Tulsa hates you.

[okcpulse]

First, learn to spell.

Second, you're just wrong about "facts."

The kid throws out a definition of the adjective "cosmopolitan" that reduces the meaning to "diversity."

He does so because he found some maps that show that OKC has a higher percentage of minorities in its city center than Tulsa does. He also insinuates that because of this, OKC is more cosmopolitan than, and therefore superior to, Tulsa.

Uh, what do you think the reason is for OKC having a high concentration of minorities in the city center? Is it because OKC is so incredibly cosmopolitan? Or is it because all the scared white people moved as far as they could from downtown?

Facts are facts? Then the fact is, white people in OKC have fled the center at a far faster rate than Tulsa.

So "cosmopolitan"! So "positive!

Conclusion: You're clearly wrong and you sound very stupid. Stop talking **** on Tulsa. Both cities are fine. The ignorance of certain members of the forum does not make either city look any better. But it makes you look terrible.

Pardon me? No need to be childish. I never talked **** on Tulsa. Nor did I ever say OKC was superior.

You can say I am wrong and deny the facts all you want, but even percentage-wise, OKC has more Asians, African Americans and Hispanics than in Tulsa. I wouldn't even contribute that to white flight, especially since every ethnic group in OKC proper has seen a population gain. Not to mention that whites in OKC are actually returning to the core of the city, which makes your argument a moot point.

I agree with you, both cities are fine. Both cities are actually not far off from one another in every single category.

But I will say this... why is it that when someone points out Tulsa's positives we are supposed to agree, but if Oklahoma City's positives are mentioned we are all supposed to keep our mouths shut? Since when did this become the standard?

P.S., I don't see any misspelled words in my last post.

[BG918]

Which metro has the worst sprawl? I think you can make convincing arguments for both. Which has the best urban areas, the highest density?

[BDP]

To be a great music city we need both a thriving scene of local artists and solid venues with many great touring artists.

I'm not sure if you need touring bands to be a great music city, but it certainly is an added bonus and often one leads to the other. You do need solid venues, I agree, but I think it comes down to what talent is the community producing and cultivating. In then end, I really think it comes down to support of local music. I can guarantee you that cities of both OKC and Tulsa's size have good musical talent, but the scene is created by the consumers of music. If no one is going to local shows, you don't have a music scene, no matter how good the music being played to empty rooms is. And once you have a scene that actually becomes a destination for talent, then you have a real scene. Hopefully, the Academy of Contemporary Music will help our scene in that respect, but, again, people will have to get out and support the talent when it arrives.

Anyway, I didn't really mean to hijack the bashing spirit of this thread, I was just trying to find out what bands and art shows may be worth driving up to Tulsa to check out.

[okcboy]

BDP,
You nailed it. Support local live music and art. Go see a show.
Keep in mind true live music venues rarely turn a profit. Major touring
artist are always going to have their support of some kind. It just
seems that Tulsa rallies out more for the smaller localized stuff. In turn,
creates more money and more shows and venues.

[CuatrodeMayo]

First, learn to spell.

Second, you're just wrong about "facts."

The kid throws out a definition of the adjective "cosmopolitan" that reduces the meaning to "diversity."

He does so because he found some maps that show that OKC has a higher percentage of minorities in its city center than Tulsa does. He also insinuates that because of this, OKC is more cosmopolitan than, and therefore superior to, Tulsa.

Uh, what do you think the reason is for OKC having a high concentration of minorities in the city center? Is it because OKC is so incredibly cosmopolitan? Or is it because all the scared white people moved as far as they could from downtown?

Facts are facts? Then the fact is, white people in OKC have fled the center at a far faster rate than Tulsa.

So "cosmopolitan"! So "positive!

Conclusion: You're clearly wrong and you sound very stupid. Stop talking **** on Tulsa. Both cities are fine. The ignorance of certain members of the forum does not make either city look any better. But it makes you look terrible.

You should probably read the percentages on the maps. That might shed some light.

But I don't suppose you have any sort of clue. The "kid" reference was quite the giveaway.

[Floyd]

You should re-run the numbers using the MSAs of the respective cities rather than the cities/counties. Then you'd see that Tulsa actually has a higher percentage of minorities in its MSA than OKC does.

This means . . . nothing. Your definition of "cosmopolitan" was so formalistic as to be worthless. But it also negates your original proposition and shows that statistics can be manipulated to show anything. Keep bragging about white flight, dude.

[okcpulse]

You should re-run the numbers using the MSAs of the respective cities rather than the cities/counties. Then you'd see that Tulsa actually has a higher percentage of minorities in its MSA than OKC does.

This means . . . nothing. Your definition of "cosmopolitan" was so formalistic as to be worthless. But it also negates your original proposition and shows that statistics can be manipulated to show anything. Keep bragging about white flight, dude.

From the 2000 census on Oklahoma Employment Security Commission and www.census.gov

Tulsa MSA


Total Population 803,235, 100.0%
White Alone 610,244, 76.0%
Black Alone 70,867, 8.8%
AIAN Alone 55,772, 6.9%
Asian Alone 9,926, 1.2%
NHPI Alone 318, 0.0%
Other 56,108, 7.0%
White and AIAN* 26,783, 3.3%
Hispanic (of any race) 38,570, 4.8%
Total Minority 231,561, 28.8%

OKC MSA

Total Population 1,083,346, 100.0%
White Alone 819,624, 75.7%
Black Alone 114,351, 10.6%
AIAN Alone 45,382, 4.2%
Asian Alone 27,204, 2.5%
NHPI Alone 750, 0.1%
Other 76,035, 7.0%
White and AIAN* 21,734, 2.0%
Hispanic (of any race) 72,998, 6.7%
Total Minority 336,720, 31.1%

Yeah, manuipulating statistics, alright. I am willing to bet that if the numbers were in Tulsa's favor you wouldn't be posting such nonsense.

[CuatrodeMayo]

You should re-run the numbers using the MSAs of the respective cities rather than the cities/counties. Then you'd see that Tulsa actually has a higher percentage of minorities in its MSA than OKC does.

....statistics can be manipulated to show anything. Keep bragging about white flight, dude.

The how about YOU run the MSA numbers and show me the error of my ways?

Besides, there is no denying the extreme segregation that existing in Tulsa, which is the premise of my response here.

[Oil Capital]

You should re-run the numbers using the MSAs of the respective cities rather than the cities/counties. Then you'd see that Tulsa actually has a higher percentage of minorities in its MSA than OKC does.

This means . . . nothing. Your definition of "cosmopolitan" was so formalistic as to be worthless. But it also negates your original proposition and shows that statistics can be manipulated to show anything. Keep bragging about white flight, dude.

Wow. Way to make a complete fool of yourself, Floyd. (See above posting of MSA numbers proving the exact opposite of your delusional claim.)

And a Tulsan deriding another city for white flight? ROFLMAO

[bombermwc]

Wow, so this thread is really off topic.

[Floyd]

Wow. Way to make a complete fool of yourself, Floyd. (See above posting of MSA numbers proving the exact opposite of your delusional claim.)

And a Tulsan deriding another city for white flight? ROFLMAO

About those numbers--try including Norman. But I guess I'm delusional . . .

"Complete fool?"

No. Just pointing out that the dude's oh so complicated maps, with which he is attempting to somehow differentiate between the cities and show some kind of superior attribute of OKC, are pretty meaningless. If they show anything, it's that white people, and people in general, have fled the core of OKC in greater numbers than Tulsa. Isn't this one of OKC's issues--the lack of a viable uptown/midtown area?

I'm not deriding OKC for that. Not saying Tulsa doesn't have a white flight problem. Just pointing out that his premise is not worth a damn. Made up. This forum has a cadre of posters who are young, untraveled, and take every opportunity available to bash the city of Tulsa. They make up fake criteria for which they can manipulate to numbers and claim statistical support and it buttresses their strange feelings of superiority.

I don't bash OKC so don't pretend I am. But I'll call out the youngsters who, though they've been there all of once or twice in their lives, knock Tulsa for no reason other than to make themselves feel better.

[CuatrodeMayo]

About those numbers--try including Norman. But I guess I'm delusional . . .

"Complete fool?"

No. Just pointing out that the dude's oh so complicated maps, with which he is attempting to somehow differentiate between the cities and show some kind of superior attribute of OKC, are pretty meaningless. If they show anything, it's that white people, and people in general, have fled the core of OKC in greater numbers than Tulsa. Isn't this one of OKC's issues--the lack of a viable uptown/midtown area?

I'm not deriding OKC for that. Not saying Tulsa doesn't have a white flight problem. Just pointing out that his premise is not worth a damn. Made up. This forum has a cadre of posters who are young, untraveled, and take every opportunity available to bash the city of Tulsa. They make up fake criteria for which they can manipulate to numbers and claim statistical support and it buttresses their strange feelings of superiority.

I don't bash OKC so don't pretend I am. But I'll call out the youngsters who, though they've been there all of once or twice in their lives, knock Tulsa for no reason other than to make themselves feel better.

Lol.

[sgray]

Just like theater baby...only it doesn't cost anything and you don't have to leave your house.

[Oil Capital]

About those numbers--try including Norman. But I guess I'm delusional . . .

"Complete fool?"

No. Just pointing out that the dude's oh so complicated maps, with which he is attempting to somehow differentiate between the cities and show some kind of superior attribute of OKC, are pretty meaningless. If they show anything, it's that white people, and people in general, have fled the core of OKC in greater numbers than Tulsa. Isn't this one of OKC's issues--the lack of a viable uptown/midtown area?

I'm not deriding OKC for that. Not saying Tulsa doesn't have a white flight problem. Just pointing out that his premise is not worth a damn. Made up. This forum has a cadre of posters who are young, untraveled, and take every opportunity available to bash the city of Tulsa. They make up fake criteria for which they can manipulate to numbers and claim statistical support and it buttresses their strange feelings of superiority.

I don't bash OKC so don't pretend I am. But I'll call out the youngsters who, though they've been there all of once or twice in their lives, knock Tulsa for no reason other than to make themselves feel better.

Ummm, the numbers posted are for msa's . OKC's msa includes Norman. Yeah, you are delusional, and a fool.

[okcpulse]

About those numbers--try including Norman. But I guess I'm delusional . . .

"Complete fool?"

No. Just pointing out that the dude's oh so complicated maps, with which he is attempting to somehow differentiate between the cities and show some kind of superior attribute of OKC, are pretty meaningless. If they show anything, it's that white people, and people in general, have fled the core of OKC in greater numbers than Tulsa. Isn't this one of OKC's issues--the lack of a viable uptown/midtown area?

I'm not deriding OKC for that. Not saying Tulsa doesn't have a white flight problem. Just pointing out that his premise is not worth a damn. Made up. This forum has a cadre of posters who are young, untraveled, and take every opportunity available to bash the city of Tulsa. They make up fake criteria for which they can manipulate to numbers and claim statistical support and it buttresses their strange feelings of superiority.

I don't bash OKC so don't pretend I am. But I'll call out the youngsters who, though they've been there all of once or twice in their lives, knock Tulsa for no reason other than to make themselves feel better.

I am in my 30s, well-educated and well-traveled. And, OKC's MidTown/Downtown area is returning to life, bringing people back to the city. Did I not mention that in one of my previous posts?

And, as mentioned before, those numbers include Norman. Are you saying you don't know what OKC's metro area encompasses? How can you dispute numbers when you are unsure of the metro area's geographical make-up?

Those maps posted by Cuatro are legitimate. He didn't make those up. Several different sources, including the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Department of Commerce back up his sources.

[TastyThaiRibs]

now you need to list out all the places you've been and compare that list to floyd's - then we'll see who's the most coolest-est.

[OKCisOK4me]

Wow, so this thread is really off topic.

Let's get back on track....

The city of Tulsa issssssssss gaaaaayyyyyy.

Except for my grandma, who lives there.

[circuitboard]

Let's get back on track....

The city of Tulsa issssssssss gaaaaayyyyyy.

Except for my grandma, who lives there.

Grow up and stop using that word to call something stupid.

[CuatrodeMayo]

Yes, everybody knows it "ghey", not "gay" except you apparently.

lol.

[bunchakids]

Tulsa has more trees.

[soonerguru]

The city of Tulsa issssssssss gaaaaayyyyyy.

We could use more gay here.

[okcpulse]

Tulsa has more trees.

Did you take a head count?

Let's get numerical. OKC has WAY more trees. We have 608 square miles, half of which is forested.

[sgt. pepper]

tulsa has more hills.

[kevinpate]

Only thing wrong with Tulsa is there isn't enough of it ... thus far. It's a beautiful city, with many fine natural and added features, and it is growing again, as is OKC.

Absent a desire to escape all things urban, both OKC and Tulsa have much to offer as destinations, for touristas and locals alike.

Put either on your day trip or weekend list, you won't get bored, or go hungry.