Urban Tulsa Weekly, "A Tale of Two Cities"

[EBAH]

Hey, I'm curious about peoples thoughts on the cover story in this weeks "Urban Tulsa Weekly" about the rivalry between the two large metro areas in OK. The article, by Mike Easterling, is a lengthy review of the history of the 2 cities, the vision of the 2 mayors, and the possibilities for the future. I thought it was very even handed and brought up some very fine points about both.

Here's a link - A Tale of Two Cities - Tulsa and Oklahoma City have a great deal in common, but has competition helped or gotten in the way? - Cover Story - Cover Story - Urban Tulsa Weekly

[kevinpate]

The Wrath of Grapes.

Like that, a lot.

[Steve]

Easterling was once with The Gazette. Great writer. Good piece.

[Chase]

Great article. Oklahoma has 2 great metropolitan cities.

[OUGrad05]

Fantastic article.

[HOT ROD]

it does have quite a bit of a Tulsa slant and some "equalization" of OKC's attractions to allow Tulsa to appear not have such a backward stand.

I would argue that OKC is definitely 15-20 years or more ahead of Tulsa and I don't see Tulsa ever catching up - unlike what the article says.

I also find it interesting they failed to mention Devon's new skyscraper or OKC's new rail transit projects (NE commuter rail/tourist train, MWC-Downtown commuter rail, AND Downtown OKC's streetcar) - all of which will surely pass and be built decades before anything Tulsa is discussing.

And yes, Bricktown is a much larger scale draw than the intimate Brady District, but they failed to mention downtown OKC's other neighbourhoods that rival or are better than theirs - like Midtown, AAlley, Deep Deuce, Triangle, and the upcoming Core 2 Shore.

OKC has a renaissance synergy about it that has taken OKC to the next level and actually OKC really no longer considers a rivalry with Tulsa, but now looking to rival Denver, Dallas (in some respects), and Seattle. Im not sure Tulsa could compete with that club, but OKC can and will even moreso in the coming years.

That said - I am very pleased with the bulk of the article, it does give a Tulsa prospective to the rivalry. It did show that OKC didn't care about segmentation of people in the past (and still doesn't) but that same anti-segmentation attitude actually helped OKC with civic projects and getting funding whereas Tulsa's arguments left them falling behind.

I also liked the ideas of cooperation - because frankly, Tulsa can not survive any longer unless they get on OKC's coat-tails. This is all the more frank and true if you look at their sports options; all copies of OKC or building on OKC.

but that's ok, because I think the state as a whole will be much more successful with OKC leading the development and Tulsa following, than the state did when Tulsa was the 'leader' and only cared about Tulsa and OKC cared about nothing.

As we move into the 2010 and beyond, I see Oklahoma City and Tulsa becoming more and more like Philadelphia and Pittsburg in the sense of sibling rivalries; both quite successful but moreso in one or more areas that the other lacks (and OKC being more open/diverse [which is cosmopolitan] like Philadelphia and Tulsa being more 'sophisticated' like Pittsburg; in their rivalry).

In fact, Pittsburg used to have their state's tallest skyscraper for the longest time, iirc, despite Philadelphia being much larger - yet this has recently changed. Also, Pittsburg once had a 'steel city' success swagger to it that 'common folk-immigrant' Philadelphia had a complex; yet now Pitts is in a decades long slump looking NOW to recover and Phila has reinvested and reinvented it's city (and status).

See something similar going on here in OK?

[feconi]

OKC has a renaissance synergy about it that has taken OKC to the next level and actually OKC really no longer considers a rivalry with Tulsa, but now looking to rival Denver, Dallas (in some respects), and Seattle. Im not sure Tulsa could compete with that club, but OKC can and will even moreso in the coming years.

I completely disagree that OKC can compete with the likes Denver, Seattle, and especially Dallas. Aspiring for OKC to be on the level of cities like Austin or Charlotte is more reasonable, but frankly even those cities are years ahead of OKC and are progressing more rapidly than OKC, too. Although I agree that OKC has decidedly surpassed Tulsa, it's not totally unreasonable to call it a "rival" city--but it's completely ridiculous to claim Dallas or Seattle as such. Let's be more levelheaded in assessing where OKC stands amongst the nation's cities.

[metro]

HOT ROD, I tend to agree with you about the article. They seriously slanted it to act as if Tulsa has plans to equal or "one up" OKC. The author is dilusional if he thinks that is the reality. As you mentioned, he forgot to mention numerous other cultural things in OKC that Tulsa doesn't have a comparison to, as well as things on the boards that will or are likely to go through very soon here.

As for we are competing with Dallas, Denver and Seattle, you're kidding yourself. You live in Seattle and should know we're not 1/4 of what Seattle has or offers. Those are all Tier 1 cities. We're competing with the San Antonio's, Sacremento, Austin, Des Moines, Omaha, Charlotte,Louisville, Memphis, and other Tier 2 cities, we're just now starting to cross the line into a Tier 2 city, where some of these other cities already have been. We won't even be to the top half of this tier until we get our streetcar going.

[ddavidson8]

As for we are competing with Dallas, Denver and Seattle, you're kidding yourself. You live in Seattle and should know we're not 1/4 of what Seattle has or offers. Those are all Tier 1 cities. We're competing with the San Antonio's, Sacremento, Austin, Des Moines, Omaha, Charlotte,Louisville, Memphis, and other Tier 2 cities, we're just now starting to cross the line into a Tier 2 city, where some of these other cities already have been. We won't even be to the top half of this tier until we get our streetcar going.

I'd say SA, Sacremento, Austin, Memphis and Charlotte are the cities we should realistically hope to be. The rest you listed seem very minor league.

[HOT ROD]

HOT ROD, I tend to agree with you about the article. They seriously slanted it to act as if Tulsa has plans to equal or "one up" OKC. The author is dilusional if he thinks that is the reality. As you mentioned, he forgot to mention numerous other cultural things in OKC that Tulsa doesn't have a comparison to, as well as things on the boards that will or are likely to go through very soon here.

As for we are competing with Dallas, Denver and Seattle, you're kidding yourself. You live in Seattle and should know we're not 1/4 of what Seattle has or offers. Those are all Tier 1 cities. We're competing with the San Antonio's, Sacremento, Austin, Des Moines, Omaha, Charlotte,Louisville, Memphis, and other Tier 2 cities, we're just now starting to cross the line into a Tier 2 city, where some of these other cities already have been. We won't even be to the top half of this tier until we get our streetcar going.

Hi Metro

Thanks for the agreement on the Tulsa article. I just thought it read as though they were ignoring reality and trying to say that OKC has come to the level of Tulsa, when OKC passed Tulsa back in the 1990's already and is now competing with larger PEER markets. Tulsa is no longer a Peer, except at the state level. (that's not to put them down, but it IS reality)

As for the other comment, yes, I do live in Seattle but it is NOT a Tier 1 city. It looks like it might be, due mostly to our geography. It might be perceived to be, given the rather healthy skyline, again - mostly due to hills instead of OKC's flat (even decline elevation) downtown area. But Seattle is NO Chicago. No comparison. We only have about 4 or 5 Tier 1 cities in the USA (really we only have 3), and Seattle isn't in the top 10.

But Seattle is the premier US city in the isolated Pac NW, so it gets a lot of exposure. Seattle is a great place to live, for the most part. We had great civic leadership when I first moved here in the early 1990s but that has all changed. Now, we have all of the half baked plans and attempts to become more like Vancouver - yet they fail to realize what Vancouver has and we don't. In many ways, Tulsa is a lot like Seattle - Beautiful on the outside and more impressive LOOKING than reality is.

You all believed that mumbo jumbo stuff Seattle posters said about it being a Tier 1 large market, but really it is only 14. I know OKC is in the 30's, my point is Seattle is really just another mid-sized city that just so happens to be somewhat isolated from a US prospective. In fact, Seattle would be MUCH larger if Vancouver were not so big and important.

But sorry, I digressed.

My primary point was, OKC is competing with Tier 2 cities now and is becoming one. I think OKC can compete with Denver, Seattle, and Indy - and the new convention centre, rail transit downtown, central park, and other city improvements will greatly assist in making OKC a "member of the club". When you are a member, you compete. ... Plain and simple.

OKC became a competitor with the Ford Center and Bricktown. Sure, it may be the ONLY big city things OKC had in the early 2000's, but it was enough to LURE 2 NBA teams to Oklahoma City. (Remember the New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets - they wanted to stay. Of course, now we have the relocated Seattle Supersonics; as the OKC Thunder ---- YES, Seattle).

I call competition anything where one city is trying to gain something against another. Sure, OKC can't compete with Seattle on beauty - but really, that's about it. And MAPS 3 and the other OKC improvements will surely even the playing field for OKC even more.

Don't get me wrong, there is a reason I live in Seattle (mostly due to the climate and my current job - which is moving to Chicago by the way so I may very well also); but if it weren't for the heat/humidity - I would surely move back home to OKC; especially in 5-10 years. I do visit OKC at least once a year and I do more than just meet with family. ....

[Steve]

Guys, I don't know that the article was really that skewed. I think there may be some overkill going on here on downtown Tulsa's plight. If you've not been there recently, your impression may be outdated.
That said, looking at the article, Mike is off with his story in one big area - the idea that Tulsa is somehow far ahead of OKC in planning for light rail/streetcars. I suspect he's not current on what's going on here in that subject.

[LakeEffect]

That said, looking at the article, Mike is off with his story in one big area - the idea that Tulsa is somehow far ahead of OKC in planning for light rail/streetcars. I suspect he's not current on what's going on here in that subject.

To be somewhat fair, the article was published the day before the actual announcement of Maps 3, so the official streetcar info wasn't out there.

From an outsider's perspective, moving from Michigan 4 years ago without having spent any time here until the year I moved, I've never sensed any rivalry from OKC. I never hear co-workers, friends, or people in general mention things that resemble rival statements.

Talk about it just feels manufactured, which is why I think Dr. Blackburn had a hard time doing his research (and he basically admits) about a rivalry.

[russellc]

From an outsider's perspective, moving from Michigan 4 years ago without having spent any time here until the year I moved, I've never sensed any rivalry from OKC. I never hear co-workers, friends, or people in general mention things that resemble rival statements.

Talk about it just feels manufactured, which is why I think Dr. Blackburn had a hard time doing his research (and he basically admits) about a rivalry.

That is because most of the rivalry is from the Tulsa side.

[metro]

Steve, I was in Tulsa less than a month ago, in no way does Brady District come close to topping Bricktown. Again with your point in mass transit issues. You know I love your work, but you have to be kidding yourself if you didn't see the skewness in that article.

[metro]

I agree some of them seem minor league, however keep in mind those "minor league" cities have more amenities than we do on several fronts. Basically if we don't at least match them, it's quite possible those "minor league" cities will pass us.

[soonerguru]

I was in Tulsa last week. It's awesome the Mayo is opening, but otherwise, their downtown is hurtin' compared to OKC, not that ours doesn't need more improvement -- which is coming.

[Steve]

Metro, I'm not saying Brady comes close to having Bricktown's buss. But I do see a lot of progress taking place in downtown Tulsa. What they have that we don't: Arnies (great dive bar that simply doesn't exist downtown OKC), Cain's, the Tulsa Press Club, and some great Art Deco architecture. They've still got a long ways to go. So do we. At least half the space in Bricktown is vacant.

[metro]

Metro, I'm not saying Brady comes close to having Bricktown's buss. But I do see a lot of progress taking place in downtown Tulsa. What they have that we don't: Arnies (great dive bar that simply doesn't exist downtown OKC), Cain's, the Tulsa Press Club, and some great Art Deco architecture. They've still got a long ways to go. So do we. At least half the space in Bricktown is vacant.

Where's the comparison to our Paseo, Plaza District, Stockyards City, Asian District, and of course they leave out Edgemere Park/Jefferson Park /MestaPark /Heritage Hills / 23rd street coming to life/ HSC center ever expanding/Spanish districts ala Capitol Hill, Auto Alley, MidTown, Arts District, National Memorial, Adventure District, Theme Parks, etc. There just isn't enough comparisons in Tulsa. Sure they have 2-3 nice districts, but OKC's list is ever expanding and evolving.

[Pete]

The overall tone of that article seems to be that Tulsa was once way better than OKC and its citizens rightfully and unanimously sported an air of superiority; and now things are more equal and Tulsans have less right to feel this way (although many still do).

But of course, the real truth is that OKC is well beyond where Tulsa is now and keeps doing things that reach further out and farther ahead. Frankly, Tulsa flatters itself with these comparisons to OKC.

A simple objective measure is how OKC is often listed as a model for other communities -- has that happened once with Tulsa?

Every single city in the U.S. is trying to revitalize and there is a nationwide urbanization trend. What Tulsa is/has been doing is not outstanding in any way when you look at other cities, and the reality is they are very late to the game. Yes, they are making progress but they've started behind others and I don't see anything they are doing that is above average for similar communities.

On the other hand, I think OKC continues to move in bold and visionary ways and although there is a lot of work still to be done, much more progress has already been made, there is more positive momentum, and the plans for the future are much more aggressive and real.

It’s not just a matter of Tulsa being 10-15 years behind, it’s that OKC continues to move forward at an accelerating rate. I see the gap continuing to widen for the foreseeable future.

[EBAH]

Well, all of this is completely subjective. I mean, if there was a unit of "good" so we could do a comparison of x units good to x units good, it would be different, but it isn't that way. The fact is that for a long time Tulsa was better than OKC in many ways (before I am crucified allow me to point out I have lived in OKC my whole life). But, it is on a completely different scale, and has different priorities. I was in Tulsa at the time this article came out. The fact remains that despite us OKC folks thinking we are blowing them out of the water, Tulsa still has a great many strong suits. The Brady district might not out do us on quantity and economic contribution, but I'd say it is much cooler. If it ever does reach the level of Bricktown we would have good reason to be scared. Bricktown, while being a good money maker and a decent place to hang out is completely inorganic and really feels that way. The Brady may take a LONG time to get there but when/if it does I think it will feel much more like a real part of the city, with people living there, making art there, etc. I also am very impressed with the area around the Mercury Lounge (15th and Boston), the neighborhood has never looked better, and they now have a great strip of restaurants and bars that is getting to the level of Cherry Street or Brookside only with a more "edgy" feel. I mean there are a great number of things in Tulsa that we just have NOTHING to compare to (i.e. - Philbrook, walkable neighborhoods, better bar scene, AWESOME antiques district, etc.) that to many residents are just as important as a Basketball team, new hotels, new skyscrapers, new central parks etc. Yes, we are currently the economic power house, and have the lions share of funding and good leadership (Tulsa has had very bad luck in that department for sure). But, to think we are just flat out better than them will do nothing but make us look like jerks and cause us to grow complacent.

I think the important point made in the article is that it isn't about one up man ship, it's about seeing the best in both communities. Tulsa is really a fantastic city, and for certain people, it offers much "more" of what they are looking for. The same is true for Oklahoma City. I think the article was trying to make the point that the closer the relationship between the two communities, the better the state as a whole will be.

[okcpulse]

Well, all of this is completely subjective. I mean, if there was a unit of "good" so we could do a comparison of x units good to x units good, it would be different, but it isn't that way. The fact is that for a long time Tulsa was better than OKC in many ways (before I am crucified allow me to point out I have lived in OKC my whole life). But, it is on a completely different scale, and has different priorities. I was in Tulsa at the time this article came out. The fact remains that despite us OKC folks thinking we are blowing them out of the water, Tulsa still has a great many strong suits. The Brady district might not out do us on quantity and economic contribution, but I'd say it is much cooler. If it ever does reach the level of Bricktown we would have good reason to be scared. Bricktown, while being a good money maker and a decent place to hang out is completely inorganic and really feels that way. The Brady may take a LONG time to get there but when/if it does I think it will feel much more like a real part of the city, with people living there, making art there, etc. I also am very impressed with the area around the Mercury Lounge (15th and Boston), the neighborhood has never looked better, and they now have a great strip of restaurants and bars that is getting to the level of Cherry Street or Brookside only with a more "edgy" feel. I mean there are a great number of things in Tulsa that we just have NOTHING to compare to (i.e. - Philbrook, walkable neighborhoods, better bar scene, AWESOME antiques district, etc.) that to many residents are just as important as a Basketball team, new hotels, new skyscrapers, new central parks etc. Yes, we are currently the economic power house, and have the lions share of funding and good leadership (Tulsa has had very bad luck in that department for sure). But, to think we are just flat out better than them will do nothing but make us look like jerks and cause us to grow complacent.

I think the important point made in the article is that it isn't about one up man ship, it's about seeing the best in both communities. Tulsa is really a fantastic city, and for certain people, it offers much "more" of what they are looking for. The same is true for Oklahoma City. I think the article was trying to make the point that the closer the relationship between the two communities, the better the state as a whole will be.

I honestly don't think OKC is better than Tulsa, I just like OKC better than Tulsa, but that is not saying Tulsa is a bad city.

I think what many in OKC are trying to get across is the article not surprisingly missed some attributes in OKC that deserves credit where credit is due. For instance, you point out that Tulsa has walkable neighborhoods. But then, so does OKC, from Heritage Hills to Crown Heights. The bar scene is subjective. That is really a matter of taste, but then again, OKC offers what suits me... places like TapWerks, Bricktown Brewey and McNellies. The momentum in MidTown is phenomenal, as well as Western Avenue. Western Avenue has really carved a niche for itself.

Please understand, I don't disagree with your assessment of Tulsa. The city has always maintained its quality in its most distinct neighborhoods. But I feel that Oklahoma City has been and continues to clean itself up, especially aesthetically, and that point continues to be missed. I mean... the darts don't even hit the board on that one. We are not where we want to be, but we are definitely ahead of where we were 16 years ago!

[Platemaker]

For instance, you point out that Tulsa has walkable neighborhoods. But then, so does OKC, from Heritage Hills to Crown Heights. The bar scene is subjective.

I'd say OKC and Tulsa are equally walkable given the simple fact that every 10th North-South block in Tulsa is a mile and it's every 15th in OKC (usually). Every 15th street East-West in Tulsa is a mile, and every 10th East-West block is a mile.

[HOT ROD]

Well, all of this is completely subjective. I mean, if there was a unit of "good" so we could do a comparison of x units good to x units good, it would be different, but it isn't that way. The fact is that for a long time Tulsa was better than OKC in many ways (before I am crucified allow me to point out I have lived in OKC my whole life). But, it is on a completely different scale, and has different priorities. I was in Tulsa at the time this article came out. The fact remains that despite us OKC folks thinking we are blowing them out of the water, Tulsa still has a great many strong suits. The Brady district might not out do us on quantity and economic contribution, but I'd say it is much cooler. If it ever does reach the level of Bricktown we would have good reason to be scared. Bricktown, while being a good money maker and a decent place to hang out is completely inorganic and really feels that way. The Brady may take a LONG time to get there but when/if it does I think it will feel much more like a real part of the city, with people living there, making art there, etc. I also am very impressed with the area around the Mercury Lounge (15th and Boston), the neighborhood has never looked better, and they now have a great strip of restaurants and bars that is getting to the level of Cherry Street or Brookside only with a more "edgy" feel. I mean there are a great number of things in Tulsa that we just have NOTHING to compare to (i.e. - Philbrook, walkable neighborhoods, better bar scene, AWESOME antiques district, etc.) that to many residents are just as important as a Basketball team, new hotels, new skyscrapers, new central parks etc. Yes, we are currently the economic power house, and have the lions share of funding and good leadership (Tulsa has had very bad luck in that department for sure). But, to think we are just flat out better than them will do nothing but make us look like jerks and cause us to grow complacent.

I think the important point made in the article is that it isn't about one up man ship, it's about seeing the best in both communities. Tulsa is really a fantastic city, and for certain people, it offers much "more" of what they are looking for. The same is true for Oklahoma City. I think the article was trying to make the point that the closer the relationship between the two communities, the better the state as a whole will be.

EBAH - your points are very well written and I totally agree; Tulsa is a great (especially for being a small city) and probably is the country's best Tier 3 city. No doubt about that. Can Des Moines or Colorado Springs match Tulsa? NO.

And I do agree with you wholeheartedly that Tulsa has many urban things that OKC doesn't yet have. Very very true.

But, as you said - OKC is by far the powerhouse for Oklahoma and NOW can carry the torch as the perceived and real leader for the state. That does not mean Tulsa doesn't have a roll to play though. There are a few two large city states (Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Missouri, Minnesota (right next to each other), Washington, Arizona (to some extent)) - and those states who are successful; the two cities realize their roles.

Philly is by far the largest and iconic city for Penn, but Pitt focuses on its role being a cultural and industry leader. In fact, I correlate Oklahoma with Pennsylvania - in that both states have two overwhelmingly large cities compared the the rest of the state and the cities have the same strengths and weaknesses. Penn is what, 4 times as large and how many years OLDER than OK; but nevertheless - I can see the similarities from an civic/city/urban metaphorical way.

I hope that my comments didn't offend anyone from Tulsa, it wasn't meant to. I only wrote the REALITY, and furthermore - I think Tulsa is due for a little OKC boasting given all of the decades of abuse OKC has gotten from them.

[Steve]

I think I'll leave this one of our Tulsa members. But they've got some pretty nice districts... This whole discussion, however, is beginning to become that old cliche...

[EBAH]

This whole discussion, however, is beginning to become that old cliche...

HAHAHAHA, indeed.