[B_MA]

Anyone on here move to OK from the northeast, such as the NYC or Boston area? Anyone love it or regret it? My wife and I want to change things up, and a low mortgage would be fantastic. We do love tranquility, although we seem to like our city fixes also. We also are hoping to get good public education for our daughter (5). Thanks for any thoughts.

[Jammie]

Originally Posted by B_MA

Anyone on here move to OK from the northeast, such as the NYC or Boston area? Anyone love it or regret it? My wife and I want to change things up, and a low mortgage would be fantastic. We do love tranquility, although we seem to like our city fixes also. We also are hoping to get good public education for our daughter (5). Thanks for any thoughts.

Nope, not a transplant from there, but I was wondering what cities you're considering in OK. Are you thinking of the Tulsa or OKC area or are you looking in a less populated area?

[B_MA]

Originally Posted by Jammie

Nope, not a transplant from there, but I was wondering what cities you're considering in OK. Are you thinking of the Tulsa or OKC area or are you looking in a less populated area?

Good question. Maybe something with some type of culture about 30-45 minutes away, good public education, some space (1+ acres) - and where a not super conservative yet tolerant northeasterner would be welcome...

[alanap98]

I lived on Long Island (Garden City) for 10 yrs I also lived in OKC for a few months Job related and I loved Ok so much so that we are now looking to make the move permanent just trying to decide on which locale. We now live outside El Pisso Tx cant wait to make the move. But I think you'll like it if you go to neighboroo.com you can check the school system the air qualitycost of living etc... all that kind of stuff
Good luck!

[Synopsis]

Originally Posted by B_MA

Good question. Maybe something with some type of culture about 30-45 minutes away, good public education, some space (1+ acres) - and where a not super conservative yet tolerant northeasterner would be welcome...

It sounds like you would be wanting to live within 30-45 minutes away from Tulsa or OkC. First, it depends on the type of topography you like. Coming from the Northeast, the topography of Tulsa will be more familiar to you; Tulsa is in the hills of NE Oklahoma, while OkC is more open plains. Both cities have beautiful areas that would appeal to anyone, however.

Once you've chosen the metropolitan area that better suits you, then one of the surrounding cities of both metropolitan areas sounds like what you are looking for.

For OkC, the following cities are within 45 minutes and nice places to live what I understand:
Guthrie
Shawnee
Norman

Suburbs
Edmond
Moore
Nichols Hills


For cities outside of Tulsa:
Claremore
Coweta
Pryor
Sapulpa

Suburbs of Tulsa:
Owasso
Broken Arrow
Sand Springs
Jenks
Bixby

Your best bet would be to read through a bunch of these threads, google the cities on the internet; not only looking at website, but also images of the cites. City Data's main website is very good for that as it provides all kinds of demographics, pictures, and so on. Once you've narrowed your search down, travel out to those areas that you seem to prefer, then take a week or so and spend a few days driving around, looking at neighborhoods, and so on.

I like Tulsa, but others prefer OkC. Each city is unique in what it offers for its residents. I wish you the best of luck and hope you find the place of your dreams. I think you'll love Oklahoma and its people. They are very welcoming to outsiders and your politics will not be an issue at all.

BTW, I'm from Oklahoma but have lived all over so I'm well aware of differences in geographical areas. Having been all over the world, I prefer Oklahoma over just about anywhere else; mainly because of the people - they are very decent, hard-working people that seem to understand what life is all about.

[jeffncandace]

I'm not from the northeast, but I am from southern California, so I know what it's like to live in a more urban enviroment. I lived in Tulsa from 1993-1999. OKC and Tulsa each have their own charms. I personally liked Tulsa better, as it has more of a city-feel to it, in that it is more densley populated than OKC. OKC, however, is bigger in land area, and has more people. Both offer different options in regards to culture and the like.

I have heard it said before that "when Tulsa grows up, it wants to be like Boston, and when OKC grows up, it wants to be like Dallas". I've been to both OKC and Dallas, and would say that side of this analogy is pretty apt. I've never been to Boston, but have been told Tulsa has an east coast/ Boston-ish feel to it, albiet on a much smaller (and mid-western) scale.

And because I can feel it coming, no, I'm not trying to make a comparison of Tulsa to Boston. I've already said I've never been to the latter, I'm just stating what I've heard mentioned several times before in an effort to help this person out.

Hope this helps!

[carvers wife]

nowhere's near the city (Many people only associate New York with the city, but we live in a very rural place here), and we are new to relocation because my husband transferred out the the OKC area with his job. He actually bought a motorcycle and rode it out there from here two weeks ago to start working while I stayed back for my son to finish up the school year. We're meeting in a little over a week to make the official move.

I can't give a lot of advice, because we are new to the whole experience and I've never been there at all, yet, but we planned on renting and found that the options were much better to buy. Next week, as long as everything goes as planned, we're closing on a home in Choctaw.

My husband's staying in E. OKC KOA in a cabin and has met a lot of super people at the campground and at his workplace. He already loves it there, although he's ready to settle into our home, and he's telling me I'm going to love it too. This weekend he's bartering some chainsaw carving, his other occupation, for a weeks cabin rental. I guess I consider that his Oklahoma debut.

Basically, we are mid-life and tired of fighting so hard for everything here in NY, mostly the taxes. Everything we've tried to learn about the OKC area before going supports the ideals we are going for- which I could sum up as just 'the good life'.

[Synopsis]

I'm sure you'll love it in Oklahoma; you have a super attitude and it sounds like your husband does as well. I'll bet you really enjoy that week in a cabin. Whereabouts is the cabin located? If it's in Broken Bow or somewhere in the Ouachita Mountains you'll love it..
Best of luck to you and your husband!

[happytown]

Originally Posted by Synopsis

It sounds like you would be wanting to live within 30-45 minutes away from Tulsa or OkC. First, it depends on the type of topography you like. Coming from the Northeast, the topography of Tulsa will be more familiar to you; Tulsa is in the hills of NE Oklahoma, while OkC is more open plains. Both cities have beautiful areas that would appeal to anyone, however.

Once you've chosen the metropolitan area that better suits you, then one of the surrounding cities of both metropolitan areas sounds like what you are looking for.

For OkC, the following cities are within 45 minutes and nice places to live what I understand:
Guthrie
Shawnee
Norman

Suburbs
Edmond
Moore
Nichols Hills


For cities outside of Tulsa:
Claremore
Coweta
Pryor
Sapulpa

Suburbs of Tulsa:
Owasso
Broken Arrow
Sand Springs
Jenks
Bixby

Your best bet would be to read through a bunch of these threads, google the cities on the internet; not only looking at website, but also images of the cites. City Data's main website is very good for that as it provides all kinds of demographics, pictures, and so on. Once you've narrowed your search down, travel out to those areas that you seem to prefer, then take a week or so and spend a few days driving around, looking at neighborhoods, and so on.

I like Tulsa, but others prefer OkC. Each city is unique in what it offers for its residents. I wish you the best of luck and hope you find the place of your dreams. I think you'll love Oklahoma and its people. They are very welcoming to outsiders and your politics will not be an issue at all.

BTW, I'm from Oklahoma but have lived all over so I'm well aware of differences in geographical areas. Having been all over the world, I prefer Oklahoma over just about anywhere else; mainly because of the people - they are very decent, hard-working people that seem to understand what life is all about.

Since Synopsis is a little confused about the OKC metro and the city itself (no offense Synopsis) I thought I would give stats from the Wikipedia.

Suburbs of OKC-

North-
Edmond- 15 mins
Guthrie- 30 mins

N.East-
Jones
Chandler

N.West-
Piedmont
Okarche
Kingfisher

South-
Valley Brook
Moore
Norman- 15 mins
Noble
Purcell
Lexington
Slaugterville
Goldsby
Washington

S.East-
Shawnee
Bethel Acres
Tecumseh
McLoud
Pink

Inner- Suburbs or really just cities that OKC proper surrounds
Nichols Hills- 3-5 mins
Warr Acres- 7 mins
Bethany- 6 mins
The Village- 5 mins
The minutes are calculated by distance from Downtown OKC to other city. It depends if you use the streets or the huge highway system that loops aroud the city so the mins could be slightly off- but not much.

On another note- just for clarification. OKC density is misleading(Wikipedia gives the reason for this).

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.

I knew there had to be something fishy with the numbers I was given by others. OKC is more busy than Tulsa so I couldnt understand how the numbers stacked up. The income/wealth/education stats of the city are also misleading. The city of Nichols Hills has huge numbers in all of those categories and shadows any place to live in Oklahoma and competes well in the region. Along with the Village, Warr Acres, Bethany and others that would help with stats. These cities ARE OKC because of their central location in OKC. Nichols Hills is in the heart of OKC. If it were included it would dramatically increase the stats of OKC proper/entire city- especially income(this is where all of our doctors, lawyers and millioniares live). You can find all of this in the Wikipedia. Tulsa is lucky to have all of its wealthy living IN TULSA and not in another small city within Tulsa. Making its numbers more exact.

Dont take it to heart- not wanting another blow up.

Also, I cant help bring it up guys but the numbers/architecture for Tulsa when trying to compare it to Boston. Nothing matches. I knew there was something weird about the comparison when I tried to think of all the brownstones and colonial structures in Boston that I have seen when I have visited the city. Along with the flat land and being on the COAST. I have travelled all around the East coast and many cities are flat D.C. to NY. Boston had three tiny hills that were leveled 300 years ago for development! Many of the east coast oilmen that were lured by Tulsa built beautiful homes/mansions and buildings that had no similarity to Boston. They wanted to make their own utopia and wanted away from the East coast. They brought alot of personality to Tulsa but that died away eighty years ago. Now you see the remains of what they did which was to make a beautiful place to live. Art Deco was their favorite architecture- so thats what they built. Art Deco is some of the most interesting, beautiful architecture- but it is not colonial. Even the skyline has no resemblance. It has dark buildings and is opposite to Tulsa. The culture and atittude of the east coast has no similar identity to Tulsa or Oklahoma for that matter. Tulsa is a gorgeous city and should be proud of its heritage and location. It actually is probably one of the prettiest cities I have lived in. It has its own special identity and should keep it that way.

I just returned from a city called Carmel by the Sea. It has many similarities to Nichols Hills from size to wealth. Even the original intent/direction of the design by the architect is akin to N. Hills in many ways. Along with the attitude and ideals of the town(except tourism). - BUT NH IS NO CARMEL BY THE SEA.

Also, couldnt OKC be compared to D.C. considering it is the capitol, has many structures that resemble D.C., flat as a pancake and has formed many obvious political relationships outside of Oklahoma in its history now and in its roots- then shouldnt it be similar? NO.

If Tulsa is 'East Coast' then OKC is 'West Coast'- the east coast-ish thing is a silly way to make a comparison and is an awful way to lead people into believing nonsense. Tulsa has been sucked into the SW and MW for almost all of its history. If you have to give an elite, quick response to questions regarding what Tulsa is akin to. Then use Mid-Western-ish. It sounds way more realistic.

Please dont take offense- just trying to put in my 2 cents.

[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.

Happytown, I'm not trying to start an argument, but when I see facts that are deliberately skewed (I'm not saying you're lying, but you are manipulating numbers) I have to point that out. Density is density, and to start using statements such as "urban density" is misleading. City density can only be defined as land area divided by population. To take selective parts of Oklahoma City and measure only those areas is giving false information. Oklahoma City is one of the largest cities in land area in the whole country, and while portions of that land area are not as populous, they do contribute to the overall population of the city. Oklahoma City Land area is 621 square miles, while Tulsa's land area is 186 square miles. If you divide the land area in each city by the population, you get the density numbers that I've provided down below. Not that density matters to the OP anyway.

And btw, I have always said that Tulsa is more like an east coast city such as Boston as compared to OkC. Nobody would infer that Tulsa is just a smaller version of Boston at all. Anyone that has ever been to OkC and Tulsa knows this to be a fact because of the architecture and layout of the city. Even the street names on the east side of Tulsa reflect east coast cities and names of universities in the east (Yale/Harvard avenues...). The sheer land size of the cities themselves also reflect OkC's western image compared to a more east coast feel that you get with Tulsa at first glance. Tulsa is much more compact, while OkC is looking to build outward more and more over time. This is evidenced by the annexation of hundreds and hundreds of square miles. Yes, they are looking for growth, but they didn't intend to grow up, the intention was that OkC was going to grow out, until urbanization became the vogue thing to do in the last ten years.

Also, when Tulsa was truly booming in the late 20s and 30s, the east coast oilmen that came there wanted to establish the city as a cultural center for the region. They poured tons of money into the development of the art deco buildings and other structures that are still all over downtown Tulsa and throughout the area. Please don't start this into another OkC versus Tulsa thread. I tried to be very accurate in my assessment of the area to the OP. I said that the geography of Tulsa and architecture of Tulsa were more similar to that of Boston than would be the case for OkC. Both of those statements are true. And your density estimate/statement is definitely misleading; use the math.

OkC Density(541,500/621 square miles) = 872 persons per square mile
Tulsa Density(387,807/186 square miles) = 2076 persons per square mile

You seem to be selective in your metrics for measuring density, taking certain portions of the city (i.e. "urban area") yet using population estimates for the whole city. The only way density can honestly be measured is by taking the square miles of the entire city area and dividing that by the population.

I'm not looking for a blow-up either, but be factual in your statement and please don't try and manipulate numbers and statistics, or use suburbs as case studies for OkC because of their location. OkC is a fine city and I was not providing misleading information. Opinions are one thing, but to provide numbers that are clearly "spun" to weave a picture of your liking is misleading and has to be pointed out.