How poor a city is Tulsa?

[shadows]

CF: Seem if I recall correct there was a coal strip pit in that area.  Hanna lumber bought rough timber and set up a saw mill and hauled the saw waste to fill the pit.  Then they covered it with dirt and built houses on the land.  I seem to recall that Ms Hall also built houses in the area in the $14 to $17 thousand range.  If Hanna is listed in your abstract don't be surprised if a tree starts growing up through your living room floor.

[cannon_fodder]

My house as constructed in late 1980's/early 1990's and sold initially in the high $70's if I remember correctly.  I could be more specific, but I like to deter stalkers. []

Also, there is a distinct lack of houses with tree-through-floor-problems in my neighborhood that I am aware of.  The house next to me sold for well over the median price in Tulsa, so I'll stand by my assessment of neighborhood != junk.

Ask Michael, he was by that way recently.  It's no mansion filled blvd, but it's a nice neighborhood.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Ask Michael, he was by that way recently.  It's no mansion filled blvd, but it's a nice neighborhood.

Your house is very nice, but I thought the "his and her" champagne fountains in the front yard was a little much.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by Floyd

It's weird how people can have such different perspectives.

Tulsa is, from any rational, objective standpoint, not a poor city.  And yet, some folks for whatever reason--dissatisfaction, ignorance, avoidance of cognitive dissonance--want to insist that it is, and the numbers are false or misleading or whatever.

But, the fact remains, Tulsa is not a poor city.  There are poor people in Tulsa, but Tulsa is not a poverty-stricken community.  

And as for disparity of wealth--try going from Beverly Hills to Compton in LA, or Kenwood to Woodlawn in Chicago, or just drive through Memphis or New Orleans.  Anyone who has never seen a disparity of wealth worse than Tulsa's has not traveled much at all.

1 in 4 children are at or below the poverty line in Tulsa. Thank goodness for TCCs new free tuition program, its one way we can help break the poverty cycle. 1 in 6 adults are at or below the poverty line in Tulsa. Sure there are places that are worse, but we arent exactly doing all that great. There are some neighborhoods in Tulsa, especially north Tulsa that have houses that barely have wooden floors and look to only have 1 or 2 rooms, 3 if you count the bathroom. I ran across an area a year ago that looked like something right out of the past. Little kids walking around with no shoes, dirty faces, rags for clothes, dirt yards and gravel roads. Makes me tear up and my stomach ache just remembering it. Just terrible poverty. My sisters husband grew up in that area and lived that way. He admits they were very very poor. My dad grew up in Turley just north of Tulsa. I remember my grandmothers house. At one time it was 1 room and an outhouse. Built by my grandfather. I remember the outhouse. They added on to the house over the years. My dad tells about how one day he came home from school and told mom that they were supposed to bring canned food to school for the poor people... thats when he first discovered they were the poor people lol.

I dont want to say that Tulsa is a poor city. I know there is a lot of money here. But there also seems to be a lot of very poor people. I was very harsh in my previous post. It gets aggrivating when you see adults that dont appear to care to make something more of themslelves. But it is wrong to judge them. Plus I have to remind myself where I and my family came from. "Yea part of moms family were socs, but dad was a greaser lol". I had both worlds growing up and yea get smacked down to earth when I get too snotty. Sometimes ya just get lost in a very different world and forget. My "poorer" side of the family are good, people who worked hard, gave their kids good values and pushed them, even gave them a good beating on occasion lol, to do well in school, do the right thing and make something of themselves.

I suppose those kinds of poor places do exist in areas like Austin and Dallas, but we just dont see them or know where they are at. We just see the very nicest areas. Those areas we visit. But we also dont have new areas comparable to the nice new areas in those cities. I think that is where we complain that we dont have the wealth. Its the new wealth of a particular type. New urban wealth, new urban areas with shiny new condo and apartment blocks etc, shops, art galleries, restaurants etc. We have plenty of new suburban type mc mansion neighborhoods. But no wealthy, young urban areas. Those are the types of areas I go to when I go to those other cities. Then when I come here... zilch. And Brookside and Cherry Street do not even come close.  

[Renaissance]

Welcome to America.

The issues you raise are valid social criticisms.  There is a growing income gap in this country.  There have always been poor people in the world.  I can't argue on that point.

But don't make these complaints Tulsa-centric.  It's not fair to our city.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

Cost of living comparison between Tulsa and other cities.

Per capita personal income stats for US MSAs.

Tulsa is not poor.

Everyone's opinions are truly earth-shattering, but the facts continue to tell the story.

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

Cost of living comparison between Tulsa and other cities.

Per capita personal income stats for US MSAs.

Tulsa is not poor.

Everyone's opinions are truly earth-shattering, but the facts continue to tell the story.

Just trying to find out the facts here. Different facts or statistics can suggest quite different stories.
Showing that Tulsa has a lower than average cost of living doesnt tell you much. If you can afford health insurance, food, housing... Tulsa is great. It does have a low cost of living. But the number of people who can afford those things here is still lower than the national average.


Per capita income is indeed increasing, and above the national average, but the number of people living in poverty is also increasing and above the national average at the same time.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070829_1_A1_spanc44663

2005 national poverty rate   13.3%
2005 Tulsa poverty rate      17.6%

2005 children under 5 in poverty US     21.25%
2005 children under 5 in poverty Tulsa  31.60%

It still appears to me that yes we have a lot of well off, but we also have a lot of people not doing so well. The disparity is growing here and more so than in other places.  

Here is an article that was posted in the UK that specifically talks about Tulsa.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/19/usa.paulharris

On the one hand I keep hearing how well we are doing, then the next day you hear how bad we are doing. How does this square up. If incomes are up and the number of people falling into poverty are also up...

Housing is more affordable than in most places, yet we have higher numbers of homeless.

Insurance and medical costs are lower, but we rank as having some of the highest rates of uninsured and people in poor health, obesity, etc.  

The housing market is good, incomes are increasing, relative affordability is great, and we have very low unemployment...yet we always rank as having some of the worst statistics in poverty, hunger, homelessness, child neglect, high numbers of uninsured, poor health, etc.

Sure there are disparities in other cities and places, but the disparities according to the numbers I have seen are actually larger here than in other places and appear to be incresing. Thats what "better than average incomes and increasing" plus " some of the highest rates of poverty and hunger, and increasing" seems to tell me.

[perspicuity85]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

quote:Originally posted by perspicuity85

Cost of living comparison between Tulsa and other cities.

Per capita personal income stats for US MSAs.

Tulsa is not poor.

Everyone's opinions are truly earth-shattering, but the facts continue to tell the story.

Just trying to find out the facts here. Different facts or statistics can suggest quite different stories.
Showing that Tulsa has a lower than average cost of living doesnt tell you much. If you can afford health insurance, food, housing... Tulsa is great. It does have a low cost of living. But the number of people who can afford those things here is still lower than the national average.


Per capita income is indeed increasing, and above the national average, but the number of people living in poverty is also increasing and above the national average at the same time.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070829_1_A1_spanc44663

2005 national poverty rate   13.3%
2005 Tulsa poverty rate      17.6%

2005 children under 5 in poverty US     21.25%
2005 children under 5 in poverty Tulsa  31.60%

It still appears to me that yes we have a lot of well off, but we also have a lot of people not doing so well. The disparity is growing here and more so than in other places.  

Here is an article that was posted in the UK that specifically talks about Tulsa.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/19/usa.paulharris

On the one hand I keep hearing how well we are doing, then the next day you hear how bad we are doing. How does this square up. If incomes are up and the number of people falling into poverty are also up...

Housing is more affordable than in most places, yet we have higher numbers of homeless.

Insurance and medical costs are lower, but we rank as having some of the highest rates of uninsured and people in poor health, obesity, etc.  

The housing market is good, incomes are increasing, relative affordability is great, and we have very low unemployment...yet we always rank as having some of the worst statistics in poverty, hunger, homelessness, child neglect, high numbers of uninsured, poor health, etc.

Sure there are disparities in other cities and places, but the disparities according to the numbers I have seen are actually larger here than in other places and appear to be incresing. Thats what "better than average incomes and increasing" plus " some of the highest rates of poverty and hunger, and increasing" seems to tell me.

The poverty stats are alarming.  However, I do want to point out that Tulsa has made some great strides in the past two years or so.  Per capita personal income has increased at a faster pace than most cities, as shown here..  Tulsa finally gained back the 24,000 jobs lost in the post-2001 aftermath.

I think our stats shed light upon the diametrical nature of Tulsa's economy.  Compared to the region, Tulsa has a strong upper-middle class and wealthy population.  However, there is a less-visible poor population, living in very economically segregated parts of the city.

I am hopeful that Tulsa's poverty will decrease with continued investment in higher education, sustainable urban development, and health care. Free TCC tuition is a step in the right direction, as is the installation of Langston-Tulsa, and continued investment in the Tulsa Technology Center.  The Morton Health Center, and the state's Quality Jobs Incentive program aim to stimulated health care expansion.

[sauerkraut]

Poor Tulsa? ya'all got to be kidding... "T" Towne rockz. Tulsa has reocrd low unemployment rates. The anti-immigration bill #1804 helped boost Tulsa's economy by getting rid of illegals. Tulsa has a strong economic base.

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by pundit

This is an interesting topic and I would like to make a couple of points. Averages don't really tell you much in that they don't say anything about the distribution of income. Averages don't tell how it feels to live in a place.

I have lived in several locations (Tulsa included) and would like to give my observations on Tulsa compared to these other places. These areas are:

Madison / Florham Park / Chatham, NJ
Dallas (Highland Park area)
Los Angeles (Santa Monica / Westwood area)
Houston (Galleria / River Oaks /West U /Memorial area)

I lived in Madison and Houston and had close relatives in Santa Monica and Dallas – been there so often I felt like I could have lived there. In Tulsa I lived in the 2200 block between Woodward Park and Utica Square.
Here is the point.

There are vast stretches of NJ (Newark, Elizabeth Camden etc), Houston (East, near South and near North), Dallas (South) and LA that are wasteland with crime, dumpy houses and the like.

Yet the the specific areas I mentioned above are so large, they are mostly self contained and have everything one needs. One can live their whole life there and see only upscale digs, great eating places, nice cars and the like. After a while, one gets the impression that the whole world is like that. Of course we know it isn't but perception is everything.

The problem with Tulsa that even in a nice area one cannot do much if anything without confronting poverty up close and personal. Where I used to live, if you went east and got much past Harvard it went downhill quick. North, once you hit 11th it was all over. If you went South, past 36th you hit the dumpy crackerboxes in Brookside. West was OK until you crossed the river and it was all over.

Averages do not tell everything.

So what is your point? Basically anywhere you go you can drive a couple of miles and see poor people. Duh. Your 'reasoning' is silly, and here's why:

Just taking for example the places you mention- like Highland Park, Tx. It is only 2.2 miles square. Total. The 74114 area alone is over twice that size with twice the number of people. River Oaks in Houston? About a thousand acres total. Tiny. Funny that both of those locales you mentioned have some of the wealthiest residents in Texas, yet go a couple of miles out from either and you can drive through a number of poor neigborhoods, much worse than 'cracker box' Brookside.

Drive just south and east of Santa Monica and you are in a pretty dumpy part of Los Angeles (venice) that at one time had horrible crime and lots of gang violence. Its gotten better lately.

The Chatham area of New Jersey is one of the wealthiest area of the state, over 95% white, and very suburban. Not a very good comparison. However, drive just about 6 miles south and east and you are in some pretty slummy areas of NJ (Plainfield, etc.)

Tulsa is no different than any other city as far as distribution of wealth goes. In fact, I have always thought Tulsa appeared very prosperous- more so than it actually is, given the oil dynasty, arts endowments, etc. It's a very attractive city, with some very wealthy areas, and of course not so wealthy areas. Given the economic adversity that Tulsa has had to endure in the last 25 years, its pretty amazing that it is doing as well as it is. IMO it's a testament to the people that live there.

So, all you are really pointing out is if you live in a wealthy, segregated zip code and never leave it you will never have to see any diversity. That sounds like a fun life. Welcome to Stepford.

For the record, I grew up and lived in Tulsa over 14 years, and really never had to confront poverty, "up close and personal" as you describe. I also lived in one of your 'ivory tower' hoods, so it is possible to do that in Tulsa too, but why would you want to? I had no choice- it was my family home. Don't get me wrong- it was a really nice place to grow up, but I wouldn't live there now. I like seeing mixtures of people.

Your post smacks of Davaz-esque rhetoric. If you aren't him you sure sound like him.

[TheArtist]

Not to get too rancorous here. But I can only speak of the areas and cities I have visited and thus compare that to Tulsa. I go to Dallas a lot for instance. I have friends that live in Addison, Grapevine,Plano and the other various areas that are essentially Dallas. I have wandered around all of those areas many times... often lost lol.

1. I have never seen areas as poor looking as what one would consider the average area of Tulsa to look like.

2. I have seen lots of nicer areas that just seem to go on forever, that make even the nicest places in Tulsa look drab and poor.

For instance I had seriously thought of moving to Dallas a few years back and spent some time looking at apartments in the area. They had huge complexes that blew anything we have here away.  http://www.move.com/apartments/listing/C425838?source=a15860   The average complex there or in Austin would rank as the best here. The best they have in those places, we dont even have anything to compare. So when people move here and look for a nice apartment... They are kind of shocked at how "poor" the choices are.

http://www.intowndallas.com/apartments.htm

http://www.intowndallas.com/highrises.htm

http://www.5fiftyfive.com/gallery.asp

http://www.intownaustin.com/austinapartments.htm

They say the average income is about the same or better in Tulsa as compared to Austin... but if you were to look at the best of what Austin and Tulsa has to offer apartment or condo wise, shopping/dining/entertainment wise, there is aaabsolutely no comparison. Same with Denver. You can go to areas that have highrise after highrise for block upon block of apartments and condos that put anything we have here to shame. When I visit my friends who live in those places then come here, you cant help but think, My god its like povertyville, we look very poor in comparison. If we have so many people that are doing so well here.... where are they living? Those soccer mom suburbs out south, every place has those as well. Every place has Brookside type areas too, but larger and nicer.

Now I am not saying that the "facts" arent correct. Just saying that perspective wise, it can sure not look like it. If your the type of person who lives in suburban neighborhoods and such, well then Tulsa can look just as good if not better than those other places. So what imo. But, if your an urban, apartment/condo dweller. The pickins are pretty shabby here. When you or a visitor want to go to areas that you would consider nice... they barely exist. Downtown is dead. Brookside and Cherry street can not compare.  


To end on a positive note lol. We are starting to see signs of Downtown and mid-town revitalizing. Its exciting to watch as each small new development occurs. Still got a long ways to go though, and hopefully things will continue to get better.

[Renaissance]

Check out South Dallas some time.  Oak Cliff and the Bishop Arts district.  Greenvile Avenue for that matter, and the Vickery Park area.  They're exactly like Tulsa.

What you are describing as so "nice" in Dallas is actually the suburbs (Addison, Plano) and it's pure white flight--much worse than in Tulsa.  North Dallas makes it possible to wrap yourself in rich suburban whiteness and never get a peek of the real world.  

Don't want to say you're wrong, but I think your travels give you a too-rosy picture of the rest of the world.

[USRufnex]

The National Troll Service has issued a Severe Davaz Watch until 12:00 midnight tonight in TulsaNow County.  []

[azbadpuppy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Not to get too rancorous here. But I can only speak of the areas and cities I have visited and thus compare that to Tulsa. I go to Dallas a lot for instance. I have friends that live in Addison, Grapevine,Plano and the other various areas that are essentially Dallas. I have wandered around all of those areas many times... often lost lol.

1. I have never seen areas as poor looking as what one would consider the average area of Tulsa to look like.

2. I have seen lots of nicer areas that just seem to go on forever, that make even the nicest places in Tulsa look drab and poor.

For instance I had seriously thought of moving to Dallas a few years back and spent some time looking at apartments in the area. They had huge complexes that blew anything we have here away.  http://www.move.com/apartments/listing/C425838?source=a15860   The average complex there or in Austin would rank as the best here. The best they have in those places, we dont even have anything to compare. So when people move here and look for a nice apartment... They are kind of shocked at how "poor" the choices are.

http://www.intowndallas.com/apartments.htm

http://www.intowndallas.com/highrises.htm

http://www.5fiftyfive.com/gallery.asp

http://www.intownaustin.com/austinapartments.htm

They say the average income is about the same or better in Tulsa as compared to Austin... but if you were to look at the best of what Austin and Tulsa has to offer apartment or condo wise, shopping/dining/entertainment wise, there is aaabsolutely no comparison. Same with Denver. You can go to areas that have highrise after highrise for block upon block of apartments and condos that put anything we have here to shame. When I visit my friends who live in those places then come here, you cant help but think, My god its like povertyville, we look very poor in comparison. If we have so many people that are doing so well here.... where are they living? Those soccer mom suburbs out south, every place has those as well. Every place has Brookside type areas too, but larger and nicer.

Now I am not saying that the "facts" arent correct. Just saying that perspective wise, it can sure not look like it. If your the type of person who lives in suburban neighborhoods and such, well then Tulsa can look just as good if not better than those other places. So what imo. But, if your an urban, apartment/condo dweller. The pickins are pretty shabby here. When you or a visitor want to go to areas that you would consider nice... they barely exist. Downtown is dead. Brookside and Cherry street can not compare.  


To end on a positive note lol. We are starting to see signs of Downtown and mid-town revitalizing. Its exciting to watch as each small new development occurs. Still got a long ways to go though, and hopefully things will continue to get better.

Wow, we must be visiting two different cities, because when I go to Dallas I see quite a bit of poverty looking ghetto areas, and then miles and miles of flat, generic carbon copied suburbia, of which I find neither appealing nor attractive. Kind of looks like NW Oklahoma City.

Sure Dallas has its nice neighborhoods, but no more proportionately than Tulsa has. Dallas has something like 6 million people in its metro, so of course there will be more neighborhoods/apartments/living choices.

Dallas also has horrendous traffic and attitude for days (why?). Tulsa is not Dallas, thank god.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

Not to get too rancorous here. But I can only speak of the areas and cities I have visited and thus compare that to Tulsa. I go to Dallas a lot for instance. I have friends that live in Addison, Grapevine,Plano and the other various areas that are essentially Dallas. I have wandered around all of those areas many times... often lost lol.

1. I have never seen areas as poor looking as what one would consider the average area of Tulsa to look like.

...

I'm not sure what that means. What's average-looking? Maple Ridge? Red Fork? What? I'm suspicious that your "average" look has a far different take than mine.

And apparently you've never been to St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit, Peoria, Memphis, San Bernardino, Flint, New Orleans ... I could go on. All of those cities have pockets of far-worse-looking "average" areas than any of Tulsa's.

And I've never seen a worse-looking place than several in the metro-east area of St. Louis -- East St. Louis, Venice, Brooklyn, Alorton, Fairmont City, Washington Park, Centreville and probably a few others that I'm forgetting.

We're talking about a deadly stew of drugs, gangs, crumbling infrastructure, chronic crime, corrupt local officials, a collapsing tax base, horrific unemployment, schools that make TPS look like a garden district, and toxic waste leftover from the long-abandoned factories.

I knew a woman from Brooklyn, N.Y., who thought she was tough and thought she saw blight until she saw East St. Louis and was positively terrified. There are more than 1,000 abandoned houses in East St. Louis alone. These are areas in which "normal" is an aberration.

I'm not trying to top anyone here. But to say that Tulsa's "normal" areas are worse-looking than anyone's is simply wrong. And it signifies to me that you need to get out more and stop whining.