Oklahoma Opportunity

[rebound]

Fun place to get drunk, but that's about it. I have friends with businesses down there and all they do is grumble and moan.  Austin has a great arts community though, as well as a good food culture.  They have become a magnet for conventions, but do a couple there and you realize that getting anywhere is a pain. I was there in July of last year and we had lots of rain.  Unfortunately, unless you get to a parking spot at around 7am, you are hard pressed to find a spot close to where you need to be, and due to weather, myself and my colleagues looked like wet dogs for most of the week.  The views from most of the bars is very entertaining.  They have bicycle cops that act like shepherds for all of the homeless (and there are lots of very eccentric homeless) in clumps on each corner, bumming cigarettes and asking for money.  When the cops aren't corralling their herd, they are attempting to manage the drunks flowing in and out of the bars. The drinking culture seems to enjoy lots of shots, mostly Jägermeister variants, so much so that walking through a crowd, all you smell is cigarettes Jäger and pachouli.  20 years ago, this would have been heaven. I guess I've grown out of that.

Had some of the best Guacamole I've ever had though at a little place called El Ceviche Grill off Jacinto Blvd.  Still trying to duplicate it to this day!

I'm in Austin all the time, and my sister in law lives there just South of the river West of Congress.  (In the heart of SoCo!)  I love the place.  When we were looking to move from the Dallas area 10 years ago, it came down to Tulsa and Austin.  It's still a toss-up to us whether we made the right call, but we definitely like being in Tulsa. 

But there's really no way for Tulsa to "become Austin". We don't have the state capitol here and we don't have a 50K person university.  Those two bedrock institutions make Austin what it is.  As for the vagrants and drunks, stay off sixth street.  There are so many great restaurants and bars in other areas (check out the Continental Club on SoCo, or the Saxon Pub on South Lamar. Always great local bands.)  And I agree with you Gaspar, some of the best Mexican food in the world!  Nice I've got to find a reason to get back down there...

[swake]

Ok, so I looked as some real numbers for growth and compared us to four other cities. Oklahoma City, DFW, Austin, since it's been mentioned here, and DC because it's the highest income metro in the nation and one of the fastest growing. This comparison isn't against the average, all these other cities are some of, if not the best performing in the entire nation.

These numbers are from 2010 to 2012, which is the latest available. Income numbers are from the BEA and I'm using US Census MSA numbers for population.

Tulsa's MSA population grew 1.5% over those two years, from 937,478 to 951,880. Total GDP for the metro grew by 6.8% or by 5.2% per capita.  Average Income per resident for Tulsa was $47,812 in 2010 and $50,312 in 2012.  

Oklahoma City's population growth was better but per capita income overall and income growth was worse. OKC's MSA population grew 3.5% over those two years, from 1,252,987 to 1,296,565. Total GDP for the metro grew by 8.6% or by only 4.9% per capita.  Average Income per resident for Oklahoma City was $46,560 in 2010 and $48,851 in 2012.  

Austin is just booming, in all areas. Austin's MSA population grew 6.9% over those two years to 1,834,303. This is the highest growth for any large metro area in the entire country. Total GDP for the metro grew by 22.6% or by 14.7% per capita.  Average Income per resident for Austin was $53,795 in 2012, a bit higher than Tulsa and Oklahoma City.

Dallas is also of course always booming. Dallas'  MSA population grew 4.3% over those two years to 1,834,303. This is the highest growth for all very large metro areas over five million people. Total GDP for the metro grew by 12.4% or by 7.8% per capita.  Average Income per resident for Dallas was $62,728 in 2012, a lot higher than Tulsa and Oklahoma City.

Washington DC is the highest income metro in the nation, and is also currently booming. The DC area's  MSA population grew 4.0% over those two years to 1,834,303. This is the second highest growth for all very large metro areas after Dallas. Total GDP for the metro grew by 21.4% or by 16.7% per capita.  Average Income per resident was $76,572 in 2012.

We are not shrinking in population or in economic activity. In economic activity actually we compare favorable to all these high growth cities on a per capita basis. We just need to grow more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/drilldown.cfm?reqid=70&stepnum=11&AreaTypeKeyGdp=5&GeoFipsGdp=XX&ClassKeyGdp=naics&ComponentKey=200&IndustryKey=1&YearGdp=2012&YearGdpBegin=-1&YearGdpEnd=-1&UnitOfMeasureKeyGdp=Levels&RankKeyGdp=1&Drill=1&nRange=5

[TheArtist]

  I don't wan't us to be Austin per say, but when you talk about the congestion and such I am reminded of the time their city transit planners came to Tulsa and said "Here is what we did wrong and wish wish wish we could go back and do right. Tulsa is is at just the right point in it's development where it can make choices now that will make things so much easier and better down the road. Pleeease don't make the mistakes we did. Here are the lessons we learned too late.".... and then we continue to ignore their advice.  Thing is when your a slow growing city like we are, the regrets can take longer to fix for you can't just rapidly grow your way out of them.


As for this....

"I think there is a chicken/egg debate though among planners.  That is to say, "if we build it, will they come?" V.S. "When they come, should we build it."  

I think Tulsa's conservative approach has been to develop small urban and pedestrian pockets of development, and as those succeed, or sometimes fail, that dictates what is built next, and allows the community to dictate the speed and direction of development.

Currently we are enjoying a nice spike in urban development downtown, and as that continues to be successful the push for a more pedestrian oriented community will become more successful."


I am really glad to see downtown slowly growing again.  My concern is that we are not zoning for urban/pedestrian friendly/transit friendly growth downtown or anywhere else for that matter.  Right now what we have is a scattershot approach, little bit here, little bit there and we cross our fingers hoping something sticks.  Kind of like our "Arts District" we don't really have a strip where there are a lot of galleries, we have a few here, a few in this area, etc. but not that critical mass draw type thing.  

When I was in London you really notice every different section or the city has its "High Street" or main street.  In many other cities in England they have the "Kings Street", again lots of shops and restaurants along a long strip.  In Denver they zoned certain streets in their downtown to have pedestrian friendly/transit friendly development to again, 1. Help developers know where what is best to be built. 2. Maximize transit, now and future. 3. Create an area with maximum potential for attractive retail/restaurant growth.  

I was toying with the idea of purchasing a small spot downtown.  It would take a lot of effort and a lot of money over a long time for a "little guy" like me to make something like that a go.  But what caused me to give up on the idea was that I had no idea what was going to go in next to me. Something could go in that could hurt or even destroy all my hard work, or enhance it.  If I was purchasing on a future "Main Street, High Street, A/Transit/Pedestrian friendly zoned street..., then I would know that the guy next to me would build something that would enhance my retail business, then the next guy, the guy across the street, etc.  Each new place would make the street better and better for the businesses and the pedestrian experience.  But we don't have that and I have heard other developers comment on the same thing.  There is no way to know if your investment, especially if your a smaller developer, will have a future.  Not every street can be an "A" pedestrian friendly street, for if you try that, none of them will be.  It's really important in a downtown environment to have a good strip of pedestrian friendly development to maximize your retail potential.  You don't want to be the lone shop out somewhere else, you want to be right in with or just by the rest.  The more I am downtown the more I see how true that is.  

Another example of how important what goes next to you in a urban environment is is Wait Phillips himself.  When he built one building downtown, he purposefully bought the lot across the street to build another tower for the expressed reason that he could then control what went in there because it would either positively impact his investment, or negatively impact his investment.  Most of us aren't that wealthy and with our current zoning we leave it up to chance.  We pretty much have to cross our fingers and hope that what goes in next to us or across from us will either hurt or harm our business. That's not IMHO the best way to create a high quality, competitive downtown retail environment.  It is a recipe for likely screwing things up. You may indeed end up with a developer who puts in ground floor retail in a hotel say, and then have it not be that successful over time because there is not the development around it to compliment it and create a pedestrian friendly area.  Then might the "planners" and other naysayers point at it and say "See they put in ground floor retail spaces and it didn't work!"?.  You zone for good suburban developments, Highways here, around this interchange put in higher density developments like retail and apartments, must have this much for parking, etc.   Why don't we zone to have good urban development?  When downtown is basically a small island with "whatever goes" zoning, and is surrounded by hundreds of square miles of suburban/car oriented zoning... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going to happen in that downtown.  



 

[Townsend]

. . .and this was just published today!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/2014-most-affordable-cities_n_4554763.html

There's a reason Tulsa's #1.  You get what you pay for.  If we weren't cheap, we'd be deserted.

[Gaspar]

I was toying with the idea of purchasing a small spot downtown.  It would take a lot of effort and a lot of money over a long time for a "little guy" like me to make something like that a go.  But what caused me to give up on the idea was that I had no idea what was going to go in next to me. Something could go in that could hurt or even destroy all my hard work, or enhance it.  If I was purchasing on a future "Main Street, High Street, A/Transit/Pedestrian friendly zoned street..., then I would know that the guy next to me would build something that would enhance my retail business, then the next guy, the guy across the street, etc.  Each new place would make the street better and better for the businesses and the pedestrian experience.  But we don't have that and I have heard other developers comment on the same thing.  There is no way to know if your investment, especially if your a smaller developer, will have a future.  Not every street can be an "A" pedestrian friendly street, for if you try that, none of them will be.  It's really important in a downtown environment to have a good strip of pedestrian friendly development to maximize your retail potential.  You don't want to be the lone shop out somewhere else, you want to be right in with or just by the rest.  The more I am downtown the more I see how true that is.  
 

And that my friend is exactly the uncertainty that makes development downtown affordable in most of those areas. If Blue Dome was chosen, zoned, and undeniably known as the urban growth center of Tulsa (big red dot on the map), your ability to afford a lease or purchase in that heart would be significantly diminished.  Additionally, all of the other areas would suffer, causing a halo effect around the "chosen" urban center.  If you could afford the increasing cost that such regulated development produces, you would be in great shape.

Currently, Tulsa has a very nice problem to have. . .multiple pockets of successful urban development, all successful in their own rite.  Each of these areas is dependent on their own community for success instead of the vision of will of a central planner.  Each has a very different streetscape and atmosphere.  The family and I love to use the pedicabs to hit these multiple hotspots and enjoy the variety of vibrant spaces separated by calm buffers.

For the entrepreneur, it means a variety of options to choose that fit a variety of business models. Ultimately it morphs into neighborhoods or districts that become known for the community they develop, and each of those has the ability to evolve over time, as the market evolves, free of restriction.  The downside is that some of those areas will fail because of the community they develop, and the direction that the consumer takes.

There is no opportunity without risk.

[Gaspar]

There's a reason Tulsa's #1.  You get what you pay for.  If we weren't cheap, we'd be deserted.

Always amazed at the distain you have for Tulsa.  There is a big difference between cheap and affordable. 

[Conan71]

Fun place to get drunk, but that's about it. I have friends with businesses down there and all they do is grumble and moan.  Austin has a great arts community though, as well as a good food culture.  They have become a magnet for conventions, but do a couple there and you realize that getting anywhere is a pain. I was there in July of last year and we had lots of rain.  Unfortunately, unless you get to a parking spot at around 7am, you are hard pressed to find a spot close to where you need to be, and due to weather, myself and my colleagues looked like wet dogs for most of the week.  The views from most of the bars is very entertaining.  They have bicycle cops that act like shepherds for all of the homeless (and there are lots of very eccentric homeless) in clumps on each corner, bumming cigarettes and asking for money.  When the cops aren't corralling their herd, they are attempting to manage the drunks flowing in and out of the bars. The drinking culture seems to enjoy lots of shots, mostly Jägermeister variants, so much so that walking through a crowd, all you smell is cigarettes Jäger and pachouli.  20 years ago, this would have been heaven. I guess I've grown out of that.

Had some of the best Guacamole I've ever had though at a little place called El Ceviche Grill off Jacinto Blvd.  Still trying to duplicate it to this day!

We were there last April for a mountain bike race down near Smithville.  We spent one night near 6th & Congress then moved our "base of operations" closer to the event venue because traffic was such a nightmare.  If you go back, try the grilled chorizo meatloaf at Iron Cactus down in the entertainment district. 

[Townsend]

Always amazed at the distain you have for Tulsa.  There is a big difference between cheap and affordable. 

You're amazed at many things.  

I have disdain for things in Tulsa, not Tulsa itself.  That's why I'm involved with volunteer groups.  I want to change the things that make Tulsa's success harder.

What are the differences?

[Hoss]

Always amazed at the distain you have for Tulsa.  There is a big difference between cheap and affordable. 

Think I'd have to agree with Townie the southie here.  I was born and raised here, and except for a three year brain fart called marriage, I've lived my whole life here.

Look at the salaries here compared to those in other cities, then compare the COL.  Not a huge difference really.  In my field (QA for software) I'd make more in a city like Dallas simply because it demands it.  Since Tulsa has the reputation for being so 'budget-minded', employers won't offer that same rate to prospects.

If those same employers would scale the pay to the same, then I'd call it 'affordable'.  As it stands right now?  Cheap.

[Gaspar]

You're amazed at many things.  

I have disdain for things in Tulsa, not Tulsa itself.  That's why I'm involved with volunteer groups.  I want to change the things that make Tulsa's success harder.

What are the differences?

I commend you for volunteering your time to help make Tulsa into something different.  I hope that your hard work pays off.  I think we both want to see success as Tulsa's urban fabric evolves.  The main difference is that I am willing to criticize the negatives and give praise and promotion to the positives. I work with businesses all over the country and never miss a chance to promote my city for all of the many positive and attractive opportunities it offers. I also work with many Tulsa businesses who embrace the same policy of civic promotion.  

This thread was intended to be one of praise for the success our state and city has enjoyed during what is for many others a difficult economic time.  Compound that with the fact that Tulsa provides affordable housing throughout the spectrum, and includes several growing urban communities that have developed over the last few years, and you have reason to rejoice and promote Tulsa even more!

Instead, you choose your typical snark, to flick a booger at what was a constructive conversation.  I hope that you can see that.

As for your snarky question implying there is no difference between cheap, and affordable. . .
When it comes to cost of living, Tulsa offers everything from $400/mo apartments to $20 million dollar homes, that can be obtained with significantly more land, sq. footage, and amenities than other communities can offer for the same price. Combine this with low food, fuel, and energy costs, and then compound it with similar median income levels as more expensive cities, and you get an affordable lifestyle that should be promoted as such.

I think what is most striking is your comment that Tulsa would be "deserted" if it wasn't cheap.  That is untrue, and in poor taste, and as a volunteer for a group who's purpose is to help Tulsa become the most vibrant, diverse, sustainable and prosperous city possible, to promote it as either "cheap or desertable" is quite the insult and I doubt it reflects the views of the other members of your organization.

That is all.  Snark away.

[Townsend]

Instead, you choose your typical snark, to flick a booger at what was a constructive conversation.  I hope that you can see that.

You ever go back and re-read your posts?

[Townsend]

You ever go back and re-read your posts?

(laughing outwardly)  I mean, seriously...

[Townsend]

(laughing outwardly)  I mean, seriously...

You write what you write and then get on me for being a bit negative about a post you wanted to have positive connotations? 

You just keep on keepin' on there.

[Townsend]

You write what you write and then get on me for being a bit negative about a post you wanted to have positive connotations? 

You just keep on keepin' on there.

Maybe you could start taking yourself less seriously.  I know the rest of us do.

[Townsend]

Maybe you could start taking yourself less seriously.  I know the rest of us do.

I mean, damn.  (implied laughing smiley face here)