Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Better economy in Austin. But OKC has basketball and one taller building than Austin. B
Which city do you like better?
Austin has height restrictions. It'll never have a giant skyline.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert_from_back_East
Due to the prolific influence of frontier culture and Evangelical Protestant Christianity, people in Oklahoma City are naturally friendlier and more effusive than people in Austin. In my experience, people in Austin, consistent with people in other liberal, trendy cities with an abundance of transplants and robust IT sectors (e.g., Denver, San Francisco, Seattle, etc.), are more introverted and less down-to-earth than people on the Great Plains. Consequently, people in Austin are more likely to avoid smiling and direct eye contact with strangers than people in Oklahoma City, and they are not particularly conversational. Also, people in Austin trend towards avant-garde and kitschy styles and trends, are more likely to belong to a visible minority group and often have that "Texas arrogance" about them. As a result of this conflation, people in Oklahoma City are much more approachable, especially to the average American.
Maybe
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavsfan137
I'll try and play devil's advocate here lol since I know the way most people will go, and probably even the way my preference would lean (towards Austin, as it is a more happening place)
1. Urban Form/Neighborhoods: Bricktown looks like a very tourist/family friendly place to hang out when visiting in downtown, and I'm not sure Austin's core has something quite like that. It also has a decent CBD area activity-wise, and surrounding neighborhoods like Midtown and Paseo. It's funny... because OKC really did have an earlier and more prominent start, it was a city of 185K in 1930 compared to Austin which only had 50K. Obviously, things have turned since then but my point is that in Austin it's really apparent that, until recently, it was a town. OKC might have more traditional bones on a certain level.
6th st/ Rainey/ Warehouse district/Domain, etc.
3. Food/Drink Scene: Okay... I can't really do this one lol. The only thing I'll say for OKC is that it is large enough at this point that it probably does have a fair number of offerings for most culinary tastes that are pretty darn good still. Also, I tend to think I'd manage to find really good beef/steak in OKC, so that might be a win at least. I'm just thinking OKC might be more competitive on these if Norman and University of Oklahoma was right with OKC and not separate.
I think this one goes to Austin handily
4. Location: This is one I'll actually argue for OKC on. I think it's still just as close to Dallas as Austin is... but I give an edge for a place that's able to connect to multiple different regions easily, and to me, from OKC you can get to legitimately western looking, southern looking, and midwestern looking places within a 5 hour trip where you can't really do that from Austin. I actually like Austin's location better. San Antonio, Houston and Mexico are right there. Airports are probably a draw
5. Scenery: I really don't think I can make a case on this one. If it was Tulsa, or Oklahoma as a whole, I could. I guess the only thing I could say is some of the same recreational amenities that exist and are nice about Austin (good recreational bike paths, lakes, a riverfront), are also present in Oklahoma City. Also in OKC I guess you can chase tornadoes, and that is kinda cool.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newgensandiego
Yeah I know...
But maybe it will be relevant to people who actually want to compare different moving options, idk. I didn't immediately assume the OP was trying to make a jab at Austin.
OP is a Sacramento fan. Living in one of the most underrated capitals vs what some would perceive as the most overrated, maybe she was looking for the usual Austin pile-on. Over exaggerating? Look up KC vs Austin, Indy vs Austin, etc threads. It get's pretty brutal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
Austin does not now have an MLS team playing. The OKC Thunder are an established NBA franchise. Even if Austin had MLS right now (they don't), NBA is a way bigger deal.
I understand Austin boosters like to think of the city being a peer to major coastal cities but in reality, OKC is a much more realistic comparison.
San Diego doesn't have an NBA team. OKC does. San Diego doesn't have an NFL team. Green Bay does.
I have not seen anyone compare or lump Austin with the major coastals. You're looking for a fight that really isn't even there.
Not to beat a dead horse, but the people who hate Austin, why is it that there is that level of disdain and vitriol? I don’t understand it. Is it for lack of a better word, drinking that haterade? I’m honestly just curious. Did Seattle get this when it was coming up a decade or so ago?
Alot of the mid-majors view Austin as a very staunch rival, so auto hate. Texans hate it because it's pretty liberal, even the governor, who attended UT, mentions it. It's grown so fast in the last 20 years, I think a lot of citizens of other cities are jealous.
I've never heard Seattle called a "peer" of Austin. Portland, yes. Other peers would be Charlotte, Nashville, and the Research Triangle. OKC might have been a peer 20 years ago but I don't see it now.
I've never heard Seattle called a "peer" of Austin. Portland, yes. Other peers would be Charlotte, Nashville, and the Research Triangle. OKC might have been a peer 20 years ago but I don't see it now.
Seattle is knocking on the top ten's door in the US. Austin is firmly entrenched at #4 in Texas. Anybody that thinks Austin is being lumped in with the major coastals has severe hate for a city they've probably never been to.
Yes, because its a perfectly natural conclusion to assume Austin to be a peer to Seattle.
Seattle has been an established major port city since the 1910's.
Austin's "major city" status is largely a recent contrivance based on government and a convention.
Solid point.
Disagree with everything else. Austin's reputation as a tech city and its economy and livability are moving it into the upper echelon of mid-sized cities.
Seattle is knocking on the top ten's door in the US. Austin is firmly entrenched at #4 in Texas. Anybody that thinks Austin is being lumped in with the major coastals has severe hate for a city they've probably never been to.
I'll disagree a little with Austin being "firmly entrenched" behind San Antonio. IMO Austin is the functionally bigger city in more ways that not. But again, I'm not sure where the Seattle comparison came from. Maybe losfrisco is getting Seattle and Portland confused.
I'll disagree a little with Austin being "firmly entrenched" behind San Antonio. IMO Austin is the functionally bigger city in more ways that not. But again, I'm not sure where the Seattle comparison came from. Maybe losfrisco is getting Seattle and Portland confused.
Earlier in the thread, its growth was compared to Seattle by another poster.
Lots of cities are growing all around the country....if you picked Seattle out of the hat to construct an analogy with Austin, safe to say you're assuming peer status.
Portland wouldn't be a peer of Austin either, for similar reasons as Seattle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
