Downtown Development Overview

[swake]

This article presented some interesting metrics regarding Oklahoma cities and towns to digest.  It's about America's most miserable cities which I rarely take time to read data from a negative view but there's good data to mine here and try and figure out where Tulsa is lacking amongst others in state.  While Tulsa has grown 2.2% since 2010, OKC has grown by 11.9% and averages about $5000/year higher median income.  Also from the article:  Moore has grown 12.7%, Edmond almost 15%, Norman by 11.3%, and Broken Arrow by 10.5%.  BA's average median income is $70K, $26K higher than Tulsa.  There's no mention of Jenks, Sapulpa, or Owasso in the study so no idea about their growth vs. Tulsa and the OKC area.

OKC and it's suburbs are growing at more than 10% each.  I can't imagine that OKC's school system is vastly superior to Tulsa's which is the #1 reason given as to why people move to Tulsa's suburbs, rather than to Tulsa.  So OKC's growth is still slightly behind three of it's major suburbs but not by much.  For as long as I can remember, Tulsa's been stuck in this negligible growth pattern, at least 30 years.

Why is this?  What is the OKC metro doing which is so vastly different?  Geographically speaking, Tulsa is a far more compelling place with beautiful rolling hills, access to beautiful lakes within 90 minutes or less, great urban spaces, and is much closer to NW Arkansas for quick weekend getaways, etc.  OKC is flat and sprawling, I've never been enamored with it.  Bricktown always seemed just a bit contrived to me.  It seems from a sense of natural resources and recreation that Tulsa should be leading in growth and attracting major employers but it is just not happening.  Maybe Pryor had better infrastructure readily in place for Google, but landing a business like that would have been huge for Tulsa and could have been a beacon for other companies like that.

I vacillate constantly about whether or not 5-6% annual growth like Austin, is such a great thing for an area or if Tulsa should be happy it's plodding along slowly.  That kind of growth would better justify developments like SFS or the TPAC development but at what price?

Most people I meet from Austin these days are talking about what a shithole it is becoming due to the rapid growth and would love to find a way to get out of there, but the employment picture is great, so they deal with the headaches of a metro growing faster than infrastructure can keep up. 

Of course, most contact I have with people from other areas is while they are on vacation and it's natural to idealize what it would be like to live in a small village or ski resort town instead of a sprawling metro area when you are a visitor to such a place.  We get a lot of people from DFW, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and all over the Texas Panhandle as well as Tulsa and OKC metros at our inn and brewery and I generally take time to get to know people while they are in our establishments as much as you can in brief bursts of conversation.  If I'm tending bar at the brewery, I can get into pretty spirited hour long conversations on a slow day with a guest or three.

Tulsa had explosive growth like Austin is experiencing, to an extent, during the oil boom of the late '70's and early '80's where anything south of roughly 61st Street was maddening to get around in rush hour as that's where all new construction was, but we still had a network of two lane roads without so much as turn lanes at that time.

So here's the data set I was looking at:

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/list-of-miserable-cities-in-america-includes-in-oklahoma/collection_d578ee89-4bfa-5455-8885-b0c7aaa02472.html?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=NEWS%20-%20Latest%20News&utm_campaign=Latest%20News&utm_content=Latest%20News#7

Tulsa:

2018 population: 400,669

Population change from 2010 to 2018 (estimated): 2.2%

Percentage of people working: 65.8%

Median household income: $44,577

Persons without health insurance: 19.8%

Median commute time: 18.4 minutes

Percentage in poverty: 20%

OKC:

2018 population: 649,021

Population change from 2010 to 2018 (estimated): 11.9%

Percentage of people working: 66%

Median household income: $51,581

Persons without health insurance: 18%

Median commute time: 21.3 minutes

Percentage in poverty: 17.1%

Broken Arrow:

2018 population: 109,171

Population change from 2010 to 2018 (estimated): 10.5%

Percentage of people working: 70.4%

Median household income: $70,788

Persons without health insurance: 11.4%

Median commute time: 20.7 minutes

Percentage in poverty: 7.6%

It's good data, but the article in the World is beyond stupid. The article and data they link to is about the 50 most miserable cities and then BI gives the same data for the 1,000 largest cities in the nation for comparison. Oklahoma has 11 cities that fall into the 1,000 largest so the World creates dumb click bait that Oklahoma has 11 of America's most miserable cities.

[SXSW]

OKC and it's suburbs are growing at more than 10% each.  I can't imagine that OKC's school system is vastly superior to Tulsa's which is the #1 reason given as to why people move to Tulsa's suburbs, rather than to Tulsa.  So OKC's growth is still slightly behind three of it's major suburbs but not by much.  For as long as I can remember, Tulsa's been stuck in this negligible growth pattern, at least 30 years.

Why is this?  What is the OKC metro doing which is so vastly different?  Geographically speaking, Tulsa is a far more compelling place with beautiful rolling hills, access to beautiful lakes within 90 minutes or less, great urban spaces, and is much closer to NW Arkansas for quick weekend getaways, etc.  OKC is flat and sprawling, I've never been enamored with it.  Bricktown always seemed just a bit contrived to me.  It seems from a sense of natural resources and recreation that Tulsa should be leading in growth and attracting major employers but it is just not happening.  Maybe Pryor had better infrastructure readily in place for Google, but landing a business like that would have been huge for Tulsa and could have been a beacon for other companies like that.

Perplexes me too, but then again I don't understand why so many people want to move to Dallas either.  OKC has OU in its backyard (and the OUHSC by downtown), the state government and Tinker AFB which are all huge employment centers.  The economy is probably more diversified as well though not by that much.  They have at least a 10 year headstart on downtown redevelopment but have just started redeveloping their outlying urban neighborhoods while Tulsa has had stability and growth in those areas for decades (Cherry St, Brookside, Utica Square, etc).  The city leadership has generally been much better in OKC while Tulsa has been known to rest on its laurels while other cities are working hard to improve/diversify/grow.

[Conan71]

It's good data, but the article in the World is beyond stupid. The article and data they link to is about the 50 most miserable cities and then BI gives the same data for the 1,000 largest cities in the nation for comparison. Oklahoma has 11 cities that fall into the 1,000 largest so the World creates dumb click bait that Oklahoma has 11 of America's most miserable cities.

I agree about the article.  I didn't want to get hung up in it but it presented some good data we could look at and try to figure why OKC seems to be attracting more people with, what I consider, less to offer in overall aesthetics.  We know with the GOP in control of government it's likely not due to massive job growth in the state government sector there.  What's the draw?  I'm puzzled as can be by this.  I had no idea Tulsa was lagging that far, just city to city- not even metro.  

One possibility is Tulsa is coming close to being built out to city limits south, east, and west.  OKC's borders and annexations still leave a lot of developmental space so that could explain a thing or two.  BUT- people aren't generally moving in droves to places where there's not great employment prospects.  So what's happening along those lines Tulsa isn't doing right?

[TheArtist]

And remember, that average growth for Tulsa is front loaded with higher growth in earlier years and then stagnation and the current population decline. With our suburbs growth rates slowing as well.  

We all remember when Tulsa hit a really rough patch and then we fought and argued about what, if anything we should do about it.

The old timers were like "Oh it will come back, it always has." boom and bust we have been through it before.  But this time was different, it didn't "come back" and you could tell it wouldn't. I think I remember reading that during one 13 month period Tulsa lost around 40,000 jobs. Lots of oil jobs heading to Houston. Tulsa was juuust too small a city to hold on.

Then, as has been mentioned, OKC has had some advantages, nearby universities, government jobs (and largesse), believe it or not, being not too far from Dallas actually helps (as much as I go to Dallas from Tulsa, and as much Money as I have made working in Dallas, I could only imagine it would be much easier and my life more enjoyable if I lived in OKC going to Dallas) and then there is their MAPS.

We fought and argued about Vision and seemed to squander time... important points in time that could have made a difference.

For a while cities that had, or that had the buzz of creating, lively, hip, pedestrian friendly areas were outpacing the growth of the suburban areas or other cities.  It was a boom time for those cities that could offer that lifestyle prospect. Cities of all sizes and spread over the US that was true.  We fought for that kind of zoning and development and it was shot down. We still don't have it. We are still, maybe, inching "closer" to it.  But now that has become passe' in a way.  It should be something you just have, that every city has, not something your working towards.  Now cities are moving on to the next steps while we are still working to get to where they were 20 years ago.

We always seem to be 20 years behind without wanting to make the jump ahead.

And now, we are at a point where its only going to get worse.  

Lets say we get aaaall the developments downtown that are in the works and possible.  We will still be a small, bleh city with admittedly a few nice things; The Gathering Place, an ok downtown, couple decent museums, the start of a little transit corridor or two, couple small hip streets (Brookside, Cherry, etc.). some nice areas.  Some pretty bad areas, high crime rate, lots of poor people, a downtown with lots of buildings but that still feels freakishly dead.

But what else is there?

What is there to make us really special?

What is going to be that identity thing, that calling card, industry sector, name for ourselves?

And as the US population growth begins to slow down, the competition is only going to get harder.  Many of the winners will do even better, while many of those on the losing end will find any prospect of turning things around to be MUCH harder.

I think Tulsa is at a pivotal point.  Of either stopping the decline and clawing back a little growth in order to make some more big changes to BE something.... OR, sliding into permanent decline.  IF, this scenario happens... the population continues to decline and the word gets out its "Tulsa-high crime- bad schools- losing population"= businesses leaving, then if heaven forbid we get a few of these new buildings, or old, downtown with businesses leaving... Its game over. We will spiral down with more people and businesses leaving, needing more taxes to pay for all the sprawl and crime, the word will get out that things are getting bad, repeat, repeat.


The only entity I see making big changes and taking big action is Kaisers bunch.  Wishing them the best!

[SXSW]

The only entity I see making big changes and taking big action is Kaisers bunch.  Wishing them the best!

GKFF is doing amazing things in Tulsa and I don't see that slowing down.  They'll continue to build up the Arts District into a vibrant neighborhood. 

[shavethewhales]

I've always said Tulsa's greatest issues are location and critical mass. We're big, but not big enough to truly have sway against KC, OKC, and of course Dallas. We get a lot of cool scraps, but the big boys in business are always going to gravitate to the bigger centers of gravity where bigger things are happening.

At some point, we just have to content ourselves with the fact that Tulsa is a cool, larger-but-not-huge city, and we will probably not truly compete on a national stage in our lifetimes. There are plenty of advantages to our position, such as being large enough to attract SOME cool things, but small enough that we don't have issues such as the insane traffic of the bigger metros.

I am always worried about the slow bleed of higher level jobs to the bigger metros, but if we keep pushing ourselves as an incubator of new businesses and ideas, we can fight against those forces to some degree. Tulsa can be a great place to start a new business.

At least we are still growing. I think the lack of mention for the parts of the metro outside Tulsa County probably dampen our numbers. Glenpool/Jenks is still expanding as fast as anywhere else in OK right now (except Edmond perhaps).

The true losers are our small rural communities. Especially with the rural healthcare crisis, more and more small towns are being depleted and their populations are being sucked into the nearest large metro.

[DTowner]

Interesting discussion.  I read  recently that many "experts" predict that the largest cities and those fast growing cities that have cache (like Austin, Nashville, etc.) are going to be nearly all of the growth over the next 25+ years, with the rest growing very slowly or declining.  Like many predictions by experts, I suspect a lot of factors over the next few decades could alter that fact, but in general it sure looks like the cities that are winning now  are going to be the big winners in the future.

I think some of reasons OKC is beating Tulsa so soundly are as follows, and in no particularly order:

OKC is the Capitol - that matters.

Significant government infrastructure spending in the past decade.

OKC is a "major league" city because of the Thunder.  That matters to companies and people when considering where to locate.

A 10-year head start in downtown revitalization and they have not let up on the pedal.  For all of Tulsa's downtown development, we are not even keeping pace with OKC.

OKC has vast amounts of undeveloped land that can be and is being developed.  Tulsa's gave  back land it had and what remains undeveloped is mostly in undesirable areas. 

OU located in an OKC suburb.

Military spending.

OKC has much better transportation/connection.  Three major interstate highways, only 1 of which is a turnpike.   Interstate highway connection to Dallas/Ft. Worth.  More direct flights than Tulsa.

Until recently, Tulsa area legislators did a terrible job of securing state support for Tulsa area projects, whereas OKC legislators did a great job of making sure OKC got a disproportionate share (i.e. Native American Center boondoggle).

Most oil/gas development in Oklahoma is occurring the western half of the state, which led to much more energy based growth.  While that has ebbed the past few years, it was a huge driver in helping OKC land the Thunder and a lot of development (Devon Building) that continues to help it grow.

Attitude.  OKC seems to have discovered itself and believes it is a great city.  Tulsans seem more focused on its problems/shortcomings rather than its potential.

Leadership.  OKC has had visionary leaders for the past 20 years.  Tulsa has alternated between crisis managers (budgetary) and folks trying to get consensus on some greater goals.

[Dspike]

Agreed that looking at demographics should be done by MSA not by city at this point. OKC MSA grew 11.4% since 2010 and 15.7% from 2000 to 2010. Tulsa's MSA grew 6.0% since 2010 and 9.1% from 2000 to 2010. So, as we all probably knew, OKC has grown faster since 2000 but not incredibly faster. Note that from 1990-2000 the growth rates were very similar (around 13%).

OKC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_metropolitan_area

Tulsa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_metropolitan_area#Metropolitan_Statistical_Area

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

OKC and it's suburbs are growing at more than 10% each.  I can't imagine that OKC's school system is vastly superior to Tulsa's which is the #1 reason given as to why people move to Tulsa's suburbs, rather than to Tulsa.  So OKC's growth is still slightly behind three of it's major suburbs but not by much.  For as long as I can remember, Tulsa's been stuck in this negligible growth pattern, at least 30 years.

Why is this?  What is the OKC metro doing which is so vastly different?  Geographically speaking, Tulsa is a far more compelling place with beautiful rolling hills, access to beautiful lakes within 90 minutes or less, great urban spaces, and is much closer to NW Arkansas for quick weekend getaways, etc.  OKC is flat and sprawling, I've never been enamored with it.  Bricktown always seemed just a bit contrived to me.  It seems from a sense of natural resources and recreation that Tulsa should be leading in growth and attracting major employers but it is just not happening.  Maybe Pryor had better infrastructure readily in place for Google, but landing a business like that would have been huge for Tulsa and could have been a beacon for other companies like that.

The median income listed on that article seems off for Tulsa and OKC. Tulsa's has been higher than OKCs pretty consistently and those numbers didn't match census data either. It was off for a few cities I checked.

A big reason OKC's growth vs suburbs has been significantly higher than Tulsa is that OKC has a much larger flight to the suburbs decades ago, leaving most all the inner cities dilapidated and crumbling behind. OKC's inner city schools went downhill faster and remain worse than Tulsas. Tulsa's midtown areas have been nice vibrant communities for decades (See Maple Ridge, Florence Park, Brookside and most all the neighborhoods along Harvard/Lewis from 15th down to 51st: Most all full of nice homes since they were built). Those areas remained populated and vibrant. OKC lost a tremendous amount of people from the central neighborhoods and had to come in and revitalize them starting around the mid 2000s. that has brought in significant population growth which has made the city of OKC's numbers look a lot better.

Nevertheless, their overall population has gone up also but we can point to MAPS starting in the late 90s and having a bigger overall metro with some big job centers like the state government keeping and bringing people there.

[TulsaGoldenHurriCAN]

Very good points.  I stand corrected, especially per the oil industry in general.  Demand has gone up, and will likely continue to do so baring a global recession. One could argue it "shouldn't have" per the environment, not just for any climate change reasons, but for healthy lifestyle and air quality ones.  Was behind a truck just yesterday, heading to the fair, that was billowing black smoke so bad it was blinding, let alone how it was negatively affecting mine and everyone elses health. How that is even legal is beyond me.

But it is interesting when people talk about where we need to be "not using oil wise" not at lower estimates, but even the higher ones... for many big oil companies their long range investments/return on investments/long range planning and current financial health on paper requires they continue selling far past the worst case scenario crisis points.

Its like the rich guys are thinking, "I will hang in there and make money, taking the risk that I will be able to bail before the shat hits the fan and the other guy gets hit." "Won't be me that suffers it will be the other guy."

It is interesting to think that Oklahoma and Tulsa is doing so well economically because of oil, if what you say is true.  There is so much angst and stress in the air (good chunk of that per the current President) that even if things are going well, it doesn't feel like it at all.  Even if people are doing better financially, so many feel worse than if we were in a financial recession.  Whats the point in that? I start to wonder.

I agree that we need to reduce oil consumpiton massively. There are some very big advantages to the US surge in oil production though:

• That money is not going to Saudi Arabia/OPEC which tend to be far less strict on environmental standards and much more wasteful with energy (not to mention all the wars/conflicts that oil money funds)
• The US is more independent in energy and is not beholden to any other country for oil
• It can be produced with our higher environmentally cleanliness standards (not great, but far better than in places like Venezuela or most middle eastern nations)

I'm glad it has benefited Oklahoma, but rooting for wind/solar/nuclear as those are the ways of the future (latest nuclear technology allows for re-use of depleted uranium). You're right that the ultra rich mostly care they they get theirs, despite what it'll do to the world and environment.


Everyone has been expecting a recession at some point, and for many especially over the last 4 years. No need to worry. It will come eventually. That said, certain things like real estate might not drop as much as in 2008 for example because of the fact that so many people need homes and population of the world is increasing. There's a shortage of livable homes even though there's enough living units for everyone in the US. Meanwhile, developers keep destroying natural habitats to build sub-par housing and boost suburban sprawl.


In the US, the average square footage of a house sold in 2016 was 2,600 square feet! The AVERAGE! That is insane (That number was close to 1,000 sq ft back around the 40s). The vast majority should not and can not afford that much space. That is terrible for the environment: Heating, cooling, cleaning, maintaining and filling it up with furniture. Then developers/flippers are focusing on that top-5% income bracket. Go check out all the homes for sale over $500k or $1M... There's like 50 places for sale over a million in midtown right now while only around 100 have sold in that price range going back 3 years. In South Tulsa, there's 30 million-dollar listings while only around 40 have sold in that range over the last 3 years. It gets worse if you espand to all of south Tulsa and the surrounding suburbs (80+ listings while only 100 have sold in that range in past 3 years; and most of those have been listed over a year!). Basically tons of developers have hedged their bets on those top tier homes even though the sales history does not support that demand. Furthermore, many older folks have found themselves in homes far more than they need or can afford and are trying to downsize. They're trying to cash in on the hot market, but they're right near the top, and often outside of it (https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-vs-baby-boomers-big-houses-real-estate-market-problems-2019-3). The market is loaded with houses far to large and far too expensive for 95% of people.

I see all these people driving around big new $50k trucks/SUVs and I know income does not support that many new expensive cars (in terms of financially-literate logic, only the top 1%-2% can afford spending that much on a car unless you're paying most in cash). People must be drowning in debt and with housing prices going up along with the sizes of the houses (thus all bills going up), eventually something is going to give.

The excess in America is going to need to stop and the economy will see a huge drop if we mostly go back to what we can/should afford like they had to do back in the 30s/40s. It'll be really bad for corporations and for most everyone's 401k's, but it is almost certainly going to have to happen, especially if we want an inhabitable earth to pass on to our kids.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The excess in America is going to need to stop and the economy will see a huge drop if we mostly go back to what we can/should afford like they had to do back in the 30s/40s. It'll be really bad for corporations and for most everyone's 401k's, but it is almost certainly going to have to happen, especially if we want an inhabitable earth to pass on to our kids.

This goes to the comments I have made from time to time that study should be done on how to exist with a steady-state economy.  Not the "growth for growth's sake" thing that we have known for the last 75 years or so.  It was a nice ride while it lasted, but our great grandkids aren't gonna experience it.  Maybe even the grandkids...

[SXSW]

Oil Capitol Building at 5th & Main will be converted to 47 workforce apartments with a new brewery, Eerie Abbey Ales, taking the old Impressions space on the ground floor fronting Main St



https://www.tulsaworld.com/business/workforce-housing-coming-downtown-to-oil-capitol-building/article_fdb23f1a-35d8-53b4-b82d-29b8c691fcce.html

[ComeOnBenjals]

Super excited to hear about this project! I've always thought this corner would be great if revitalized. Taking an abandoned building and turning it into something that will greatly benefit downtown.  Nice to see a positive article after reading those posts about Tulsa's statistics  . I continue to believe that Tulsa is on the up & up... affordable downtown housing is a fantastic addition.

[shavethewhales]

Sounds like a very nice forward-thinking development that will definitely help brighten that area of downtown. The new brewery will be a good draw, and there are already a few restaurants in that area plus a couple newish bars. Maybe Decopolis will start seeing some foot traffic soon after all.

Affordable housing for workforce participants is a great idea, and I love that there are several projects aimed at this in the downtown area. It also provides more demand for that downtown grocery store that we are holding out for.

[ComeOnBenjals]

Freight elevator of some sort up at the Reunion building. They've seemingly been going at this pretty hard, been ripping a lot of stuff out from inside for the last couple of months.