Name calling isn't appropriate here no matter who is doing it. Your pertinent comments are appreciated but you have to be prepared for those who will challenge what you say without getting too offensive.

I enjoy the debate, or else I wouldn't post on here. I do get irritated when there seems to be a double standard on issues. I felt like what Cuatrode posted was meant to demean and poke fun at some of the information I've posted here in a sarcastic way. So I posted something sarcastic back. If he finds it offensive, then like I said I would like him to message me as I am not the type of person who can't say sorry if I did hurt his feelings - but as the comments were between him and I that is a discussion for us and not anyone else.

I enjoy the debate, or else I wouldn't post on here. I do get irritated when there seems to be a double standard on issues. I felt like what Cuatrode posted was meant to demean and poke fun at some of the information I've posted here in a sarcastic way. So I posted something sarcastic back. If he finds it offensive, then like I said I would like him to message me as I am not the type of person who can't say sorry if I did hurt his feelings - but as the comments were between him and I that is a discussion for us and not anyone else.Well, in that case you probably should have directed your original comments directly to him in a private message instead of for everyone to see. As I said, I think you have an interesting perspective here but I have seen others with similar good initial intentions get banned for the kinds of public comments they make about other posters. You are apparently fairly new here and Pete keeps the standards for posters and their comments high or they are gone.

Not to pile on, but the notion that Tulsa's downtown was not decimated like OKC's isn't correct. Look at downtown Tulsa from Google Earth. The southern and eastern parts are all but gone, other than a few buildings, many of which are churches. The East End is, thankfully, now seeing a decent amount of investment, taking up several empty lots within the next 1-3 years, but my point remains. Much of downtown Tulsa is/was entirely empty. There is a lot of work still to be done to fully rebuild downtown Tulsa. If you would like to see what is being done about that, refer back to Swake's posts earlier in this thread.

In my opinion, the biggest advantage OKC has over Tulsa is leadership that recognizes the importance of good urban infrastructure. OKC is about to start construction on a streetcar loop, while Tulsa won't even try to implement a decent bus loop, for example.

Where I think Tulsa is ahead:

Outdoor recreation. Some of this is due to the natural topography, but Riverparks and Turkey Mountain (and in several years, the Gathering Place) provide opportunities for recreation not available (to my knowledge) in OKC.

Live Music: Tulsa has the Cain's, Brady Theater, and the Vanguard that consistently bring in great shows. And, of course, the BOK Center which brings in many of the big names, however the Chesapeake Arena also attracts these.

Anything else that Tulsa may be ahead in, that I can think of, is intangible. I love midtown, but it is hard to compare to anything in OKC. South Tulsa/Jenks/Bixby is also unlike any area that I've been to in OKC, although probably most similar to Edmond. The two are hard to compare, due to the more spread out nature of OKC and it's suburbs.

Oklahoma City is ahead of Tulsa in nearly every tangible measure. This does not mean that OKC is necessarily better than Tulsa, but the city is experiencing faster growth.

From the time I've spent in OKC, I really do like it. A lot. But I prefer Tulsa. Tulsa suits my personality better. Tulsa feels less corporate than OKC, and there are other intangible things that I can't quite discern that give the cities, at least for me, very different personalities. However, should I ever live in OKC, I'm sure that I would be happy there, and I'm sure I would find some things that I liked better.

As dankrutka said, it's not about one city being better than the other, it's about what an individual prefers.

If this stems from my earlier comment, I never said tulsa's downtown wasn't decimated, I said their historic neighborhoods near downtown were not AS decimated as OKCs. To my knowledge, midtown Tulsa did not experience the same level of deterioration that many of okc's inner city higher end, historic neighborhoods did and it shows. It probably helps that most of the nicer neighborhoods are concentrated instead of in the checkerboard pattern in OKC that makes it possible to go from a mansion to crack houses in a few blocks.

Ah yes, I can be called an ass... but I can't say that someone whit is overpowering?

Did I say anything to you about your comments. I came on here to try an contribute to the overall sight, and when I tried to offer insight and ideas in threads like 499 W Sheridan you attacked me on there. So I dropped it.

You and several other people seem to think I'm out to get OKC. I have not ever said that either Tulsa or OKC is better than one another. I try to post relevant information and stats to help people think more critically about what they are saying. Don't like it, well that's unfortunate.

I'm glad you got to experience more of Tulsa, and hopefully you get a chance to explore more of it and find it's hidden gems that gives you something to look forward to when you are there.You can do whatever you want.

My point was: I think you were making some pretty good points earlier, but the official census is taken once every ten years and the rest are just predictions from the growth that was compared around the time the real census was taken, as I understand it. Using the census is a bit unfair here and that's what I meant when I took the stance I did against you regarding that.

I appreciate your contributions either way.

Your amazing whit is overpowering. Care to add anything relevant to the discussion?

Sure. I think you meant "wit" not "whit" :)

Sure. I think you meant "wit" not "whit" :)

Touche. :)

What makes all this OKC vs. Tulsa thing kind of funny is that despite the progress in both cities, they are barely keeping pace with nearly every other city in America who are themselves experiencing amazing urban growth.

What makes all this OKC vs. Tulsa thing kind of funny is that despite the progress in both cities, they are barely keeping pace with nearly every other city in America who are themselves experiencing amazing urban growth.

At the risk of causing eye rolling and bringing up an overplayed joke, I can't help but smile at this argument when many (dare I say most? *cringe*) Americans couldn't locate either city accurately on a map. Cue infamous Friends clip of Chandler announcing his job offer in Tulsa...

What makes all this OKC vs. Tulsa thing kind of funny is that despite the progress in both cities, they are barely keeping pace with nearly every other city in America who are themselves experiencing amazing urban growth.

Again, you degrade OKC whenever you can. CNN/Money lists OKC as the 9th fastest growing metro in the US according to the US Census dept. But what do they know?

What makes all this OKC vs. Tulsa thing kind of funny is that despite the progress in both cities, they are barely keeping pace with nearly every other city in America who are themselves experiencing amazing urban growth.

What on earth or you basing this on?

Could things be better in OKC? Sure. But to say OKC is 'barely keeping pace with nearly every other city in America" is BS.

OKC is routinely held out as a great example, civic leaders are invited to speak on this subject, etc.

Billions have been invested in downtown OKC in just the last 15 years or so. I'd stack that up against any other city of similar size, and I'm sure it's better than several that are much bigger.

When I grew up (in Ponca City) there were three metros of interest, and you could get all three of all three's TV channels there. There's an historic ranch up there called the 101 ranch. It was said that it was named the 103 Ranch because it was 103 miles to all three (Wichita, Tulsa, and OKC). Can't account for the change in name and it's not all that pertinent, except to say that the three were mostly equal to Ponca Citians by and large. The two Oklahoma cities were more desirable in my household than Wichita for no particular reason I could discern. It was always my understanding that OKC and Tulsa related much like Dallas and Fort Worth. One was historically oil-based (Tulsa and Dallas) and one was historically cattle-based (OKC and Ft. Worth). One was white-collared and one was blue-collared. I know now that it was all an unrealistic generalization, but that's what I grew up with. If that's what the Costco gentleman who grew up in Western Oklahoma started with, it would go a long way to explain his interpretation of the statistics he had available to him.

What on earth or you basing this on?

Could things be better in OKC? Sure. But to say OKC is 'barely keeping pace with nearly every other city in America" is BS.

OKC is routinely held out as a great example, civic leaders are invited to speak on this subject, etc.

Billions have been invested in downtown OKC in just the last 15 years or so. I'd stack that up against any other city of similar size, and I'm sure it's better than several that are much bigger.

Jacksonville is doing so much better.

As an outside observer with no horse in the race, this thread and topic is just... fascinating to say the least.

At the risk of causing eye rolling and bringing up an overplayed joke, I can't help but smile at this argument when many (dare I say most? *cringe*) Americans couldn't locate either city accurately on a map. Cue infamous Friends clip of Chandler announcing his job offer in Tulsa...

There's also a lot of people who think we don't have electricity, we all have horses, and we live in tents next to buffalo. The vast majority of people have no clue about anything in this part of the country. The lead economist for the office I used to work for asked me where I was from, and I said Oklahoma. Her reply was "that's one of those box states in the middle of the country right?" and she wasn't joking sadly enough.


What on earth or you basing this on?

Could things be better in OKC? Sure. But to say OKC is 'barely keeping pace with nearly every other city in America" is BS.

OKC is routinely held out as a great example, civic leaders are invited to speak on this subject, etc.

Billions have been invested in downtown OKC in just the last 15 years or so. I'd stack that up against any other city of similar size, and I'm sure it's better than several that are much bigger.

In regards to infrastructure, OKC is outspending most cities. Development always follows infrastructure.

What makes all this OKC vs. Tulsa thing kind of funny is that despite the progress in both cities, they are barely keeping pace with nearly every other city in America who are themselves experiencing amazing urban growth.

Do you travel to cities of OKC and Tulsa's size very often? I do, and this comment is completely inaccurate. Just because we aren't the shining example of your ridiculously high new urbanism standards doesn't mean we aren't ahead of or at minimum keeping pace with other cities of our size.

"And Deep Deuce is ALREADY well beyond anything in Tulsa, as is Bricktown."

Direct quote from you ^. For someone who claims to be objective, where is your data to support that it is better than anything in Tulsa? It's laughable.

I used Census data. If that's not good enough for you because it disproves your opinion that is stated as a fact, then dig your head deeper into the sand.

Is it off? Yes. Like I said, Census data is only so accurate. It's equally inaccurate no matter how to compare it anywhere, which means the numbers are the same everywhere. Do I need to explain Statistics 101? I'm sure this is some conspiracy in Washington, D.C. though to promote Tulsa over OKC right?

Example: You could have someone who goes to OU, say from Dallas, who lives in Deep Deuce. They may never establish residency in Oklahoma City, so they are never accounted for in Census data as they are counted in their parents residence in Dallas. Same can be said about someone who goes to TU and would live in the East Village, and is from Dallas.

You have done nothing to prove your opinion as fact. If you are going to call other people out, then you should be held equally accountable. If you don't like my facts and data, disprove it.

I am in Tulsa 4-6 times a month and there is no urban neighborhood that compares in density to deep duece. It isn't even an arguement. How many 100+ unit apartment complexes are open, under construction, or proposed in or in immediate proximity to downtown tulsa?

Article today in the Louisville paper about how they want to follow OKC's path to downtown development:

Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer wants to follow Oklahoma City local tax model (http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/metro-government/2015/01/05/fischer-wants-follow-oklahoma-city-model/21288409/)

I am in Tulsa 4-6 times a month and there is no urban neighborhood that compares in density to deep duece. It isn't even an arguement. How many 100+ unit apartment complexes are open, under construction, or proposed in or in immediate proximity to downtown tulsa?

What is your definition of proximity to downtown? That could vary by each individual person. I've stated multiple times several of the multifamily projects under construction and in the planning phases in Downtown Tulsa. If everything that is on the drawing boards is constructed in a timely manner with ideal market conditions that we have currently, there could be 2,000 or more units built inside the IDL in the next 2-3 years.

Riverview has a much higher density than Deep Deuce. It just happens the majority of these large multifamily properties were built between 1960 - 1990 (Lincoln on Riverside, University Club Tower, Mansion House, Pythain Manor, etc - All 100+ unit buildings). Mansion House just underwent essentially a complete gut renovation too, as is Renaissance Uptown on the north edge of Riverview. As stated before, this area has over 3,000 residents, much denser than Deep Deuce and similar sized areas.

Does this make Riverview better than Deep Deuce? No. It's a personal preference.

Now if you said Deep Deuce has the highest density of new construction multifamily in Oklahoma since 2000, then you would in fact be correct. No one has said that, however. Just stating it is the densest urban neighborhood does not make it a fact, sorry.

This is an amazing exchange of "oh yeh, mine's bigger than yours". Just when I think we've evolved a little, I come across a thread like this. Lol

What is your definition of proximity to downtown? That could vary by each individual person. I've stated multiple times several of the multifamily projects under construction and in the planning phases in Downtown Tulsa. If everything that is on the drawing boards is constructed in a timely manner with ideal market conditions that we have currently, there could be 2,000 or more units built inside the IDL in the next 2-3 years.

Riverview has a much higher density than Deep Deuce. It just happens the majority of these large multifamily properties were built between 1960 - 1990 (Lincoln on Riverside, University Club Tower, Mansion House, Pythain Manor, etc - All 100+ unit buildings). Mansion House just underwent essentially a complete gut renovation too, as is Renaissance Uptown on the north edge of Riverview. As stated before, this area has over 3,000 residents, much denser than Deep Deuce and similar sized areas.

Does this make Riverview better than Deep Deuce? No. It's a personal preference.

Now if you said Deep Deuce has the highest density of new construction multifamily in Oklahoma since 2000, then you would in fact be correct. No one has said that, however. Just stating it is the densest urban neighborhood does not make it a fact, sorry.

I just Google mapped my way around the Riverview area, streetview style. Deep Deuce is significantly more dense. The Riverview area may have more residents, but it's also a larger area. I also saw a lot of surface parking lots and bad urban design. There are a lot of single family homes there as well. Just because there are a few large apartment complexes somewhat near one another with a bunch of suburban style houses in between doesn't make it an urban neighborhood in the sense that we've been talking about.

Now I'd love to be able to drop Liberty Tower or Boulder Towers or University Club Tower right into Oklahoma City. They're cool towers and Tulsa should be proud of them. But the area surrounding those towers? Just a bunch of older houses and big big parking lots.

I just Google mapped my way around the Riverview area, streetview style. Deep Deuce is significantly more dense. The Riverview area may have more residents, but it's also a larger area. I also saw a lot of surface parking lots and bad urban design. There are a lot of single family homes there as well. Just because there are a few large apartment complexes somewhat near one another with a bunch of suburban style houses in between doesn't make it an urban neighborhood in the sense that we've been talking about.

Now I'd love to be able to drop Liberty Tower or Boulder Towers or University Club Tower right into Oklahoma City. They're cool towers and Tulsa should be proud of them. But the area surrounding those towers? Just a bunch of older houses and big big parking lots.

Density by definition is “the number of inhabitants, dwellings, or the like, per unit area”

By that definition, Riverview is denser than Deep Deuce.

Is the urban design better? That’s a debate of opinion. Denver Avenue is not pedestrian friendly whatsoever, and to get to the bars/food in SOBO you do have to walk across empty grass lots. I would say in my opinion, Deep Deuce feels safer as a pedestrian when I walk around it than Riverview. The on street parking, street trees, and wider sidewalk make for a better-constructed neighborhood in my opinion. Walkscore.com gives similar ratings for both neighborhoods mid 60s – 70s, however.

Here is how I am basing my population numbers. I drew a polygon over Deep Deuce and dragged it up I-44 and put it over Riverview.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/913/gVaqbD.png (https://imageshack.com/i/pdgVaqbDp)

Most of the older house in this area are multiple dwelling units or offices too. Pretty much every property have a rental property above the garage in the back. Many of the buildings that look like houses too are actually smaller 4 - 8 unit apartment buildings too. To me that makes for an interesting mixture and builds a truly inclusive type of neighborhood because you can find a cheap studio or nice studio in a mid-rise or low rise building, a row house, or single family home all within blocks of each other.

But that's not all of Riverview. You've positioned it to hit the portion of it with the highest population buildings. Move it 3 blocks over and you've got tons of surface parking.

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1024x768q90/910/6qd98X.png (https://imageshack.com/i/pa6qd98Xp)

I overlaid the Deep Deuce polygon in the center of Riverview. See the map above, which is from the Tulsa Preservation Commission.

How do you define Riverview?

Oklahoma is blessed with two metropolitan areas which are on the verge. Oklahoma City has a solid foundation with MAPS... Tulsa has local investors like George Kaiser, who his willing to invest millions in the community he loves.

The future developments in each city will help complement what is already established. The price of growth sometimes come with devastation of historic structures which will be sacrificed to make room for the new.

Tulsa & Oklahoma City are cities that will 'prepare a place' as they chart the direction for their future. The development pattern comes down to how each city can make the 'new' blend in with the 'old.'

Accentuate the positives of two young great American cities.


As my mother once told the four boys she raised (reared); you're too big & to old to be fighting among yourselves, it's time to work together and look out for one another.

I know I'm going to regret this but... We are seeking to compare clearly defined and organized DISTRICTS, not neighborhoods, historical areas, groups of living units or general areas.

And this is how they are defined by the formal downtown organizations for both OKC and Tulsa:

http://www.tulsadowntown.org/general/1012/our-downtown
http://www.tulsadowntown.org/images/Downtown-Districts-Map.jpg

Maps | DowntownOKC (http://www.downtownokc.com/maps)
http://www.downtownokc.com/sites/default/files/Downtown-OKC-Map-2013-preview.png

I know I'm going to regret this but... We are seeking to compare clearly defined and organized DISTRICTS, not neighborhoods, historical areas, groups of living units or general areas.

And this is how they are defined by the formal downtown organizations for both OKC and Tulsa:

http://www.tulsadowntown.org/general/1012/our-downtown
http://www.tulsadowntown.org/images/Downtown-Districts-Map.jpg

Maps | DowntownOKC (http://www.downtownokc.com/maps)
http://www.downtownokc.com/sites/default/files/Downtown-OKC-Map-2013-preview.png

You can't even see the entire "districts" on the Tulsa map. The Pearl District is referred to as the Peoria District? No one refers to that area by that name. It doesn't even match the names of the districts on their website they break out.

Do you think a historic district isn't a defined district? Districts defined by the Tulsa Preservation Commission are actually legitimate districts unlike the maps tulsadowntown.org claims as districts.

Definition of a district:

"When a government outlines a region of a state, city, or town, that area is called a district. Besides school districts, there are also congressional districts and electoral districts, which are set up specifically for organizing voting and governing."

Which would mean the historic Riverview area is an actual legitimate "district"

If you want to claim Deep Deuce is the most dense district in all of Oklahoma based off those two maps as official, well ok. Do you really think that's a legitimate analysis of how the inner city works, functions, and feels in the real world?

As I said, I knew I would regret it.

As I said, I knew I would regret it.

It's an agree to disagree. That's the idea of a forum is to get different perspectives. I try to back whatever I say with some sort of relevant fact, as you usually do. They don't happen to match 100% all the time. That's what's great about having open, free speech.

Riverview has the best potential of any of the Tulsa urban neighborhoods IMO. It forms a triangle with downtown to the north, the river to the west and the rest of midtown including Cherry Street to the east and will have the Gathering Place due south. It's almost a perfect location for higher density development. While it has several residential high rises and both large and small apartment buildings there are also a lot of empty lots and surface parking mainly in between 15th and 18th and Boulder to Boston.

It actually reminds me a lot of the midtown area in OKC. Downtown adjacent surrounded by nice older neighborhoods with a small established bar /restaurant corridor (NW 10 & Walker in midtown and 18th & Boston in Riverview). Both also have a lot of vacant lots with midtown beginning to actively fill those in; there isn't the same momentum in Riverview at least not right now. When I lived in Tulsa I lived by there and enjoyed walking around the hilly streets and down to the river. The Blue Rose on the river is a fun bar/restaurant right by there with several decks overlooking the water.

These are some pros I came up with for both cities. I personally like Tulsa better, but I grew up there and have only lived here for 18 months. Although I like Tulsa better, there are somethings that OKC does much better. Even as a kid we used to come to OKC a few times a year to do things here. I think many of the things in the list are different than other posters, so flame away.

Tulsa:

Has a nicer park and trail system than OKC (including county parks). Lafortune park has a great location with good playground, cheap golf and (my favorite) a lit 5K trail. Tulsa parks are almost all lit, many public tennis and basketball courts that are lit. Playgrounds are also generally lit. The riverpark trails are amazing and are currently being redone to be even nicer (separating bikes from pedestrians), the trail is lit and is quite long (I think 25 miles). The entire turnpike from Jenks through far east BA has trails along it. The trails in Tulsa also stay busy so there isn't much concern for safety (except on the one from OSU-Tulsa to colinsvile). OKC doesn't have the geography to compete with Turkey Mountain or Chandler Park and as a result has no real hiking anywhere close by. Tulsa area schools also leave open their tracks for use by the public and leave lights on. Also every park in Tulsa is free, except for Mohawk which charges on some weekends (and is only $2 per car) - I'm looking at you Arcadia.
Tulsa has easy access to many good lakes, not much OKC can do about that.
Has much better highways than OKC, for one they keep consistent lane counts and actually go through the areas they serve (51 though BA, as opposed to 77 in Edmond), they have been good at adding highway capacity in the right areas at the right time.
Tulsa has a better grid layout with no cross diagonal roads like NW Expressway (but the highways do go diagonal, unlike OKC). Tulsa also actually understands left turn lanes and puts them in.
Life Time Fitness </thread>
The school districts in Tulsa have kept massive holes from forming in the city. The south side of town has Union, Jenks and Bixby instead of Tulsa Public. The kids in urban centers have access to Booker T. Washington. Tulsa's high end private schools are also spread out more geographically giving people more options in the urban areas.
The zoning made sense in Tulsa, you don't have a huge hole in the middle of the metro with tower on it, or industrial plants right next to high-end retail/residential.
Cost of living is lower, especially housing.
Much less spread out, so with the better highways it is much quicker to get anywhere in town, and helps attract higher end retail.
TCC is probably one of the best junior colleges in the country, but OKC obviously has better 4-year university access.
More and better general aviation airports, with airport neighborhoods.
Much better radio and music scene in general


OKC:

MAPS is an amazing program that completely blows away vision 2020 in Tulsa in vision and execution.
The urban areas, in OKC are already more entertaining (for me) than any in Tulsa and they have way more upside than in Tulsa (IMHO). I never got the appeal of Cherry Street, Utica Square or Brookside. Downtown Tulsa has come a long way, but nothing compared to OKC.
There are a lot more activities for kids, with Frontier City, White Water, Kirkpatrick Center, Marid Gardens, Boat House area, other museums (although I think the art museums in Tulsa are better).
The boathouse district is amazingly unique, especially after the white water center opens.
You can travel to a different city on a major highway from OKC without paying a toll
The suburban school districts here are better
Currently growth in OKC is higher, but it remains to be seen how lower oil prices affect that (if they stay low).
Edmond and Norman (and possibly others) have a real identity of their own, where Tulsa suburbs are really just sleeper communities (except for maybe Jenks).
OKC's airport is nicer than TUL with cheaper parking.
Highway art is much better in OKC (making bridges look nice, etc)
OKC actually dammed the full length of the river through the urban area, were Tulsa only has the on dam at 28th, despite many promises to add more.
I used to always think downtown Tulsa had a nicer skyline, but OKC has really stepped it up and I think the Devon tower is one of the prettiest towers I've ever seen, especially at sunrise/sunset.

^^^^^^^^

I don't care about and/or agree with 100% of those points, but I think that is overall a fair and impartial assessment.

Do you think a historic district isn't a defined district? Districts defined by the Tulsa Preservation Commission are actually legitimate districts unlike the maps tulsadowntown.org claims as districts.

Definition of a district:

"When a government outlines a region of a state, city, or town, that area is called a district. Besides school districts, there are also congressional districts and electoral districts, which are set up specifically for organizing voting and governing."

Which would mean the historic Riverview area is an actual legitimate "district"

You challenged my claim that Tulsa doesn't have anything that compares with Deep Deuce as an urban district, so that is what I was referencing.

But since you want to broaden the definition, here is how Tulsa Preservation Commission defines the Riverview Historic District; it is just the one outlined area; the others are separate districts. As shown, zero comparison to Deep Deuce:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/riverview.jpg

^^^^^^^^

I don't care about and/or agree with 100% of those points, but I think that is overall a fair and impartial assessment.

Which is the truth about these types of discussions, everyone has different things they really care about and have different definitions of good. For example, a lot of people in this thread talk about how great Utica Square is, outside of looking nice and being pleasant to walk around on a nice night, it has basically no appeal to me.


You challenged my claim that Tulsa doesn't have anything that compares with Deep Deuce as an urban district, so that is what I was referencing.

But since you want to broaden the definition, here is how Tulsa Preservation Commission defines the Riverview Historic District; it is just the one outlined area; the others are separate districts. As shown, zero comparison to Deep Deuce:

After living in Tulsa for most of my life, this is the first time I have ever heard of the Riverview Historic District. I was even in that part of town all the time too.

^^^^^^^^

I don't care about and/or agree with 100% of those points, but I think that is overall a fair and impartial assessment.

I agree. Zorba nailed it.

You challenged my claim that Tulsa doesn't have anything that compares with Deep Deuce as an urban district, so that is what I was referencing.

But since you want to broaden the definition, here is how Tulsa Preservation Commission defines the Riverview Historic District; it is just the one outlined area; the others are separate districts. As shown, zero comparison to Deep Deuce:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/riverview.jpg

Riverview district is made up of 4 distinct historical preservation zoning areas. Refer back to the map map I posted.

Why are you wasting your time, really? We are not going to agree. I think I'm right, you think your right. This is the last response I'm giving to this debate.

I don't care if you agree, especially since you are now talking about "zoning areas" after specifically defining "districts" in your previous post.

It's the classic debate fallacy of establishing a set of criteria, then changing them when they don't yield the answer you desire.


You were the one that called me out, and challenged my statements. Just responding in kind, and far more graciously.

I don't care if you agree, especially since you are now talking about "zoning areas" after specifically defining "districts" in your previous post.

It's the classic debate fallacy of establishing a set of criteria, then changing them when they don't yield the answer you desire.


You were the one that called me out, and challenged my statements. Just responding in kind, and far more graciously.

Well when this debate was started there was no criteria. You don't believe my last statement, fine. I explained why the map I posted was valid and is defined a Riverview. Don't accept that? Ok. I'm not changing anything because it didn't yield an answer I wanted. I stand by everything I've posted as valid and fair.

Well when this debate was started there was no criteria. You don't believe my last statement, fine. I explained why the map I posted was valid and is defined a Riverview. Don't accept that? Ok. I'm not changing anything because it didn't yield an answer I wanted. I stand by everything I've posted as valid and fair.

Except that river view is nothing like deep duece in any way other that that it contains a few scattered apartment buildings...

Except that river view is nothing like deep duece in any way other that that it contains a few scattered apartment buildings...

It was never my intention to show how similar they are. What I was showing is that there are other areas that have as dense or denser populations. The built environments are very different. The statement said by Pete that started it was that Deep Deuce is the most dense area in Oklahoma, and nothing in Tulsa comes close. Well I disagreed. Density = A population concentration within a certain area, it doesn't matter what it looks like. Then it evolved into how I was unfairly picking an area, because Riverview isn't a real area - its imaginary because tulsadowntown.org doesn't have it on their map.

Riverview and Deep Deuce are VERY different placed, but I think you're both stabbing at each other here rather than giving each their credit.

Deep Deuce is more dense, no doubt about it. Why? Because even if it's only a few levels of housing in each structure, that's more than 1 level. Riverview is mostly single family residences and would be immediately trumped by any area with a significant amount of apartment buildings. I would argue that Riverview is no more/less dense than any of the other areas of OKC that are of similar age/size homes...Military Park for example. And if you compare to the area around Captial HIll, then CH is probably fare more dense from a population perspective because of the # of people per household. Before you get your pants in a tizzy, lets also remember that Riverview does have some major elements of multi-family. University Club Tower (still think its ugly as crap) is a MAJOR element of that. It somewhat skews the population density for the entire area, but you can't just ignore it.

Deep Deuce also has the situation of having a constantly increasing population as more and more units are added all the time. Riverview does not have that. So DD will continue to become more dense as it reaches its saturation point. There are still plenty parcels of land to develop into multi-family units.

What Riverview has is something DD will never have though. That's historic structures. OKC has done plenty to ensure that anything historic in DD was LOOOOONG since dozed (that's what we do here right?). A lot of Riverview still needs work, but a lot of it has been maintained VERY well considering its age. OKC could only WISH to have an area with that longevity that close to downtown without it being mansions. Heritage Hills is NOT the same thing. I would say Riverview more accurately could be compared to areas of Norman just west of the Campus near Frat Row. A lot of historic homes that professors have restored or kept nice.

DD is MUCH smaller that Riverview in terms of what you define as the district. I would argue that in the current trend, that works more in DD's favor in terms of density. RV has a larger area, but that means it also includes more single family residences. If you focused the "district" of RV down to the area near Riverside Dr near the University club, you'd have a FAR more dense population and would probably do a lot to win the density battle.

But enough with the ***** envy stuff people. The pissing contest has only shown that each city has its own good qualities and we're more alike than either care to admit.

It was never my intention to show how similar they are. What I was showing is that there are other areas that have as dense or denser populations. The built environments are very different. The statement said by Pete that started it was that Deep Deuce is the most dense area in Oklahoma, and nothing in Tulsa comes close.Well I disagreed. Density = A population concentration within a certain area, it doesn't matter what it looks like. Then it evolved into how I was unfairly picking an area, because Riverview isn't a real area - its imaginary because tulsadowntown.org doesn't have it on their map.

Actually, Pete's statement was "Deep Deuce currently has much more in terms of housing, hotels, retail, restaurants and bars than any compact area in Tulsa." (See Post #268) There has been no evidence presented so far that disputes his original statement.

Actually, Pete's statement was "Deep Deuce currently has much more in terms of housing, hotels, retail, restaurants and bars than any compact area in Tulsa." (See Post #268) There has been no evidence presented so far that disputes his original statement.He can't post any because he doesn't have any, because THERE ISN'T ANY! What Pete posted was a fact. Now he is just trying to throw some additional criteria in it to favor his own views.

BTW, I fully support openness and this thread needs to be updated as Landarchpoke's posts were deleted.

I want to say, I love cars. I always pay attention to what cars are around me and when I was in Utica Square, I saw a 2010 Bentley Continental GT, a newer G63, BMW i8, C63 Coupe', 05' body style Aston Martin V8 Vantage and almost every other car there was a Lexus, BMW, Mercedes, and several Porsche's were there. I have never seen something among the sorts with the sole exception of the central Oklahoma Ferrari lunch meet at Classen Curve when there were 10+ Ferrari parked outside.

PS, from what I've heard from several trusted people I've spoken to regarding this, cosmopolitan refers to the Internationalism of a city so to speak with the various cultures and races. A quick view on City Data or any other website will tell you OKC wins in that regard.

Also, there is simply no place in Tulsa that compares to Deep Deuce. I drove down there again last night to drive around the Riverview area and while very nice, it is not as dense as Deep Deuce.

I will go down there soon with my new phone I'm getting that has 22MP camera and take various photos. I will try to get a lot of photos and be as fair as I can.

From what I've noticed so far, this is how I'd put the two cities up against each other:

Tulsa

High-end shopping- if I had to choose between OKC or Tulsa to shop at for higher-end shopping, it would be Tulsa

Suburbs- At this current point in time, Tulsa's suburban areas are nicer than OKC's suburban areas

Highway wow factor- so since most people on this board are urbanist, this probably won't be relevant, but if I were given a choice between a great highway network in a sprawled out city like Dallas or a great bus network in an urban city, I'd choose Dallas all day long. I have zero interest in seeing buses here in OKC, so that should give you an idea where I'm coming from. OKC does have the widest and arguably the coolest highway, but new development needs to take placed around that highway so you're driving through it. As it stands now, our new Crosstown could be mistaken a highway on the outskirts of the city if you weren't looking at the skyline from afar. North Dallas Tollway is only 6 lanes, yet it is one of the most breathtaking highways I've ever seen; that and Central Expressway, I'd personally choose the NDT over The Katy Freeway. The 110, Ventura Freeway, and the Cross Bronx Freeway are my all time favorite highways to date, and I haven't even been on the Cross Bronx. I do believe that Hefner Parkway, Kilpatrick, the whole I-40 will become amazing stretches of highway one day. Right now, as for a wow factor, Tulsa's I-44 takes the cake.

Natural beauty- very subjective and I don't like Tulsa's hills, but to each their own. From looking at reality and understanding most people would choose Tulsa's hills over OKC's flatness, Tulsa wins

Parks and Rec.- Right now Tulsa has us beat, but again, just give that a few years.

Average upkeep of the city- drive to Tulsa and look at the city as a whole. While there are some pretty nasty parts, the city is really more clean overall than OKC.

Oklahoma City

Size- OKC is a more cosmopolitan and diverse city. OKC's size helps it and at the momentum we're going, we help us in the end.

Districts- Tulsa nothing on the scale and wow factor of the CBD Deep Deuce, Bricktown, Paseo, or a Campus Corner type development(I'm going out on a limb here, but I saw no medical complex like the OU Health Sciences Center. . .Wheeler District, Auto Alley, Midtown, Film Row, C2S, Chilsohm Creek, Stockyards City, Penn Sqaure(one could argue for Penn Square right now actually as Woodlands Hills was terrible) can be added to the list in 5-10 years. Right now, I'd say personally Tulsa has districts on the scale of current Auto Alley, Film Row, and Plaza District. Once Edmond, Norman, and dare I say Guthrie, get their downtown areas in order, that will also boost the metro's districts.

CBD- Tulsa's CBD was an absolute joke. They really need to work on that.

Universities and education- I choose OKC.

New construction- while I understand and saw a couple new construction projects going on in Tulsa, it wasn't anywhere close to the scale that is happening here in OKC. By the time Tulsa gets to where our new construction is, we'll probably have reached an Austin scale construction boom or close to it and there is nothing else that can be done.

That's my take on it and I'm extremely tired, so if I missed anything, I will add later.

Actually, Pete's statement was "Deep Deuce currently has much more in terms of housing, hotels, retail, restaurants and bars than any compact area in Tulsa." (See Post #268) There has been no evidence presented so far that disputes his original statement.

This is the post I was responding to. I honestly didn't even see the above one.

Post #272

"The first paragraph is utter BS. Have you seen a recent aerial of Tulsa's core?

And Deep Deuce is ALREADY well beyond anything in Tulsa, as is Bricktown."

I just disagreed with the well beyond anything. People kept talking about density. Density is the amount of people the live in an area. Riverview, whether you want to acknowledge that it's a district or not - does exist. It's over all more dense population wise. When Deep Deuce is built out, there's a good chance it might be.

People have said well there's lots of single family homes there. That's what they look like, but every home in the neighborhood generally has at least 2 units. Vancouver's entire city is built that way with garage and basement units. It's probably not a dense city though... with all those single family homes...

Just leave it be, really, I disagree... Pete disagrees with me. Other people disagree with me on this issues. Does that mean I'm wrong? no. Does that mean you are wrong? no.

If you want to say it's a better neighborhood because it has more mixed uses, I would agree. By that posted you quoted of Pete is correct.

Using the term more dense changes what you are arguing 100%

Panda, I would quote you but it's a long post. I see you do like your cars, that's great - to each his own :D. I'm an urbanist, but I understand that there needs to be a happy medium between people who like to drive and people who like to take transit and walk. There are some urbanists who are just as extreme as most car lovers, thinking the city should only be designed for them and to hell with drivers.

I might suggest, if you have the time when you are in Tulsa, drive I-44 from the Hard Rock in Catoosa to the west. You get a fantastic view of downtown in the distance. Also, the BA Expressway has this same kind of stunning freeway/cityscape when you are approaching the 169 interchange at Garnett while driving northwest towards downtown. If you haven't done either route, I think you'd enjoy it.

When you drive around Riverview next, look at the garages - you'll be able to see almost all of them have units above them. To me, it's little things like this that make the city more accessible. Not everyone can afford a $300,000 condo or single family home. There's a lot of service industry professionals who can only afford $400 - 500/month who want to live in downtown or close and can't afford it. This is a huge problem all over the US though. This is really the only area in Tulsa that has a lot of these garage apartments. I wish more area's would adapt this type of design.

Riverview and Deep Deuce are VERY different placed, but I think you're both stabbing at each other here rather than giving each their credit.

Deep Deuce is more dense, no doubt about it. Why? Because even if it's only a few levels of housing in each structure, that's more than 1 level. Riverview is mostly single family residences and would be immediately trumped by any area with a significant amount of apartment buildings. I would argue that Riverview is no more/less dense than any of the other areas of OKC that are of similar age/size homes...Military Park for example. And if you compare to the area around Captial HIll, then CH is probably fare more dense from a population perspective because of the # of people per household. Before you get your pants in a tizzy, lets also remember that Riverview does have some major elements of multi-family. University Club Tower (still think its ugly as crap) is a MAJOR element of that. It somewhat skews the population density for the entire area, but you can't just ignore it.

Deep Deuce also has the situation of having a constantly increasing population as more and more units are added all the time. Riverview does not have that. So DD will continue to become more dense as it reaches its saturation point. There are still plenty parcels of land to develop into multi-family units.

What Riverview has is something DD will never have though. That's historic structures. OKC has done plenty to ensure that anything historic in DD was LOOOOONG since dozed (that's what we do here right?). A lot of Riverview still needs work, but a lot of it has been maintained VERY well considering its age. OKC could only WISH to have an area with that longevity that close to downtown without it being mansions. Heritage Hills is NOT the same thing. I would say Riverview more accurately could be compared to areas of Norman just west of the Campus near Frat Row. A lot of historic homes that professors have restored or kept nice.

DD is MUCH smaller that Riverview in terms of what you define as the district. I would argue that in the current trend, that works more in DD's favor in terms of density. RV has a larger area, but that means it also includes more single family residences. If you focused the "district" of RV down to the area near Riverside Dr near the University club, you'd have a FAR more dense population and would probably do a lot to win the density battle.

But enough with the ***** envy stuff people. The pissing contest has only shown that each city has its own good qualities and we're more alike than either care to admit.

This is a valid assessment. Only thing I'll say I don't is the bolded part. Just because something is built higher, doesn't mean it's more dense. Again, density is a measure of population within an area.

Antilia, Mumbai, India - In Photos: The World's Most Expensive Billionaire Homes - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mhj45edfjh/antilia-mumbai-india/)

Go to that link? Not sure if you've ever seen it before. That's a huge, multi-level building and is taller than anything in Deep Deuce, but it's the same density as 1 row house in Deep Deuce. If you had a neighborhood of high-rises like this and compared it to Deep Deuce, hands down Deep Deuce would be more dense. Shorter buildings, but more dense.

Hell, Kevin Durant and Serge Ibaka both live in Deep Deuce. That's good enough for me . lol

Although Serge just moved (sadly). I never got to do more than wave at him in neighborly fashion, but I really liked his brother.

LandArch, I'm not sure how you can say that. Density is the number of people in an area (say per sq. mile). The higher you go, the more people you have, the more dense you are. That's sort of the definition of it. If I have a block of single family residences next to a 5 floor apartment building, the apartment is far more dense (unless you have the Duggers living in the house).

Panda, I would quote you but it's a long post. I see you do like your cars, that's great - to each his own :D. I'm an urbanist, but I understand that there needs to be a happy medium between people who like to drive and people who like to take transit and walk. There are some urbanists who are just as extreme as most car lovers, thinking the city should only be designed for them and to hell with drivers.

I might suggest, if you have the time when you are in Tulsa, drive I-44 from the Hard Rock in Catoosa to the west. You get a fantastic view of downtown in the distance. Also, the BA Expressway has this same kind of stunning freeway/cityscape when you are approaching the 169 interchange at Garnett while driving northwest towards downtown. If you haven't done either route, I think you'd enjoy it.

When you drive around Riverview next, look at the garages - you'll be able to see almost all of them have units above them. To me, it's little things like this that make the city more accessible. Not everyone can afford a $300,000 condo or single family home. There's a lot of service industry professionals who can only afford $400 - 500/month who want to live in downtown or close and can't afford it. This is a huge problem all over the US though. This is really the only area in Tulsa that has a lot of these garage apartments. I wish more area's would adapt this type of design.I will say, I drove through Riverview, but didn't get out and explore it at all. That is one thing I am going to possibly tomorrow. I will also check out the I-44 route further east as that seems awesome. I have driven on the BA Expressway and it's also very impressive.

I just can't think why though why one would want to completely tear down 235 when a park could placed over it and achieve the same thing and still have highway. It's a win win.

Whelp, Tulsa certainly has cougars, so. . . . well, don't ask me how I know, but I know. I'm really starting to like Tulsa.

I'm not sure this is any major accomplishment but it's coming to OKC first.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5387384&headline=Smoothie%20King%20chain%20to%20enter%20Ok lahoma%20City%20market

I'm pretty sure there's one in Tulsa.

There is one in Tulsa. From their website.

Address: 5075 S. Yale
Tulsa, OK 74135

Now we are comparing based on Smoothie Kings? Pathetically low bar.

There is one in Tulsa. From their website.

Address: 5075 S. Yale
Tulsa, OK 74135
Interesting, I checked their website before I posted and nothing else in Oklahoma came up.

Now we are comparing based on Smoothie Kings? Pathetically low bar.
The entire Tulsa vs. OKC conversation is pathetic.

There was a Smoothie King in Norman (by OU) for a couple years. Very similar to Jamba Juice. And they've been in Tulsa since I was in high school there about 15 years ago. :)

The entire Tulsa vs. OKC conversation is pathetic.

This is the internet, breeding ground for pathetic conversations. What else are we to do? :)

Woohoo!!! OKC is the KING of Smoothies! Tulsa can only dream of having the smoothies we will soon have.

Woohoo!!! OKC is the KING of Smoothies! Tulsa can only dream of having the smoothies we will soon have.

As can Cleveland, Spartan. :D

Unless I looked at the website wrong again, the nearest to Cleveland is Medina. I know you're going to jump in your car immediately and head that way. LOL