Oklahoma City, In the Press

[Mr. Cotter]

That'd be a mighty large spill. And a spill that manages to jump over a small mountain range and two or three census MSAs.

Dallas and OKC are as far apart as DC and NYC.

[Snowman]

Oklahoma City: The sound of Thunder - NZ Herald

As far as spillover from Texas, there has been a little and some chains that expanded to Texas which look at OK as a part of that expansion but overall that comment seems more like an off the cuff thought on what is nearly a tweet about a study that came out, rather than they put any real research effort into. In the end though I guess it is better to get mentioned than not.

[PWitty]

I agree that OKC has plenty of it's own growth going on, but I won't be upset if outsiders start lumping in OK/OKC with Texas. It seems like Texas' national image is improving by the week, and the more people associate OK/OKC as being like Texas the faster we will shed some of those more negative stereotypes that certain people like to irrationally cling to.

Of course I'm not originally from OK so it is much easier for me to cheer for those folks to the south!

[Teo9969]

OKC (and even Tulsa) is already lumped into the "Texas Triangle". (http://www.america2050.org/images/20...luence_150.png)

But it pulls its own weight. OK has always been and always will be a major pioneer in American Energy, and it has nothing to do with Texas. Indeed it's what has connected the cultures of Texas and Oklahoma so heavily, because no other states have such a rich (Ha!) history with oil as do OK and TX.

[bchris02]

I agree that OKC has plenty of it's own growth going on, but I won't be upset if outsiders start lumping in OK/OKC with Texas. It seems like Texas' national image is improving by the week, and the more people associate OK/OKC as being like Texas the faster we will shed some of those more negative stereotypes that certain people like to irrationally cling to.

Of course I'm not originally from OK so it is much easier for me to cheer for those folks to the south!

Completely agree. Oklahoma will fare much better in the national consciousness to be grouped with Texas rather than with Kansas and Arkansas. Texas' positive national perception though is largely thanks to having Austin.

[Rover]

OKC (and even Tulsa) is already lumped into the "Texas Triangle". (http://www.america2050.org/images/20...luence_150.png)

But it pulls its own weight. OK has always been and always will be a major pioneer in American Energy, and it has nothing to do with Texas. Indeed it's what has connected the cultures of Texas and Oklahoma so heavily, because no other states have such a rich (Ha!) history with oil as do OK and TX.

Looks more like an OKC-Austin/San Antonio-Houston triangle with Dallas at the heart.

[Snowman]

Looks more like an OKC-Austin/San Antonio-Houston triangle with Dallas at the heart.

It almost looks like Dallas has a zone of exclusion; Shreveport , Texarkana, Whichita Falls & Abalene are all similar distances to Dallas as the OKC-Austin/San Antonio-Houston triangle.

[Rover]

I think if OKC wants to start to be seen more on its own and not part of the Dallas suburban landscape, it is going to have to actually have to embrace it at first so it can capitalize on the potential income and then pivot north. A really aggressive north-focused strategy could work but it would need to start soon. Dallas is growing north insanely fast.

I agree with the embracing it part. Why run from your biggest customer? I would think the first thing to be done would be high speed rail between DALLAS (not FW) and the full development of transit within the metro (including the suburbs where business partners are found). Businessmen don't usually take buses to meetings, so ride-share, cab, limo, light rail, streetcar, etc. Provide free intra-city transport for visitors who have bought tickets to OKC on planes or trains. Consider that you are wanting travel to go from origination point to destination address, not airport to airport, or depot to depot.

THEN, establish the same to Wichita, Tulsa, KC and Denver. We are closer to them than Dallas is, so make it easier to get there. Of these, Tulsa and Denver first because of the natural business synergy. Then Wichita and up to KC.

I think this is what you are saying and I completely agree. We need to turn our strengths into opportunities...the path of least resistance and highest reward.

We could do worse than partner than Dallas.

[catch22]

I'd like to hear some of the aviation folks jump on here and chime in but I truly believe that if OKC wants to break out of that Texas triangle, serious investment and subsidy in our airport would be critical.

All these major colored zones are massive aviation hubs. By far, the biggest on the continent. OKC isn't going to be the next Dallas in terms of volume, but to start to create a new synergy between say Denver or Kansas City, it's got to make access between those places as close to the level of access found in these existing hubs. It should be brilliantly easy to get to KC from OKC as it is from OKC to Dallas. The market wont allow for that now but I submit there are things that can and should be done to at least get started down that road.

1) Transit to and from the airport should be some of the most frequent and reliable routes in the city. Make going to the airport via transit not even the slightest concern. - An easy $1-2M/yr spend and several years to convince the market that the change has taken place and is working.

2) Be honest with taxpayers and your goals to increase OKC's position in the air-travel market. Request additional funding to subsidize routes and capacity to slowly shift more travel through and to OKC.

3) Work aggressively to attract new smaller commercial and private carriers.

4) Continue to invest and expand airport retail offerings. This too will likely require a pretty sizable subsidy at first if you want to do it on 'world class' scales.

5) And yes, start to invest in rail-based travel options into Kansas, Colorado, and Arkansas.

The question though is this, does OKC want to shed itself of the 'Texas Triangle' for truly valid reasons? Or are the biggest reasons more to do with football rivalries and urban vs. suburban ideologies?

I think if OKC wants to start to be seen more on its own and not part of the Dallas suburban landscape, it is going to have to actually have to embrace it at first so it can capitalize on the potential income and then pivot north. A really aggressive north-focused strategy could work but it would need to start soon. Dallas is growing north insanely fast.

Throwing money at a hub would be a horrible mistake.

BUT, subsidize some certain air service that would strengthen our position as a business community. Offer some revenue guarantees for nonstop service to:

Washington DCA
Seattle SEA
Calgary YYC
New York LGA
New York JFK
San Antonio SAT
Austin AUS

There is no reason we can't be competitive thru subsidy. Nonstop service to those destinations would make OKC a very solid place to do business in. All focus on industries that are strong, or currently growing here.

[catch22]

We're on the same page. I just used the wrong wording.

Not at all -- I know exactly what you meant. I was saying that to preemptively shoot down the idea. Several posters on this board want to go gung-ho and try and outspend DFW and ATL.

[UrbanNebraska]

I caught Omaha at #3 on this report of best cities to start a business. The #1 city I figured would pique your interest. Some nice company on the list.

Best Cities to Start a Business

[Spartan]

Apparently our top industries are aviation, healthcare, and biotechnology.

[Plutonic Panda]

interesting that Miami is on that list... Don't know why, I just wouldn't think Miami would be the best place to start a business.

[bchris02]

interesting that Miami is on that list... Don't know why, I just wouldn't think Miami would be the best place to start a business.

I wonder the same thing about Memphis. It's an alright place but not a real booming city.

[Plutonic Panda]

What I've about Memphis is not good and that is even from people who live there.

[adaniel]

Apparently our top industries are aviation, healthcare, and biotechnology.

Yeah pretty much. I mean, there's always that black goop that seeps out of the ground from time to time but its nothing really

With that in mind, I have always felt that OKC has a tremendous amount of entrepreneurial spirit. The culture there is very bullish on small business, and from this study it seems that banks are too.

[josh]

I wonder the same thing about Memphis. It's an alright place but not a real booming city.

But neither are Omaha or Oklahoma City.

Miami isn't booming either.

[bchris02]

Oklahoma City isn't doing that bad compared to Memphis. Yes, it is stagnant compared to pretty much every major Texas metro as well as Raleigh and Charlotte, but its doing better than a lot of places. Memphis truly is stagnant. That city is pretty much living off its legacy. Omaha is a small city so it doesn't garner much national attention, but most cities its size would kill to have the kind of development that is going on there right now.

[bradh]

Omaha is small? We visit there quite a bit and it reminds me a lot of OKC. Only thing it's missing is a pro sports team that we have. Has a local strong NCAA hoops program, also a strong NCAA hockey program. College World Series, several legacy companies have large offices there, a big AFB nearby.

[Plutonic Panda]

But neither are Omaha or Oklahoma City.

Miami isn't booming either.

than in that case SA isn't really a booming either. I'd put OKC as a booming city seeing as how we are receiving recognition from the NYtimes

[josh]

than in that case SA isn't really a booming either. I'd put OKC as a booming city seeing as how we are receiving recognition from the NYtimes

I get the tit for tat response. My comment wasn't aimed as an insult.

But since you went there, I'll respond.

I feel as though most of the cities on that list have very healthy growth, including Oklahoma City. But many are not "boom" cities/metros or had boom levels during the 2000s. IMO, there are only a few metro areas that are truly at boom level.

However, it's not a just a feeling I have, it's something I can back up with data.

Below is a very incomplete list of metro areas I feel have very healthy growth and metro areas that, in my opinion, are booming.

To start off.

• Oklahoma City:
  
  1. Averaged 1.2 percent annual growth and averaged 17,000 a year in annual net growth between 2000 and 2010.
  2. Since 2010, Oklahoma City has averaged 1.7 percent annual growth and is averaging 22,000 a year in net growth.

Compared to the metro areas on that list that I felt weren't booming.

• Miami:
  
  1. Averaged 1 percent annual growth and averaged 56,000 a year in net growth between 2000 and 2010.
  2. Since 2010, has averaged 1.4 percent annual growth and is averaging 88,000 a year in net growth.
  
  
  
• Omaha:
  
  1. Averaged 1.2 percent annual growth and averaged 10,000 a year in net growth between 2000 and 2010.
  2. Since 2010, Omaha has averaged 1.1 percent annual growth and is averaging 10,000 a year in net growth.

Compared to the metro areas on that list I would say have healthy growth.

• Denver:
  
  1. Averaged 1.4 percent annual growth and averaged 33,000 a year in net growth between 2000 and 2010.
  2. Since 2010, Denver has averaged 1.6 percent growth and is averaging 50,000 a year in net growth.
  
  
• Seattle:
  
  1. Averaged 1.2 percent annual growth and averaged 40,000 a year in growth between 2000 and 2010.
  2. Since 2010, Seattle has averaged 1.6 percent growth and is averaging 57,000 a year in net growth.
  
  
• Nashville:
  
  1. Averaged 1.9 percent annual growth and averaged 28,000 a year in growth between 2000 and 2010.
  2. Since 2010, Nashville has averaged 1.7 percent growth and is averaging 28,000 a year in net growth.

Metro areas I would consider booming.

• Dallas:
  
  1. Averaged 2.1 percent annual growth and averaged 121,000 a year in net growth between 2000 and 2010.
  2. Since 2010, Dallas has averaged 2 percent annual growth and is averaging 127,000 a year in net growth.
  
  
• Houston:
  
  • Averaged 2.4 percent annual growth and averaged 123,000 a year in net growth between 2000 and 2010.
  • Since 2010, Houston has averaged 2.3 percent annual growth and is averaging 131,000 a year in net growth.
  
  
• Raleigh:
  
  1. Averaged 3.6 percent annual growth and averaged 33,000 a year in net growth between 2000 and 2010.
  2. Since 2010, Raleigh has averaged 2.3 percent annual growth and is averaging 28,000 a year in net growth.
  
  
• Charlotte:
  
  1. Averaged 2.9 percent annual growth and averaged 46,000 a year in net growth between 2000 and 2010.
  2. Since 2010, Orlando has averaged 2 percent annual growth and is averaging 40,000 a year in net growth.
  
  
• Orlando:
  
  1. Averaged 2.4 percent annual growth and averaged 49,000 a year in net growth between 2000 and 2010.
  2. Since 2010, Orlando has averaged 2.1 percent annual growth and is averaging 44,000 a year in net growth.

And since you brought up San Antonio.

• San Antonio:
  1. Averaged 2.3 percent annual growth and averaged 43,000 a year in annual net growth between 2000 and 2010.
  2. Since 2010, San Antonio has averaged 2 percent annual growth and is averaging 45,000 a year in annual net growth.
  
  

Three years is a small sample size for this decade. However, I'd considering any metro with 2 percent or more annual growth as booming.

[Plutonic Panda]

Interesting.. You wouldn't consider OKC booming but the economist think otherwise. I've seen multiple stories where we are described as a boom town. Also interesting you wouldn't list Nashville when you hear about that place 4-5 times more than ST pops up.

My comment wasn't made as an insult either, just something I wanted to point out. Omaha may be small compared to SA, but it is NOT a small city.

Keep in mind, since the thread you posted, I am going to try and make a trip down to SA this summer and spend a week or two there, so I am NOT trying to bash SA and sorry if it came off that way.

[josh]

Interesting.. You wouldn't consider OKC booming but the economist think otherwise. I've seen multiple stories where we are described as a boom town. Also interesting you wouldn't list Nashville when you hear about that place 4-5 times more than ST pops up.

I think flashy words like that get thrown around too easily, especially nowadays with the internet culture. Since the recession of 2008, any city or metro area that is growing is deemed booming but we must be realistic. There's nothing wrong with saying a place may not be booming but experiencing very healthy growth. It doesn't diminish or take away from anything.

As for Nashville, the amount of times one hears about it is inconsequential with regards to it being a boom town or not. We are speaking specifically to population growth. BTW, what is a ST pop up?

My comment wasn't made as an insult either, just something I wanted to point out. Omaha may be small compared to SA, but it is NOT a small city.

I never called Omaha a small city. Though, it is a mid-small metro area.

Keep in mind, since the thread you posted, I am going to try and make a trip down to SA this summer and spend a week or two there, so I am NOT trying to bash SA and sorry if it came off that way.

That's fantastic. Be sure to PM me when you get here and I can show you around or offer some suggestions on where to go.

[bchris02]

Omaha is small? We visit there quite a bit and it reminds me a lot of OKC. Only thing it's missing is a pro sports team that we have. Has a local strong NCAA hoops program, also a strong NCAA hockey program. College World Series, several legacy companies have large offices there, a big AFB nearby.

Omaha is small but it pulls above its weight. Any metro area with a population under 1 million is small in the grand scheme of things even if it may have a city feel. Omaha has a lot of things expected in cities a bit larger. I agree the only thing they are really lacking is major league sports.

[UrbanNebraska]

Haha, that was an unexpected consequence. I simply thought the information was interesting and the list happened to represent my home and this city I enjoy observing. Didn't mean to start a debate about what constitutes a "boom town" which is highly subjective anyways.

Clearly raw population growth doesn't mean everything when it comes to business climate, at least according to this source. OKC's impressive lending, low unemployment and COL clearly lead to the #1 spot on this list.

It looks like Miami's ranking was highly buoyed by their business per 100 people. I would assume their large immigrant population made that number so drastically high considering those communities seem to have a very high rate of locally owned small business in my experience. Also their unemployment was a bit lower than I expected.

The info also shows us where OKC and Omaha can work on improving our income levels and population with higher education levels to keep progressing. Seattle having 57% of their 25+ population with at least a Bachelor's is striking.