impressive new river development!!!

[Breadburner]

Okc sucks.....

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by OKC_Shane

The fundamental difference between modern OKC and modern Tulsa is the willingness of OKC's citizens to support anything that our leaders think is good for the city. We approve EVERYTHING.

The reason we focused on downtown is that it's a neutral area (free of northwest vs southside prejudices etc) and because of course downtown is where outsiders will make their judgements of the entire city. It's the heart of the city. By pouring a billion or so dollars into public projects downtown, we got developers to go ahead and throw in several more billions. We heaved a big stone into the middle of the pond, and now the splash is falling down across the city. Ripples are spreading from downtown, from Midtown, from the Arts District, from the northeast side (which is being HEAVILY colonized by urban pioneers), from the river (and let's face it- who cares if it's a "real" river or not if it brings us International sport events and a host of recreational opportunities downtown?).

And if you think the urban core is the only part of OKC that is doing well, you're kind of wrong... Chesapeake is spreading waves of beautification over its Western Ave neighborhood, the Kilpatrick Tpk is lined with office and medical developments and even a mixed use "upscale urban community" under construction north of Quail Springs Mall. The recently passed bond issue will provide for 350 miles of sidewalk in areas that don't have them for increased walkability and repair hundreds of miles of mostly residential streets outside of downtown.

OKC and Tulsa approached their modern urban renewals in two different ways, but both are working... in different ways. Ours is making a bigger splash, becuase it's mostly happening downtown- and that's where the people go to judge.

Your "river" is sterile and vacant. I've been by a number of times and never have seen a soul using it. And it literally is next to a dump.

Western Ave is an area that had potential, but is being bulldozed for a corporate campus, so let's not toot that horn too loudly.

The sprawling shopping area along the Kilpatrick and near Quail Springs is nothing unique, every city has these areas and this one is too often run down and overall really ugly. And when exactly did the "upscale urban village" north of Quail Springs break ground? It's going to interesting to see how that project works out with all the gang-bangers living the huge run down apartment complexes around it.

Your road are really rated an "F", not close to an "F" or before long will be an "F" if we don't do something like Tulsa, yours are a complete "F". And that "F" is with hundreds of millions of more state money on roads and highways spent in the Oklahoma City area than in Tulsa. Hell, Tulsa might get all the way to a "C" if the state would repair some damn highways here they way they do in Oklahoma City.

Your midtown area is still my favorite part of Oklahoma City and all those beautiful homes in Heritage Hills and Mesta Park still have some of the worst ghettos in the state just a single block away after literally decades of "renaissance" in those areas.

The OU Health Sciences Center and the Capital Complex include a ton of architecture that would make Stalin proud.

If there is one real improvement lately it's that I don't always see crack-hos hanging out on Lincoln Blvd leading up to the state capital. I only some times see them.

Calling most of Oklahoma City a dump is being kind.

[Renaissance]

You guys can denigrate OKC all you want.  What they've managed to do is put a very nice public face on the town as well as put their best foot forward.  Their developers are focused on improving the city core, not abandoning it.  Their river may not be the prominent geographical feature ours is, but they wanted one built and so they built it.  Tulsa could learn a trick or two from her big brother.

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

You guys can denigrate OKC all you want.  What they've managed to do is put a very nice public face on the town as well as put their best foot forward.  Their developers are focused on improving the city core, not abandoning it.  Their river may not be the prominent geographical feature ours is, but they wanted one built and so they built it.  Tulsa could learn a trick or two from her big brother.

If there is something to learn it's to value downtown as the central and most important part of the city and to not be so overwhelmingly negative about city government. We have a ton to learn from Oklahoma City in both regards.

[OKC_Shane]

I don't understand why you have to be so hostile, Swake?

The Quail Springs Village project will soon break ground. Billboards along May, Penn, and 150th list a phone number that you can call for information on leasing. That's where the "upscale urban village" quote comes from. Currently, the roads around the development are being upgraded to handle the increased traffic, especially 150th and May.

The river thing confuses me the most... We will soon have three collegiate boathouses along the dump, plus Chesapeake. The dump is used for city events, cultural events, and national/international sporting events that collectively draw over 100,000 spectators a year to the river. The trails and parks that line the dump draw even more, and let's not forget the promise of Core to Shore adding thousands of acres of solid new urban development connecting the dump to downtown.

IT WAS A DITCH AND 1500 TRASHY, NASTY, GRUNGY ACRES. NOW IT WILL CREATE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PRIVATE INVESTMENT AND DRAW PEOPLE IN DROVES. Who cares if it is really little more than an artificial lake? That's beside the point. We made it work for us. And it does. I'm sorry but I don't see anything to be ashamed of there.

THE DIFFERENCE: You see a dump that can never be fixed, we will now do a clever trick and turn it into money and prosperity and national recognition for urban revival. You might call it the "MOVE THAT BUS!" effect if you're familiar with Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.

Changed perceptions require change.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

You guys can denigrate OKC all you want.  What they've managed to do is put a very nice public face on the town as well as put their best foot forward.  Their developers are focused on improving the city core, not abandoning it.  Their river may not be the prominent geographical feature ours is, but they wanted one built and so they built it.  Tulsa could learn a trick or two from her big brother.

If there is something to learn it's to value downtown as the central and most important part of the city and to not be so overwhelmingly negative about city government. We have a ton to learn from Oklahoma City in both regards.

Cheers to that.  Maybe someday we'll have a mayor who somehow manages to govern by consensus.  Is that even a theoretical possibility?

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by OKC_Shane


The river thing confuses me the most... We will soon have three collegiate boathouses along the dump, plus Chesapeake. The dump is used for city events, cultural events, and national/international sporting events that collectively draw over 100,000 spectators a year to the river. The trails and parks that line the dump draw even more, and let's not forget the promise of Core to Shore adding thousands of acres of solid new urban development connecting the dump to downtown.

IT WAS A DITCH AND 1500 TRASHY, NASTY, GRUNGY ACRES. NOW IT WILL CREATE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PRIVATE INVESTMENT AND DRAW PEOPLE IN DROVES. Who cares if it is really little more than an artificial lake? That's beside the point. We made it work for us. And it does. I'm sorry but I don't see anything to be ashamed of there.

THE DIFFERENCE: You see a dump that can never be fixed, we will now do a clever trick and turn it into money and prosperity and national recognition for urban revival. You might call it the "MOVE THAT BUS!" effect if you're familiar with Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.

Changed perceptions require change.

Um no, I'm not saying the river is a dump, I'm saying the river is next to a dump, which it is, you know, physically next to real honest to god dump.

As for "core to shore", you're welcome, you want to understand a little hostility, it's another half billion dollar state handout to benefit Oklahoma City downtown while Tulsa loses it's state medical examiner office for exactly no cost savings to the state.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake

quote:Originally posted by OKC_Shane


The river thing confuses me the most... We will soon have three collegiate boathouses along the dump, plus Chesapeake. The dump is used for city events, cultural events, and national/international sporting events that collectively draw over 100,000 spectators a year to the river. The trails and parks that line the dump draw even more, and let's not forget the promise of Core to Shore adding thousands of acres of solid new urban development connecting the dump to downtown.

IT WAS A DITCH AND 1500 TRASHY, NASTY, GRUNGY ACRES. NOW IT WILL CREATE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PRIVATE INVESTMENT AND DRAW PEOPLE IN DROVES. Who cares if it is really little more than an artificial lake? That's beside the point. We made it work for us. And it does. I'm sorry but I don't see anything to be ashamed of there.

THE DIFFERENCE: You see a dump that can never be fixed, we will now do a clever trick and turn it into money and prosperity and national recognition for urban revival. You might call it the "MOVE THAT BUS!" effect if you're familiar with Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.

Changed perceptions require change.

Um no, I'm not saying the river is a dump, I'm saying the river is next to a dump, which it is, you know, physically next to real honest to god dump.

As for "core to shore", you're welcome, you want to understand a little hostility, it's another half billion dollar state handout to benefit Oklahoma City downtown while Tulsa loses it's state medical examiner office for exactly no cost savings to the state.

Honestly Swake, I've been to a couple of rowing regatta's at the Chesapeake boat house, and yeah the rip-rap on the shoreline is bland, but it really beats hard-core erosion.  That area is evolving.  Unfortunately, neither Tulsa nor OKC seems to have the kind of money to properly terrace river banks like they do in Europe or older US cities.

That is an infant of a Riverpark system, give it a chance, man.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

That is an interesting perspective. Tulsa really does have a lot more nicer areas than OKC has. Their downtown/bricktown area gets a lot of buzz though. But that does go to show how having a single place like that can change and influence the perception of the whole area. When visitors come to Tulsa, or any city, they dont judge it by the burbs or shopping malls, they often go downtown and make the assessment of the entire city by whats there. It may be "logically" entirely wrong to do so,,, but people tend to do that regardless.

If you look at my "Tulsa developments 2000's" there is quite a bit of stuff there even compared to OKC, but its all spread out. And like I have said. If Tulsa actually does get a river development of its own and even a bit more downtown. We will be doing quite well. We are behind, but I actually think we just might pull a sneaky one up on them.

IMO they don't have a mid-town. There is nothing like the Utica Square/Villa Philbrook area (Utica Place is looking right niiiiiice if ya ask me). Brookside is great and getting better. Same with Cherry Street. Jenks River District et al counts for Tulsa imo. It would be within OKCs city boundries thats for sure if we were to compare. We have several new budding college campuses plus TUs growth. And again, if we do get trail and park improvements and a development along our river and downtown... OKC will have bricktown and...well, butt ugly every where else lol.  

We can do it. Steady as she goes. Quality versus quantity. Perspectives may change here in about 4 years and it may be them asking "How the heck did Tulsa get so many different nice places and things all of a sudden?" "How could they have done that? Where did it come from?" We are kind of doing a gradual, under the radar, broad, stealth approach to development lol. Lets keep our eye on the prize. We will get there.

I'm glad to hear you say this Artist.  I've heard so many people get caught up in the rhetoric about not having real river development "for Tulsa" or not having downtown done yet.  After awhile, I'm convinced that everyone is ignoring what we do have now to look at what they think we don't have.

So many other major cities have principal hip/cool dining/entertainment districts crammed into four or six block square areas, and that's pretty much all anyone can repeat about the area.  Tulsa has about six different distinct areas.  The main difference is other than Cherry St. and Brookside, there's not and significant housing inventory in close proximity which appeals to the same demographic attracted to our entertainment centers.

OKC- Bricktown
Wichita- Bricktown
Denver- LoDo
Atlanta- Buckhead
Dallas- Deep Elm (I heard that got pretty gangy- what's the hot spot now?)
San Antonio- The Canal
Austin- 6th St.

You get the point.  Sure a singular identity doesn't help.  I like Beale St. in Memphis.  That's got a great vibe.  It's also only three or four blocks long.  I was pretty under-whelmed when I finally saw it as far as it's lack of scale.  The only other place there was some sort of a district developing was Overton Square.

Personally, I like that Tulsa has five or six different areas to enjoy getting out to for dining, entertainment, and has a strollable environment.  Yes, it dillutes some of the attention from not having a singular "district" which stands out, but not everyone believes that's necessary for a city's liveability.

I'm excited about adding the prospect of East End, The Pearl, and the river.  Those are all going to be fantastic boons.  Tulsa's got plenty to do in the meantime.

[okcpulse]

You know, it's funny, swake.  Everytime I drive on Oklahoma City roads, tey are MUCH nicer than most of Tulsa's roads.  Sorry.  But driving down Yale near I-244 is enough to damage a car.  In OKC we have our nice, wide arterials that are not as narrow as a pinhole as they are in Tulsa.  

However, you are correct.  We did receive and "F".  Why?  Because the streets outside the developed core of OKC (roughly 240 square miles) dont get much attention and NO ONE drives doesn't get the attention like streets inside developed areas.

Besides, we just passed an $800 million bond issue, $500 million of which will go to streets.  Oklahoma City and Tulsa are both improving in their own ways.  Leave well enough alone.

Besides, one man's opinion is another man's argument.  I think Utica Sqaure is crap.  Don't get me wrong, excellent shopping and dining, but Utica Square's buildings remind me of the 1950s... you know... one of those decades that should be written off in history.  Everything from that decade is butt ugly.

Our river is not as beautiful as Tulsa's but we have big plans for our river that really won't begin until after the three-mile section of I-40 gets relocated.  The plan is out on the internet.  It's called Core 2 Shore.

But honestly, Swake.  Things could be much worse.  You could wind up in hell-hole Houston, Texas like me.  Now I miss the OKC vs. Tulsa debates.  At least we challenge each other, regardless of our shortcomings.  I think both cities have a gift.

[cannon_fodder]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, OKC has the edge thanks to government spending.

1) The major employers are the FAA, Tinker AFB, University of Oklahoma, The State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, the IRS, and on down the line.  Of the top 20 employers in OKC are, 10 are government and they employee 56,000 people (run the spin of jobs numbers on that, wow).

There are, of course, other large and quality employers in OKC - Express, GM, UPS, Chesepeake, and Hobby Lobby make the top 20 list with a total of 12,500 jobs - as well as some area hospitals (note the distribution of government to private large empoyers).  Meanwhile, Tulsa's government jobs list in the top 20 employers includes OSU with 1400 (that's it).

I'm just saying they have a very nice base of well paid secure jobs that draw finances from outside the metro to work with. That lends consistency (no bust), moderate paying jobs with good benefits, and nearly an assured growth pattern.

Tulsa manufacturing and oil economy (and aviation) lends itself to boom and bust cycles.  And now, even in a boom - we can't get workers to move here fast enough for some reason.  Which bodes really bad for the bust.

2) State Money - OKC is a net receiver of state money.  Tulsa is a net payer.  We find the roads in and around the capital.  We fund the capital and related tourist attractions - and the jobs and subsequent housing, retail and services associated.  Which means we fund their sales tax which pays for their nice interior roads.

3) Three interstates - and access without tolls.  Sorry, but if I was a manufacturer that would matter.  They lobbied harder or won geographically in the 1950's, intersections of interstates spawn business and - if nothing else, federally maintain highways.
- - -

I try not to have sour grapes, but I really do feel that I support large swaths of OKC are supported by Tulsa tax payers.  Not to BLAME Oklahoma city - if Tulsa could land such jobs it would be wise to do so.  

And it is not to take away from what they have accomplished.  By all accounts Oklahoma City was not a vibrant nor attractive town 20 years ago (sorry OKC peeps).  Today, areas of the city including downtown and the capital district certainly are vibrant, growing, and attractive to young people.

I hate a chance to take a better job down the turnpike and kept my chips in Tulsa because I think it has more character overall - but the progress towards building on that legacy has been slow.  It's been pointed out that it has been happening (Blue Dome & Pearl as examples), lets hope the ball is just starting to roll.

[OKC_Shane]

The only thing the state is partially funding that is part of the Core to Shore plan is the replacement of our elevated highway, which has several lanes shut down at least once a month because large holes (literally) crumble away and fall down. The city of OKC and private developers shoulder the vast majority of the C2S financial burden. But we know if we need a bond issue or sales tax to get it done, we'll all vote yes.

The ball IS rolling in Tulsa. Housing, retail, entertainment, the arena... That's all going to pay off. (But I do think a concentrated entertainment district is important to kickstart things, get people who wouldn't normally show up downtown to show up, and then smaller restaurant rows etc will form in other areas- ie Plaza Court area in Midtown OKC where your own McNellie's and three or four other locally operated eateries/drinkeries have opened since last year).

Soon hopefully the rest of Tulsa will start to care about making the ball roll faster by supporting the local government and its plans. Or at least admit to themselves that the ball NEEDS to roll faster. I'm with you, I really wish I-44 would no longer be a toll road. That's ridiculous, to not be able to reach a major American city without paying a toll (although I don't think it's reason enough to keep people OUT of Tulsa.)

[OKC_Shane]

Also, getting back to the topic, the Cotton Exchange development will be voted on by Bricktown Urban Design tomorrow morning.





It has to have permission to exceed the district's 80' height limit- permission that was barely granted to the Hampton Inn currently u/c (they had to remove 1 story from their original plan and stick to around 100'). Supposedly the pool/patio area on the 6th floor will help them beat the height restriction because the building won't block as much light from the buildings on the north side of the canal.