[teakboat]

Originally Posted by #1soonerfan

Griffis,

I too have lived in a lot of places in my 29 short years on this planet. Truthfully speaking, I enjoy the areas around Maple Ridge ad Brookside in Tulsa. The cohesiveness of the area is something that is a bit of a work in progress in OKC.

With that in mind, outside of more trees and a slightly more hilly terrain, the two cities are almost exactly alike. Which shouldn't shock anyone, considering they are in the same state and are merely 100 miles apart.

Here is my problem with your post. A lot of people from Tulsa are really lacking a level of self awareness. You rip OKC for being "ghetto" yet its Tulsa with the higher crime rate. I mean, Tulsa is featured on a reality show about MURDER for Christ's sake! Also, the absolute neglect North and West Tulsa have received are borderline criminal. You slam Edmond as being characterless but you hold up equally cookie cutter BA and Owasso as "nice"? A poster rips the Oklahoma River as ugly and industrial while ignoring the fact that the Arkansas River has a freaking OIL REFINERY on it? I can just go on and on.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I am frankly kinda over trying to convince people on either city. Its an exhausting discussion and this will probably be my last post on this. They both have their good and bad points; with that in mind, OKC has been growing at a much faster rate since at least 2000. You can't say its because of oil jobs because the oil boom has only been going strong since about 2007. So clearly a lot of people aren't as bothered by "ugly" OKC as you are.

Jobs, access to entertainment and sports, higher ed opportunities, and a good quality of life at an affordable price matters and are things I find OKC offers. No it doesn't offer natural beauty or a compact, urban lifestyle, but if I really wanted those things I'm probably not moving to Oklahoma at all. JMO.

Well, the roads and city development in North Tulsa is just as good in many areas as anywhere else. The medians are bricked and planted with trees, there are new sidewalks, and wide streets.

The problem is a general lack of pride and civic responsibility in North Tulsa. The ocean of trash that blows down the streets up there is pretty shocking. Do you wonder why few businesses would even consider locating up there? No money, no pride, no accountability. Yeah, North Tulsa pretty much sucks and there is little good that can be said about it.

[teakboat]

I agree with you also 1Soonerfan, in a lot of ways OKC and Tulsa feel extremely similar. They are similar places and not far apart. I do think that Tulsa has more urban charm and character. I actually do like Edmond, I don't think it is so bland. Some parts of it have mature trees left in nice large lawns and it looks like a great place to live.

[okie1962]

Originally Posted by #1soonerfan

Yes, the Oklahoma River is clearly inferior to the Arkansas River in Tulsa, where you can take in beautiful views of TWO oil refineries, a sewage treatment plant, electrical power plant, and sandbars aplenty anytime there isn't at least above average rain.

The trails along Riverside are nice, I'll give you that. The river thing is funny given that Dewey Bartlett is practically doing backflips to build low water dams, i.e. exactly what OKC did. Still haven't happened though.

I took a break from this forum and it looks like the sneering peanut gallery from Tulsa is still around. Kinda stinks because I like both cities. Oh well, the more things change.....

At least we have enough trees and hills to hide The industrial area that you mentioned. The Arkansas River shoreline is not made up of rip rap like Oklahoma river is. And we have had a low water dam on the Arkansas River since the 1970s. They are trying to add a few more. And I hope they don't add any more dams, I like the sandbars, they are part of the ecosystem. And plus they won't maintain them if they build them anyway. It will end up like a low water dam we have right now, and the fountains they built next to it, neither work.

Most of the people you see on here bashing Oklahoma City are people who moved there from other places and are very disappointed in what they found there. But like I said in my earlier post Oklahoma City has come a long way in the last 20 years, I will give him credit for that. But it takes more than an NBA team to turn that town around.

[bawac34618]

Originally Posted by okie1962

Most of the people you see on here bashing Oklahoma City are people who moved there from other places and are very disappointed in what they found there. But like I said in my earlier post Oklahoma City has come a long way in the last 20 years, I will give him credit for that. But it takes more than an NBA team to turn that town around.

I would be interested to see a survey of how satisfied transplants are who have moved to OKC vs Tulsa. My guess is that people who come from large cities in other states, especially on the east coast, will be happier in Tulsa. People who move from rural areas and metro areas under 500,000 in population probably will be just fine in OKC.

Bottom line is downtown OKC was neglected for so long its a multi-decade venture to bring it back. Right now, the city is still in its first real decade of progress. Tulsa had its own problems but from what I understand it never saw the despair and neglect that OKC saw.

[#1soonerfan]

Originally Posted by teakboat

I agree with you also 1Soonerfan, in a lot of ways OKC and Tulsa feel extremely similar. They are similar places and not far apart. I do think that Tulsa has more urban charm and character. I actually do like Edmond, I don't think it is so bland. Some parts of it have mature trees left in nice large lawns and it looks like a great place to live.

Truth be told, I like both cities. Even Edmond and Bixby LOL. They both have their advantages as well as flaws. I just think its ridiculous to sit here and argue over what are pretty minute differences between the two. Oklahoma is too small to have some sort of "sibling rivalry." Most people who are harshly judging this state from afar are not making a distinction between the two cities.

Originally Posted by okie1962

Most of the people you see on here bashing Oklahoma City are people who moved there from other places and are very disappointed in what they found there. But like I said in my earlier post Oklahoma City has come a long way in the last 20 years, I will give him credit for that. But it takes more than an NBA team to turn that town around.

Well, that's just the nature of city-data. Some people move to a place and like it (and likely won't post after their initial move and are settled in), others will rage about how they were hoodwinked into moving here, how much this place sucks, etc. I'm not sure why you as a native would indulge in it, though, but to each his own.

There's probably 5 or 6 posters on here that fit this mold. Over the past 4 years, over 32,000 people have moved to this area, if statistics are to be believed. Could it be that OKC gets more "dissatisfied customers" because their are simply a lot more people moving there compared to Tulsa? Who knows.

[bawac34618]

^^^ I think OKC gets "dissatisfied customers" because there are some serious quality of life issues here and the positives the area offers only apply to a certain segment of the population. I am thinking of things like complete lack of natural beauty and no building codes or city beautification to make up for it. I am thinking of things like the strictest liquor laws in the nation and a legislature too conservative to repeal them. To top it off, the legislature seems dead set on turning Oklahoma into the next Mississippi and is dead set against anything that doesn't pass the litmus test of the religious right. OKC is also right in the middle of a hotzone that sees the most extreme, violent weather on the planet. To add to that, the culture here makes it difficult to "fit" if you weren't born and raised here. I have been here three years and feel no more at home than I did the day I arrived. The city is also isolated making it difficult to get out if one doesn't like it here. What are the positives? Cheap suburban housing. If I am not looking for that however, why would I want to live in OKC?

Tulsa also suffers from many of these same quality of life issues but at least it is pretty and the weather is not quite as extreme.

[swake]

Originally Posted by Plutonic Panda

That is incorrect.

The ONLY two advantages Tulsa has is shopping and the city has a lot more philanthropists than OKC does. The first part is only made true by Utica Square, which is really sad that Utica is the best shopping center in Oklahoma. Having lived in Dallas for years, I'd say it is an average shopping center in the North Dallas area. It's even more embarrassing for OKC we are behind a city with a metro of less than one million in high-end shopping.

If Glimcher(Classen Curve, Nichols Hills Plaza area) turns out to be what it is hyped up to be, it will completely put Utica Square to shame. Also, Tulsa has nothing that will even come close to Chisholm Creek.

Plans for Chisholm Creek


Chisholm Creek is now getting an iFly and Lifetime Fitness Platinum(Tulsa's is a gold). They are focusing on out of state retailers.

This is Tract 30(part of the development) that is about to break ground this month.




With Cabelas and Top Golf under construction and open by the end of the year, they about to announce a slew of new tenants.

This misconception that Tulsa is ahead of OKC is simply not true. It is hard to see because right now OKC is transitioning, but there is only about 2-3 years before the evidence is too visible to say that with a straight face.

I am going to start a thread showcasing some of the major developments happening in OKC. I can't keep updating it as I am moving to L.A. in a month, but it should give you and everyone else around an idea.

Tulsa also has better parks, neighborhoods, grocery stores, nightlife, concerts, festivals, museums, and arts generally. Tulsa is prettier overall and that’s not just the natural environment, it also has to do with developers doing a better job of trying to build good buildings and maintaining them better once they are built.

That said, you allowed for better shopping. Tulsa’s edge in shopping is not only in Utica, it’s also on Brookside and Cherry Street and in little shops all over the city but let’s put that aside. You bring up Chisholm Creek. What do you really know about Chisholm Creek so far? A hunting and fishing store, a driving range, a medical clinic and a “indoor skydiving” center, all surrounded by large surface lots. Other than that, you have some pictures. Tulsa Hills has the hunting and fishing store, and the medical clinic and a driving range is going to be about two miles away on the river. All surrounded by large surface lots in a much nicer natural setting in the hills with the trees.

Tulsa Hills isn’t great, but what exactly is better about this Chisolm Creek place? What actual upscale shopping outlets are announced for Chisolm Creek? Anything at all? Tulsa Hills also said at one time that phase II was going to have a Whole Foods and upscale hotel. Phase II now is a Sam’s and a furniture store. Obviously Chisolm Creek can’t have a Sam’s because one is already right next door with a Wal-Mart attached. Upscale indeed.

Until there are more firm plans, don’t hold your breath for anything nicer than what they are building now. Even if something upscale materializes, it’s going to just be fake place making. I’ve been to these ready-made mixed use development in other cities and many aren’t making it. The ones that are successful tend to be in much larger cities with much higher housing demands with much worse commute times. Even in those cities, like San Jose, Burbank and the Dallas area, these developments are still pretty lame. They claim to be walkable, but who wants to walk to Baby Gap or Crate and Barrel on a regular basis? The stores that the residents might want to walk to, Safeway or Whole Foods, tend to be out on the edges of these developments with large parking lots to walk across. Who in north Oklahoma City fifteen miles from downtown is going to want to pay $150+ per square foot for a condo over Victoria’s Secret with limited parking? That doesn’t sound cool, that sucks.

[bawac34618]

Swake, I also share your concern about Chisholm Creek. So far, no tenants have been announced that are anything to get excited about. There was also a similar development a few years ago north of Quail Springs Mall proposed that was very ambitious but it never materialized. However, retail at this end of the turnpike literally can't get any worse. The developers are going to have to try really hard to fail for this development to not bring at least some improvement to the area. Here's to hoping this new shopping center actually brings some retailers to the OKC area that people here currently drive to Dallas or Tulsa to shop at. Hopefully though I won't still be in OKC by the time it is built.

Whether or not these type of mixed-use developments are desirable or "lame" as you put it is a matter of personal preference. Remember that Tulsa compares favorably only to Oklahoma City. While I agree Tulsa is ahead in almost every way, compared to cities in other states the two have a lot more similarities than they do differences.

[flyingcat2k]

I hadn't seen anywhere where this type of development has been a failure. Denver's redevelopment along Wadsworth Boulevard is similar in size and scope. It took a rather old mall and made it desirable again. However, the developer scored deals with Whole Foods, Target, Best Buy, Staples, AMC Movie Theater, and a Police Station, library and DMV within the square mile. Denver also has atrocious commute times if you aren't near the light rail and has sky high real estate costs to boot. I will say that buying a condo in that development is a pretty safe bet that you'll never have to leave home.

I hadn't thought about Swake's point. Paying $150/sf to live above Victoria's Secret or Verizon Store isn't worth it unless the grocery store is nearby. The skydiving and golf are nice diversions but not attractive enough for purchasing a home. If the developer does NOT get a Whole Foods or other upscale general retailer, the residential will fall flat on its face and quickly convert to rentals. Wal-mart attracts price sensitive shoppers and that market is all wrong for residential at $150/sf in OKC. Homeland is terrible and won't work. Homeland is no better than Wal-mart Neighborhood Market.

[Griffis]

Originally Posted by #1soonerfan

With that in mind, outside of more trees and a slightly more hilly terrain, the two cities are almost exactly alike.

I disagree, though much of this is, admittedly, subjective. Aside from beauty (which Tulsa has in spades, relative to OKC which has too little to even be something to comment upon), OKC is far more sprawling and does not offer the same nightlife, the same city vibe, the same arts, etc. I get a considerably different "feel" in Tulsa as opposed to OKC. YMMV.

Here is my problem with your post. A lot of people from Tulsa are really lacking a level of self awareness. You rip OKC for being "ghetto" yet its Tulsa with the higher crime rate.

This isn't even correct or accurate. According to CD's own stats, Tulsa's rate is 565.6 and OKC's is 593.1. In 2012, Tulsa had 42 murders; OKC had 85. OKC's incidents of rape were also higher for that same year (last one available on record on CD.)

Moreover, while some of what you said about parts of the north and west sides of Tulsa being run down and a bit more crime-ridden is valid, the major difference between Tulsa and OKC in this regard is that the high-crime areas in Tulsa are far better delineated.

You KNOW you don't really wanna be North of Admiral in several areas after dark. You know there are janky sections on the West Side. The area of rabbit-warrens of apartments South of the Brookside District around 61st, Lewis-Peoria has also gotten pretty rough.

However, outside of these parts of town, Tulsa is pretty safe. I would argue that all the way from Riverside (to the west) to Mingo or so (to the east) and from 11th Street (to the north, if not all the way to Admiral) to pretty much as far south as you can go, is safe. No really hincky places anywhere in that major swath of Tulsa. And if you aren't involved in drug trafficking or gang activity, you are not likely to experience crime--particularly violent crime--in Tulsa, especially in the massive central region I outlined above.

OKC, on the other hand, is a (rather disgusting) patchwork of decent neighborhoods (though few have any character) and small business districts that are somewhat cute, but which are hemmed in by streets full of boarded up houses, abandoned apartment buildings, ugly, industrial wasteland and general ghetto-tastic ruin. You can, in a couple of blocks, go from a few blocks of nice, fancy homes to complete post-apocalyptic fugliness, with the attendant crime to boot. And it is like this throughout the entire metro.

OKC has been growing at a much faster rate since at least 2000. You can't say its because of oil jobs because the oil boom has only been going strong since about 2007.

For me, stats like that are meaningless when discussing a city. Unless a city is hemmorhaging citizens (like Detroit) and is in danger of dying (clearly Tulsa isn't) then I couldn't really care less is OKC got one more business to plant its flag there, or a higher percentage of newcomers settled there. It has little bearing on the qualities of a place I am concerned with.

So clearly a lot of people aren't as bothered by "ugly" OKC as you are.

True. That doesn't mean that--objectively as possible--OKC isn't still ugly. It is. I haven't really been anywhere uglier, and can't think of a major city I've visited or traveled through that comes close to its ugliness.

Jobs, access to entertainment and sports, higher ed opportunities, and a good quality of life at an affordable price matters and are things I find OKC offers.

Aside from national sports teams (another thing I could not possible care less about, though I know it's a big deal to a lot of people) Tulsa has everything you mentioned, and plenty of it.

No it doesn't offer natural beauty or a compact, urban lifestyle, but if I really wanted those things I'm probably not moving to Oklahoma at all. JMO.

Agree with you here. Oklahoma is not culturally very in step with my own values and philosophy. I am not saying "Whoo-hoo! Tulsa is such a great city! Everyone should come here--they'll love it!"

I'm merely saying that, if someone was trying to decide between the two metros, or if there is a discussion on the relative merits of each, I believe (based on years of experience and the anecdotal evidence of having known scores of people who have lived in both and agree) that Tulsa is preferable to OKC by several orders of magnitude, for a good dozen reasons already mentioned in this thread by myself and others.