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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[metro]

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...

nah, it's much more entertaining when a journalist gets in the middle of discussion

[benman]

Good article, but the part that bothered me is when Oklahoma is considered the Midwest. Pretty sure Oklahoma doesn't have a Midwestern feel, isnt historically a Midwestern state, and sure isnt one geographicaly. I know many people consider is Midwest, but I believe they are mistaken.

[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]

I agree benman... Oklahoma is more Western or Southwestern than Midwestern IMO. In fact, Oklahoma is only fringe territory when it comes to the South, Southwest, and Midwest... so I guess we are just on our own.

[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.

[EBAH]

I couldn't agree more okcpulse, I've always preferred my home town and still do. I just meant it as a "Jack for every Jill" kind of thing. That, given they are both big, prosperous, and have their own individual feel to them, some folks born in either will always end up in the other. The important thing is to make both of them strong so that OKC may loose a few to Tulsa and Visa Versa, but that they at least stay in Oklahoma.

I think they did leave out the importance of the fact that Tulsa has a history of strong racial segregation. I've always thought that one of OKC's strongest assets was that it has historically been kind of a melting pot. My neighbors right here on 16th are a perfect example. One family is Guatemalan, one is Vietnamese, one interacial family, a white single guy, and an African American family, and then us (white married couple) all right next to each other. It makes our neighborhoods what they are and keeps the city very dynamic.

To Platemaker's point about walkability, in terms of pure geometry I believe that is true but Tulsa has more than double our population density meaning that you can go a lot more places on a shorter walk, on average of course. We have a few swatches of town that are very walkable, but I have to admit my old neighborhood in Midwest City was far more walkable than my neighborhood in inner city OKC. It is set up to be walkable (NW16th and May Ave) but because of spotty development over here, its a pretty long hike to a grocer and the rest. However, on a bicycle it is quite manageable.