[swake]

Originally Posted by okcpulse

Name your sources. Chesapeake Energy Arena is wrapping on a $120 million remodel and expansion project. We all know that the arena in OKC (then Ford Center) was built barebones because of budget cutbacks in the original MAPS project due to the 1997 recession with future remodel/expansion in mind. We are beating a dead horse.

Yeah, Tulsa got it right with the BOK. It's a nice facility, but it doesn't make Tulsa special.



Ticket sales did not fall off, that happened mid-season. All it did was make it easier for the rest of us to get decent tickets. You act as though only CHK employees packed the arena.



I have pointed out earlier in this thread that SMG manages both arenas. When dates are booked for the NBA in OKC, SMG simply books the events in Tulsa and books concerts for both facilities on available dates in OKC. People forget that prior to BOK, OKC got tons of concert dates, as the only tenant in those days was the Double-A OKC Blazers hockey team.

You are right. The Thunder are not moving to Tulsa, and should remain solid at least as long as Durant is there and they are winning. Oklahoma City is more than big enough to support an NBA team. If NFL or Baseball would ever come to OKC (in the decades to come) then The Thunder might be in danger, but not now.

But you are a bit off base on concerts. Both are managed by SMG, but so are many, many arenas. The concerts go where the promoters think they will sell tickets, and that is Tulsa more than Oklahoma City.

And the Bok probably has MORE dates filled by sports than CHK does since it hosts both a WNBA team and the Oilers hockey team.

[okcpulse]

Originally Posted by bchris02

Tulsa is significantly ahead of OKC

But for how long? In the next six months, there will be news on the horizon about where the new Centerpoint/Enogex MLP will be based, and where GE's new research facility will be located. OKC's quickly evolving employment base and change in demographics, not to mention the recent spike in population growth. I personally want to see OKC and Tulsa on an even keel in their own rights. All things said, Tulsa's momentum needs to continue as well. This will drive Oklahoma's quality of life as a regional player.

OKC's blue collar call center days are over.

[Griffis]

Originally Posted by teakboat

Tulsa has somewhat outgrown its smallish city limits which merge into the large and growing suburban areas. OKC is nice for what it is, but I like Tulsa better. Much more charm, more interesting old neighborhoods, more character, prettier landscape.

Totally agree with all of this.

But as I've said before, it is mostly subjective. Although I think it can be objectively stated that Tulsa is a prettier city in a prettier area, a lot of what makes one place or the other preferable for most people is a result of what people enjoy doing.

If you are into trendy mall shops, sports or modern country music, OKC would be your choice. And there's nothing wrong with any of those things--I'm not making a judgment call on what kind of person anyone is based on their cultural/entertainment choices.

If you are interested in prettier parks, interesting history, museums and things of that nature, Tulsa would be the way to go. Having played in bands all over this part of the country for decades, I always felt Tulsa had a more interesting and broad local music scene as well.

[okcpulse]

Originally Posted by swake

You are right. The Thunder are not moving to Tulsa, and should remain solid at least as long as Durant is there and they are winning. Oklahoma City is more than big enough to support an NBA team. If NFL or Baseball would ever come to OKC (in the decades to come) then The Thunder might be in danger, but not now.

I strongly agree.

Originally Posted by swake

But you are a bit off base on concerts. Both are managed by SMG, but so are many, many arenas. The concerts go where the promoters think they will sell tickets, and that is Tulsa more than Oklahoma City.

Right, but what makes this situation unique is that both arenas are in markets that are only 100 miles apart. Before BOK, all the concerts went to OKC and sold out quickly. It is easier to book concerts in OKC during the off season. It's hard to peg which city has the potential to sell tickets more often when people from both cities are attending concerts in either city.

Originally Posted by swake

And the Bok probably has MORE dates filled by sports than CHK does since it hosts both a WNBA team and the Oilers hockey team.

Right, but there are other events booked at CHK other than the NBA.

[bchris02]

Originally Posted by okcpulse

But for how long? In the next six months, there will be news on the horizon about where the new Centerpoint/Enogex MLP will be based, and where GE's new research facility will be located. OKC's quickly evolving employment base and change in demographics, not to mention the recent spike in population growth. I personally want to see OKC and Tulsa on an even keel in their own rights.

OKC's blue collar call center days are over.

You are correct. In 5-10 years once all this planned development comes to pass, I think the gap will be narrowed significantly if not closed. Probably sooner for the urban districts. As it stands today though, Tulsa wins this debate hands down and you have to give credit where credit is due. I do see a lot of good things starting to take off in OKC, but I think we are still a few years away from them being realized.

[flyingcat2k]

To bchris02: I have friends living in PDX and have visited them for a while. Part of the attraction of PDX is that it is on the West Coast and Tulsa is not. It developed hipster culture. I wouldn't say that Tulsa is where 20-somethings want to be if they want to be THE hipsters. I would say that Tulsa is where 20-somethings want to be if they want a job but still be hipster if they want to be. Tulsa has a very large young professionals and entrepreneur segment for a city of its size. The YP club here rivals Denver in terms of size if that gives you an idea and does not include the YPE (Young Professionals in Energy) but there is some overlap. I was mainly trying to come up with another city that doesn't care for American football. Tulsa doesn't as evidenced by lackluster crowds at TU's conference championship games.

OKC Pulse: See the link posted. Click on it and go through all those lists of winners. The NBA would want to have teams in every one of those top arenas, if only to be in the best locations. Teams in arenas that can't get near those lists, like Sacramento, tend to go to move to arenas that get on those lists.

As to my assertion about CHK, the WSJ reported that over 15% of the NBA finals tickets were purchased by CHK and used by employees. Some of these were for business deals but we're talking a significant buy by an owner who mortgaged his part of the team to pay for his shady business deals. How do you think that looks to a league with declining TV viewership of its championships?

As to concerts, then why was the Ford Arena never nominated for Best Arena w/o the Thunder? Having an NBA team doesn't help. The demographic didn't change and the population didn't change greatly.

[okcpulse]

Originally Posted by Griffis

Totally agree with all of this.

But as I've said before, it is mostly subjective. Although I think it can be objectively stated that Tulsa is a prettier city in a prettier area, a lot of what makes one place or the other preferable for most people is a result of what people enjoy doing.

If you are into trendy mall shops, sports or modern country music, OKC would be your choice. And there's nothing wrong with any of those things--I'm not making a judgment call on what kind of person anyone is based on their cultural/entertainment choices.

But trendy mall shops, sports and modern country music is not what draws me to OKC. In OKC I enjoy Lake Hefner (my preference), music at the Blue Door (which is not modern country), art galleries in the Paseo and different festivals. Now I get to enjoy the new attractions opening on the Oklahoma River. That's what draws me to OKC.

[bchris02]

Originally Posted by flyingcat2k

To bchris02: I have friends living in PDX and have visited them for a while. Part of the attraction of PDX is that it is on the West Coast and Tulsa is not. It developed hipster culture. I wouldn't say that Tulsa is where 20-somethings want to be if they want to be THE hipsters. I would say that Tulsa is where 20-somethings want to be if they want a job but still be hipster if they want to be. Tulsa has a very large young professionals and entrepreneur segment for a city of its size. The YP club here rivals Denver in terms of size if that gives you an idea and does not include the YPE (Young Professionals in Energy) but there is some overlap. I was mainly trying to come up with another city that doesn't care for American football. Tulsa doesn't as evidenced by lackluster crowds at TU's conference championship games.

Fair enough. I still wouldn't compare Tulsa to Portland. Portland is a national destination for twentysomethings. People are moving from NYC to Portland, Little Rock to Portland, Miami to Portland, you name it. It's the place to be right now. Tulsa is more like Louisville or Omaha, both being regional destinations and both have very strong young (single) professional and arts cultures.

Question for Tulsa boosters, do you meet a lot of people from OKC who move to Tulsa for the better culture?

[okcpulse]

Originally Posted by flyingcat2k

As to concerts, then why was the Ford Arena never nominated for Best Arena w/o the Thunder? Having an NBA team doesn't help. The demographic didn't change and the population didn't change greatly.

When it was the Ford Center, it was listed among the top ten international venues by PollStar Magazine in 2003.

Originally Posted by flyingcat2k

As to my assertion about CHK, the WSJ reported that over 15% of the NBA finals tickets were purchased by CHK and used by employees. Some of these were for business deals but we're talking a significant buy by an owner who mortgaged his part of the team to pay for his shady business deals. How do you think that looks to a league with declining TV viewership of its championships?

Yes, during the NBA finals, not the entire season as you originally asserted. A lot of people are getting confused on what happened with Aubrey McClendon. He didn't mortgage his part of the team to pay for his shady business deals, unless you are speaking of his proceeds from the naming rights, which he donated to local schools.

He used his stake in his well participation program to take out a billion dollar loan to finance oil drilling for Chesapeake. The share holders went ape **** because he didn't inform them of the deal he made, and the loan was from the same financial institution that financed much of Chesapeake's operations.

[Griffis]

Originally Posted by bchris02

Fair enough. I still wouldn't compare Tulsa to Portland. Portland is a national destination for twentysomethings. People are moving from NYC to Portland, Little Rock to Portland, Miami to Portland, you name it. It's the place to be right now. Tulsa is more like Louisville or Omaha, both being regional destinations and both have very strong young (single) professional and arts cultures.

Agree with all of this. Prior to moving back to OK late last year, my family and I spent the last four years in Portland.

I guess you could call Tulsa "The Portland of Oklahoma" but it's a stretch. I think that term, if it applies to any spot in Oklahoma, might be more accurately applied to Norman.

The most appealing thing to me about Portland wasn't the hipster culture; it was the culture in general, but especially the scenery, weather (for half the year at least) and the proximity to the Pacific.