I can get a big ass HELOC and go on vacation now. Yay, its 2006 all over again!" Have we learned nothing?

With that in mind, it wouldn't shock me between sequestration, upheaval at Chesapeake, flat sales tax collections, and disruption from the May storms, OKC has probably "tapped the brakes" economy-wise in the first half of 2013. But we have a lot of good positives on the horizon coming online (GE, Enable, continued growth at Devon & Continental). Also, construction spending, which is a big component of this area's economy, continues to be strong. Housing starts are still growing, tornado rebuilding is only just now kicking in, and Stage Center tower and MAPS3 projects should keep things humming into 2014.

Oklahoma City metro area leads state in GDP growth | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-metro-area-leads-state-in-gdp-growth/article/3883989)

The OKC metro handily beat Tulsa in GDP growth for 2012. Neither metro's numbers are stellar, but OKC had a 2.2% growth vs Tulsa's 0.3%. It's surprising OKC's GDP growth is so low given the low unemployment, which in most of 2012 was SIGNIFICANTLY lower than peer cities.

I'll be interested to see if OKC's population growth will slow as the economy improves in other cities and what impact the recent Chesapeake reorganization will have.

Our biggest growth in population has been the hispanic sector. Our population will continue to grow with the hispanic base leading the % of growth. Many of my relatives and friends have moved here from Texas and they don't like what's happening down there. They have had their vehicles taken (strick auto safety inspection); housing, food, utilities and so on has skyrocketed.

They like the construction they see going on in OKC and inexpensive living and the ease of driveability throughout the City.

When I lived in the Metroplex (95-02); I would return to Oklahoma City on a monthly basis to stock up; this is where I did my grocery shopping--the food was fresh and the meat didn't spoil as fast. The water in that area was 'not fit for my consumption.' Some of my neighbors were impressed with the prices on food items I was getting. They couldn't wait to help me unload my auto (I only lost a pork roast during that time). There are a lot of advantages to living in Texas and there are some disadvantages as well.

Really feel that some people don't know how good we have it here in OKC.

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?

It's been a few years for me as well, but St. Louis is not as nice as KC. It has the arch and an empty downtown surrounded by dangerous inner-city neighborhoods that are filled with despair.

The Midtown or UPtown portion of St. Louis is quite neat and I enjoyed it immensely, but St Louis is not very navigable for a tourist in the way KC is. KC has, in a direct line, downtown, P&L, Crown Center, Westport, and the Plaza. It is all very dense for the most part and very urban and dynamic. I love KC.

It's been a few years for me as well, but St. Louis is not as nice as KC. It has the arch and an empty downtown surrounded by dangerous inner-city neighborhoods that are filled with despair.

The Midtown or UPtown portion of St. Louis is quite neat and I enjoyed it immensely, but St Louis is not very navigable for a tourist in the way KC is. KC has, in a direct line, downtown, P&L, Crown Center, Westport, and the Plaza. It is all very dense for the most part and very urban and dynamic. I love KC.

It will be even better when they complete their streetcar between the River Market, Downtown, and UnionStation!

It's been a few years for me as well, but St. Louis is not as nice as KC. It has the arch and an empty downtown surrounded by dangerous inner-city neighborhoods that are filled with despair.

The Midtown or UPtown portion of St. Louis is quite neat and I enjoyed it immensely, but St Louis is not very navigable for a tourist in the way KC is. KC has, in a direct line, downtown, P&L, Crown Center, Westport, and the Plaza. It is all very dense for the most part and very urban and dynamic. I love KC.

That's how I see it. STL may be overall larger and more historically urban, but it also has a lot of blight problems that puts KC in a better position in my opinion. Now I am not saying St Louis is a bad city, but if I was going to live in Missouri my first choice would be Kansas City. Kansas City is underrated nationally simply because it has the word "Kansas" in its name and people from the coast apply to it the stereotypes that go with that. St Louis on the other hand is more closely associated with blue state Illinois, garnering it more respect among the urban elite.

That's how I see it. STL may be overall larger and more historically urban, but it also has a lot of blight problems that puts KC in a better position in my opinion. Now I am not saying St Louis is a bad city, but if I was going to live in Missouri my first choice would be Kansas City. Kansas City is underrated nationally simply because it has the word "Kansas" in its name and people from the coast apply to it the stereotypes that go with that. St Louis on the other hand is more closely associated with blue state Illinois, garnering it more respect among the urban elite.

St. Louis is the farthest West Eastcoast City. Kansas City is the farthest East WestCoast City. My preference is KC w/o the issues.

...and it use to have one of my favorite restaurants " The Stateline Grill" close to The Plaza. ...just a nice dinner.

St. Louis is the farthest West Eastcoast City. Kansas City is the farthest East WestCoast City. My preference is KC w/o the issues.

...and it use to have one of my favorite restaurants " The Stateline Grill" close to The Plaza. ...just a nice dinner.

I agree with this. St. Louis is the westernmost city of the Northeastern/Midwestern ilk. When I think Missouri, I never think of St. Louis. I always think of Kansas City, or the vast farm country in the central part of the state, or "Missour-uh" in the southern part of the state anchored by Springfield and Branson. People talk about Dallas being where the East ends and Ft Worth where the West begins, but Texas, like Oklahoma is still culturally Dixie.

I agree with this. St. Louis is the westernmost city of the Northeastern/Midwestern ilk. When I think Missouri, I never think of St. Louis. I always think of Kansas City, or the vast farm country in the central part of the state, or "Missour-uh" in the southern part of the state anchored by Springfield and Branson. People talk about Dallas being where the East ends and Ft Worth where the West begins, but Texas, like Oklahoma is still culturally Dixie.

Texas and Oklahoma seem as much southwestern as Dixie to me. I'd say dixie stops at AR and LA. Texoma is really it's own thing because of Big Oil and Ranch-land.

Our biggest growth in population has been the hispanic sector. Our population will continue to grow with the hispanic base leading the % of growth. Many of my relatives and friends have moved here from Texas and they don't like what's happening down there. They have had their vehicles taken (strick auto safety inspection); housing, food, utilities and so on has skyrocketed.

They like the construction they see going on in OKC and inexpensive living and the ease of driveability throughout the City.

When I lived in the Metroplex (95-02); I would return to Oklahoma City on a monthly basis to stock up; this is where I did my grocery shopping--the food was fresh and the meat didn't spoil as fast. The water in that area was 'not fit for my consumption.' Some of my neighbors were impressed with the prices on food items I was getting. They couldn't wait to help me unload my auto (I only lost a pork roast during that time). There are a lot of advantages to living in Texas and there are some disadvantages as well.

Really feel that some people don't know how good we have it here in OKC.

Huh?

Ease of drive ability?

OKC's slow growth is okay bc your cousin moved up from Texas?

Texas is losing people because of strick auto inspections?

The superior grocery shopping of OKC?

I think that our growth dropping off is a sobering reminder to not become complacent and to keep working on issues directly relating to OKC's competitiveness.

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

Huh?? How are Richmond, Jacksonville, Louisville, Buffalo, Memphis, and ROCHESTER ahead of OKC? As usual, I'm surprised you didn't put Wichita ahead of us, too.

Huh?? How are Richmond, Jacksonville, Louisville, Buffalo, Memphis, and ROCHESTER ahead of OKC? As usual, I'm surprised you didn't put Wichita ahead of us, too.

Richmond and Louisville are ahead of OKC. Jacksonville isn't in terms of urban development but its location with pristine beaches puts it ahead to me (I love the ocean). The Northeast is an entirely different ballgame than the Sunbelt so OKC can't be compared apples to apples with places like Buffalo, Hartford, and Rochester despite them being of similar size and economic clout. Memphis is a toss-up. I would put it ahead culturally given its musical legacy but that city also has lots of problems that detract from it being a good place to live. As for Birmingham, I wanted to put it one spot below OKC but its location in the Appalachian foothills as well as the density and vibrancy of its downtown caused me to put it one place above. It also suffers though from many of the same problems Memphis does.

Wichita is well below OKC. I understand that was sarcasm but if I was trying to downplay OKC I would have put Tulsa ahead of it but I did not.

Texas and Oklahoma seem as much southwestern as Dixie to me. I'd say dixie stops at AR and LA. Texoma is really it's own thing because of Big Oil and Ranch-land.

I would say only West Texas is truly Southwestern. I would define West Texas as anything west of the I-35 corridor but not including it. DFW, Austin, and San Antonio are still Southern but west of there it gets Southwestern. For Oklahoma, I would say the Panhandle is Southwestern but most of the interior of the state fits more with the South. All of Oklahoma and Texas does have more Southwestern influence than say Tennessee or Alabama, but I would say Southern culture is still the dominant culture for the most part.

It depends on how you define peer city. My definition would be cities that are similar in population and economic clout. Fort Smith, Wichita, and Little Rock may very well be peers of OKC in terms of culture and geographic proximity, but everybody knows those cities are a notch below by most metrics. Wichita and Little Rock would be peers, and Fort Smith and Lawton would be peers. These are the cities I believe OKC should be compared to. As I've mentioned before, New Orleans is world renowned culturally, but in terms of population and economic development, they aren't that far ahead of OKC. These are the cities I think are our true peers.

New Orleans
Salt Lake City
Richmond
Louisville
Memphis
Jacksonville
Birmingham
Omaha
Albuquerque
Tulsa

I've been to every single one of these cities. Some of them I've spent a fair amount of time in. And here's my ranking:

New Orleans
Louisville/Oklahoma City (Louisville is prettier, but the Thunder trump anything they have IMO)
Memphis/Salt Lake City (different positives and negatives, but about the same to me)
Jacksonville (I love the beach there too, but as far as urban areas go, OKC is far more appealing).
Richmond (maybe...might even be below Omaha and Birmingham)
Omaha (Omaha and Birmingham are the most appealing of the slightly smaller cities)
Birmingham
Albuquerque
Buffalo/Rochester/Hartford (none of these I find very appealing)
Tulsa
Tucson

I agree with this. St. Louis is the westernmost city of the Northeastern/Midwestern ilk. When I think Missouri, I never think of St. Louis. I always think of Kansas City, or the vast farm country in the central part of the state, or "Missour-uh" in the southern part of the state anchored by Springfield and Branson. People talk about Dallas being where the East ends and Ft Worth where the West begins, but Texas, like Oklahoma is still culturally Dixie.
Dallas is just a jumbled mess of everywhere. When I lived there in 91-93 I used to joke that Dallas had nothing to do with Texas, it was just where all the people moving from the northeast and midwest stopped and ended up staying on their way to California.

That's how I see it. STL may be overall larger and more historically urban, but it also has a lot of blight problems that puts KC in a better position in my opinion. Now I am not saying St Louis is a bad city, but if I was going to live in Missouri my first choice would be Kansas City. Kansas City is underrated nationally simply because it has the word "Kansas" in its name and people from the coast apply to it the stereotypes that go with that. St Louis on the other hand is more closely associated with blue state Illinois, garnering it more respect among the urban elite.

I would disagree with this at some level. When I think of Missouri I do think of KC but that is because I am from the KS side of the metro and you can't talk about KC without talking about Missouri. At the same time, I also think of St. Louis. And if you have ever been to the Illinois side of the St. Louis metro, in no way would you ever want to associate that with Illinois. When I think of Illinois all I think about is Chicago, much the same way I think about NYC when I think about NY.

To add to that, KC by far and away has more ties to the University of Kansas than it does to Missouri University. With Lawrence so close and the KUMC right on the state line it's hard not to.

Louisville/Oklahoma City (Louisville is prettier, but the Thunder trump anything they have IMO)


Personally I think Louisville is ahead of OKC by a healthy margin in a few key areas. Their CBD, as a whole is noticeably more active and they have plenty of parks, fountains, and plazas. Louisville also has quite a bit of retail downtown as well as street level businesses. They also have Fourth St Live, which is like a smaller version of Kansas City's Power and Light district. OKC still has some ground to cover outside of Bricktown. In addition, they have other urban districts that for the most part are farther along in the gentrification process than OKC's districts with a very vibrant arts and live music scene for a city it's size. On top of that, the natural landscape of northern Kentucky is beautiful and there is a lot of nearby outdoor recreation. OKC and Louisville however are very similar however by most statistical measurements, be it population, demographics, economic clout, and even by Richard Florida's creative class index. A lot of what's great about Louisville is also happening in OKC, but I think they are currently about 5-10 years or so ahead of us.

They are ahead. But Kentucky is a pretty state to start w/. If you haven't been, then you are missing something.

OKC should catch them when the Park / River / Convention Hotels are in place. Then we will be on the same page. OKC is certainly more Visible than Louisville.

It will be even better when they complete their streetcar between the River Market, Downtown, and UnionStation!

Too bad they didn't put it down Main connecting Downtown, Westport and the Plaza. Pretty big miss bit they couldn't get it passed.

I would say only West Texas is truly Southwestern. I would define West Texas as anything west of the I-35 corridor but not including it. DFW, Austin, and San Antonio are still Southern but west of there it gets Southwestern. For Oklahoma, I would say the Panhandle is Southwestern but most of the interior of the state fits more with the South. All of Oklahoma and Texas does have more Southwestern influence than say Tennessee or Alabama, but I would say Southern culture is still the dominant culture for the most part.

Nope.

Oklahoma is the southern plains .. it has some of the culture of the southwest and some of the south .. but it doesn't fit with either .

People have been trying to compartmentalize this state for ages. I doubt people in Altus, Woodward, or Enid would consider themselves the south. Likewise I don't think people in Antlers or Idabel identify with the southwest. OK straddles about 3 or 4 cultural regions, if you really think about it.

People have been trying to compartmentalize this state for ages. I doubt people in Altus, Woodward, or Enid would consider themselves the south. Likewise I don't think people in Antlers or Idabel identify with the southwest. OK straddles about 3 or 4 cultural regions, if you really think about it.
I like Joel Garreau's "Nine Nations of North America" (from 1981, admittedly)
Google Image Result for http://www.overmorgen.com/weblog/files/2009/01/09/nine_nations_of_north_america.gif (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.overmorgen.com/weblog/files/2009/01/09/nine_nations_of_north_america.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.overmorgen.com/weblog/2009/01/07/usa_breakup.php&h=382&w=518&sz=30&tbnid=olmhZzzDc0hNtM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=122&zoom=1&usg=__7hZR6PZtrZz0mvt27wf7irTz-OQ=&docid=s4BJDjQYC2rE_M&sa=X&ei=tflWUqWuA8mUrAGjlYGgBg&ved=0CC8Q9QEwAg)
which has us in something called "The Breadbasket" or Colin Woodard's "American Nations"
World Wide Woodard: Presenting the (slighty revised) American Nations map (http://colinwoodard.blogspot.com/2012/04/presenting-slighty-revised-american.html)
that places us in Greater Appalachia.
I think some of those Midwest, Southwest, South groupings are insane when it comes to Oklahoma.

Personally I think Louisville is ahead of OKC by a healthy margin in a few key areas. Their CBD, as a whole is noticeably more active and they have plenty of parks, fountains, and plazas. Louisville also has quite a bit of retail downtown as well as street level businesses. They also have Fourth St Live, which is like a smaller version of Kansas City's Power and Light district. OKC still has some ground to cover outside of Bricktown. In addition, they have other urban districts that for the most part are farther along in the gentrification process than OKC's districts with a very vibrant arts and live music scene for a city it's size. On top of that, the natural landscape of northern Kentucky is beautiful and there is a lot of nearby outdoor recreation. OKC and Louisville however are very similar however by most statistical measurements, be it population, demographics, economic clout, and even by Richard Florida's creative class index. A lot of what's great about Louisville is also happening in OKC, but I think they are currently about 5-10 years or so ahead of us.

Oh, I mostly agree. I think they're ahead of us in most of those parameters, but not by that much. I just think that if I could choose which of the two cities I'd prefer to live in, it would be no contest. For me, having an NBA team trumps any natural beauty and slight increase in urbanization they have. That's why I rank them equally. And that's one of the reasons I rank some of the other cities below us. I think Omaha has a far better Bricktown-like area in their Old Market, and they've got better retail than we do, for the most part. But, the Thunder give us an advantage that's hard to top. If Jacksonville had a better or more loved NFL team, I'd rank them ahead of OKC for that reason ( and the beach), but they don't.

I've been to every single one of these cities. Some of them I've spent a fair amount of time in. And here's my ranking:

New Orleans
Louisville/Oklahoma City (Louisville is prettier, but the Thunder trump anything they have IMO)
Memphis/Salt Lake City (different positives and negatives, but about the same to me)
Jacksonville (I love the beach there too, but as far as urban areas go, OKC is far more appealing).
Richmond (maybe...might even be below Omaha and Birmingham)
Omaha (Omaha and Birmingham are the most appealing of the slightly smaller cities)
Birmingham
Albuquerque
Buffalo/Rochester/Hartford (none of these I find very appealing)
Tulsa
Tucson

I agree with this list, except I would realistically put SLC just ahead of OKC. We can all admit that, thanks to being beneficiaries of our light rail system, SLC has progressed past us enough to be a role model with TOD and LRT.

Buffalo, by the way, is a beautiful city reminiscent of the City Beautiful era. Kind of a miniature Cleveland..

Tulsa should be higher but isn't because they have no plan, no direction, no development, nothing except decline. Declining cities lose points.

To be sure, Oklahoma is it's own state much more so than every state outside of California, Texas, Alaska, Hawaii, and Florida. You could maybe throw in Colorado, because it's not southwestern and it's far more interesting than any of the other Rocky Mountain states.

It has influences from the Southwest, the South, the Midwest, Texas, and has the added history of being Indian Territory and hosting a large contingent of Native Americans today. Oklahoma also has a far greater hispanic population than LA, AR and certainly the southeastern states.

Oklahoma, Texas and California are the only states to be major players in the early oil days, and because of how much Big Oil affects our economy, it is easy to see how this state could never be a Southern state, never be a strictly agricultural "plains" state, and has never had the manufacturing (nor the weather or politics) to be a Midwestern state.

Furthermore, OKC and Tulsa belong to the "Texas Triangle" emerging mega-region. As time progresses, Texas and Oklahoma will become more like each other.

Tulsa also loses points because of its massive parking craters with no plans whatsoever to remedy the situation.

Louisville has done an outstanding job at balancing density and parking. Given the demographic and population similarities, that city should definitely be a model for OKC. I believe we will be able to catch up with them in 5-10 years providing there isn't an economic collapse. Think OKC with a fully gentrified Midtown, SoSA, Uptown, completed Central Park surrounded by mid-rise residential, completed convention center with hotel, and a CBD with substantial big name retail and you have Louisville today.

People have been trying to compartmentalize this state for ages. I doubt people in Altus, Woodward, or Enid would consider themselves the south. Likewise I don't think people in Antlers or Idabel identify with the southwest. OK straddles about 3 or 4 cultural regions, if you really think about it.

When I see these Southern or Southwest labels on Oklahoma, I seem them as geographical terms. For the cultural perspective, I agree with you in that Oklahoma was built on the principals of the settlers that came here, which came via the East/Northeast to open land to claim their stake. A majority of those were what, German? Irish? Italian? How many settlers came from the Southeast or Texas? The flair of Oklahoma is a montage of genetic lines that to me came from the Northeast but created their own traditions, quite like the Pilgrims came to America to not be persecuted. That's why Oklahoma will never identify with a certain region based on the styles of life you see today.

I don't give two craps about mass transit in ranking SLC above OKC, it gets the nod for the sole reason of being next door to great skiing!