[Synopsis]

Originally Posted by happytown

Urban land is 244 sq. miles making the density at 2,515 per square mile. Tulsa has a density of 2,152. Making OKC more cosmo compared to Tulsa. Most of the land that OKC has is farm land or land that is not developed at all and is North of the city. This will be great for the future of the city when it can develop the land- another 350 sq miles.

For some reason, this post repeated but with only a portion of the previous post, so I've deleted this content. Please disregard this post as my previous post contains the response I wanted.

[happytown]

Synopsis- The Wikipedia says so and other articles I have read. Period. This is not the BCS college bowl stats where things become very 'skewed'. Why would the Wikipedia provide information specific to my response? Because it knows that information CAN BE MORE THAN MISLEADING SUCH AS THE HUGE AMOUNT OF LAND THAT IS NOT IN USE IN OKC- THIS IS WHY THE WIKIPEDIA STATES THIS. If no one lives there then no one lives there- Does this make sense to you? Just because I can travel into the country and 'still be in OKC' deos no real justice for the numbers or do you just want to spat out numbers to inflate Tulsa vs. OKC thing? I geuss your measurements are the only ones to go by. I wish for no arguement because i hardly even get online anymore and to be frank I am completely surprised at how fast you respond. I dont have that kind of time even at my age. You are PRO Tulsa and that is great for the state and Tulsa. But I also know the whole history of both towns and state. Yes your town is very special and elite and has a glorious history. But it is Mid-Western-ish.

[Synopsis]

No, I am not trying to spat out numbers to inflate Happytown; those were accurate statistics. And as for Wikipedia, it had nothing to do with anything. Statistics are statistics, and I put out accurate data.

And I never said Tulsa was mid-western, southwestern, or anything else. Technically, it's in the Southwestern state of Oklahoma, albeit the northeastern corner of the state.

[happytown]

Originally Posted by Synopsis

No, I am not trying to spat out numbers to inflate Happytown; those were accurate statistics. And as for Wikipedia, it had nothing to do with anything. Statistics are statistics, and I put out accurate data.

And I never said Tulsa was mid-western, southwestern, or anything else. Technically, it's in the Southwestern state of Oklahoma, albeit the northeastern corner of the state.

Synopsis- again I am taking information that I get off the web, Wikipedia is a credible source- I dont believe your response about it not having anything to do with that info. I am looking at it right now! I am also going by my own experiences of living in OKC. So I might be a better judge of my own town. Just like you tend to be the judge, well, of the entire state. We both have a right to our opinions and if sources differ then they differ. You have used the wikipedia many times for reference and I was merely doing the same. - lets let it go, Sincerely happtown

[happytown]

Just for additional info. I just popped in Okahoma City population density. All came up with numbers(just one- reply.com) around 2,000 per sq mile. My point is this- OKC is just as populated in its core as Tulsa. Period. No one just goes by 800 per sq mile end of conversation. Sources use different numbers to give a REAL depiction of OKC. Someone from out of state would be completely confused otherwise. I make a valid point and anyone else that were to look over the same info would come to the same conclusion.- happytown

[Synopsis]

happytown, to make comparisons between OkC's "urban density" to the density of the entire city of Tulsa is a bit unfair don't you think? And I'm not trying to antagoize. You seem to be a very intelligent person and comparing one city's "urban density" to the density of another city's entire population is a bit misleading in my opinion. And wikipedia articles, although informative, are generally written and contributed to by people wishing to promote their city in some form or another. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is a fact. It's obvious that OkC residents are well aware of this fact because they go out of their way to make the distinction of "urban density" but don't even come close to stating the real facts about the density of the city overall, which is the real definition of "density."

OkC is a great city, and I've said that many times. It's bigger than Tulsa, growing faster than Tulsa, will have a professional sports team (major league caliber) within the next few years, and has a thriving downtown (which at this point Tulsa does not). Big things are going on for Oklahoma City; more-so than the city of Tulsa in terms of growth and economic opportunity for the time being. That trend will probably continue for some time. My points in my original response had nothing to do with which city was better. I stated that (in my opinion) the geographic and architectural layout of the city, as well as its small size, were more similar to an eastern city such as Boston than OkC. That's an opinion, not a statistical fact because such a thing has never been really measured. You took my opinion, which was nothing more than that and decided this was going to be some kind of Tulsa/OkC fight to prove which one was "better."

I only ask that when people make comparisons, they make accurate comparisons based on statistical data. Opinions are just that, opinions.

[Synopsis]

Originally Posted by happytown

Just for additional info. I just popped in Okahoma City population density. All came up with numbers(just one- reply.com) around 2,000 per sq mile. My point is this- OKC is just as populated in its core as Tulsa. Period. No one just goes by 800 per sq mile end of conversation. Sources use different numbers to give a REAL depiction of OKC. Someone from out of state would be completely confused otherwise. I make a valid point and anyone else that were to look over the same info would come to the same conclusion.- happytown

You keep talking about the core, but what about the entire city? How do you take the square miles of the city proper, divide that by the population, and come up with the 2,000 number? You're being selective about which comparisons you make, while I'm trying to quote the stats for each city proper. Please, show me and I'll admit that I'm wrong. Urban density and population density are two different things. I'm talking about population density of each city. What is the population density for OkC happytown? You are the one that started making comparisons between the two cities in your opening post. "OkC has more in it's more people in it's core than Tulsa, which makes it more cosmopolitan" or something to that effect. Why get this started again by making these vague comparisons that the OP could probably care less about. I told the OP that the geography and layout of the city (along with the architecture) in Tulsa are more comparable; I never even brought up anything to do with density, "urban," cosmopolitan, or anything like that in my response. And most of those buildings in Tulsa that were built 80 years ago are still there; they are architectural masterpieces. Please stop trying to make this into a ridiculous city versus city argument like they have over in the Texas forum between Dallas and Houston.

[happytown]

Synopsis- It is important to give an accurate description of a city by using urban density and mutiple other measures of population in a certain area. You can find this in books to millions of sites on the web, so its been 'in vogue' for 70 years now. They dissect information more these days for better calculations on a cities status and where it stands for many many obvious reasons. Yes people like to put up so called facts about their city on wikipedia- thats one reason the Tulsa zoo was named some kind of best family zoo or something. Its a good zoo, but all the IP #s for voting americas best family zoo online came from Tulsa- it became a joke here in the City. Also Tulsas description as a city(although I find it informative) is extremely over worked on wikipedia- so I know what you mean. But my point of this was to bring up the fact that urban density has to be used for OKC, because it has a CORE CENTER of development that is like ALL of Tulsa. Look up urban density and its relevance to any city for a judgement call and for people to understand in a DEEPER way- info about a city. Jacksonville is a great example. If you dont use urban density it also has a 800 per sq mile pop stat. This is a city with a CORE to it (Core is downtown/meeting place/where people do most of their activities) and is very dense in certain areas- but has a lot of extra ground that is not used. So this has to be addressed for people to understand how much foot traffic happens in its most dense of areas- being Jacksonville proper/downtown. Now, if I were to take just pure stats I would find Tulsa to have a very high level of crime. But we all know where it is concentrated and that it isnt equally dispersed. So the stat doesnt give a REAL constructive view on the city in terms of crime in Tulsa. Do you understand. Also if we were to take the metro areas of Tulsa and OKC(both have the same amount of land to my surprize) then you would find OKC at 195 pop per sq. mile and Tulsa at 145. Who cares though! Right. Who cares about a specific stat that could possibly not be the tell all result a person needs to understand for relocation. Houston, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Nashville, San Antonio, Suffolk, Indianapolis, Dallas, Chesapeake, San Diego, Kansas city, New york all have a significant amount of land. LONDON is the same size as OKC- so should I compare it to a more euro type of city based on land? No. Little Rock is only 115 sq miles- should its stats be relevant to the east coast and even form some kind of relationship(it has more history). Little Rock and Tulsa originally had a harder time expanding their cities because of natural obstacles, not because of design and intentions. Boston has 58 so doesnt it compare better to Little Rock? In your posts you act like i dont know of tulsas skyscrapers- you really think I am that retarded? Maybe so(lol). But I know of the 'specialness' of Tulsa and its significance to the art world and culture in Oklahoma. Again- I am more informed of Tulsa than you think and I know of the street names and such- you dont think that the east coast is exhibited in many cities in the S.West? Nichols Hills streets are ALL named after streets and names from London. So you dont have to repeat constantly of oilbarons and Boston. I do find it amusing how you always have to interject those comments when talking about Tulsa. Give me some recent news- like the PGA in Southern Hills soon- what a great event for the state. How it will bring in tons of dough. I get excited over news like that, not over info that has an inclination to have an elitist attitude. I have to leave now, I will try to respond tomorrow if I have time, Im sure you will have another arguement. But I would rather call it a constructive discussion.- happytown

[Synopsis]

B_MA, I hope that you and your wife are very happy wherever you decide to move. I can totally understand your frustration with wanting to move to an area that is less expensive, more tranquil, and one that has can provide a good education. There are many areas in Oklahoma that will probably fit your bill, as well as other areas around the country.

You might also also look into New Mexico or perhaps even Arkansas; both of those areas have something to offer as well. Arkansas' cost of living is similar to that of Oklahoma.

Good luck.

Synopsis