Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You prefer Tulsa for many if the same reasons I prefer OKC. A lot of it is nostalgia, not to mention I have a ton of friends and family there. Plus it is always where I wanted to raise my boys. But there is one thing we have in common for sure, we love Oklahoma. The southwestern/western flair that Oklahoma City has and the eastern flair that Tulsa has gives Oklahoma the best of both worlds. I can't wait to call Oklahoma home again.
I laugh every time I tell someone in Texas I prefer Oklahoma. It's always the same reaction: the deer in the headlights look.
My Tulsa friends absolutely prefer Tulsa and both expound its merit while disparaging Oklahoma City (or any other city for that matter). It has been this way so consistently over the years with so many friends that I've come to expect it from Tulsans. In fact I notice the absence of the attitude when it occurs because it is so rare. I've come to think it is like those who always have to feel they have the best dentist and the best shoe store and the best physician and the like.
Mostly my Oklahoma City friends seem to care rather little about where they're living and, in fact, will jump ship, so to speak, if the right opportunity comes along. They seem to spend little time thinking about where they live or if they do they don't share it.
So I've come to think of Tulsa as the place where the people feel they've arrived and are so happy with it that they revel in describing it and especially the great achievements of history. Whereas Oklahoma City seems more to be people still on the move and most happy with change and always talking about what the future will be.
I think even in this thread it is that way with the Oklahoma City advocates dissatisfied with their status quo and looking to the future. And the Tulsa advocates say "Well, look at Tulsa because it already is that."
Obviously just my observation though and no disrespect intended to either city or those who prefer one or the other. Quite the contrary I truly do enjoy reading and hearing the views of those who are so passionate about their places.
You prefer Tulsa for many if the same reasons I prefer OKC. A lot of it is nostalgia, not to mention I have a ton of friends and family there. Plus it is always where I wanted to raise my boys. But there is one thing we have in common for sure, we love Oklahoma. The southwestern/western flair that Oklahoma City has and the eastern flair that Tulsa has gives Oklahoma the best of both worlds. I can't wait to call Oklahoma home again.
I laugh every time I tell someone in Texas I prefer Oklahoma. It's always the same reaction: the deer in the headlights look.
That's a great post. So, when are you coming back home?
I do love Oklahoma. Nearly all my friends and family are here. I just haven't cared for living in OKC specifically. But I get pretty negative towards it and really it is not so bad. There are far worse places you could live. So, City of Oklahoma City, I'm sorry I bag on you all the time. Can we hug it out?
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintysooner
My Tulsa friends absolutely prefer Tulsa and both expound its merit while disparaging Oklahoma City (or any other city for that matter).
Another nice post, and I wouldn't say you are wrong. I do think there are legitimate reasons people expound on the merits of Tulsa over OKC.
But I'd like to make clear that I'm not comparing Tulsa to any city other than OKC.
It's not that I think Tulsa is the greatest metro area in the nation by any means. It's just the better of the two here in the state.
So I've come to think of Tulsa as the place where the people feel they've arrived and are so happy with it that they revel in describing it and especially the great achievements of history. Whereas Oklahoma City seems more to be people still on the move and most happy with change and always talking about what the future will be.
You make some good points. In Tulsa people are far more satisfied with their status quo than people are in OKC. It's easy to see why because many of the things at the top of OKC residents' wish lists are already in Tulsa. On the flipside, the only thing OKC has that Tulsans could possibly envy is the Thunder. OKC's advantage right now comes purely in the form of economic opportunity.
My Tulsa friends absolutely prefer Tulsa and both expound its merit while disparaging Oklahoma City (or any other city for that matter). It has been this way so consistently over the years with so many friends that I've come to expect it from Tulsans. In fact I notice the absence of the attitude when it occurs because it is so rare. I've come to think it is like those who always have to feel they have the best dentist and the best shoe store and the best physician and the like.
Mostly my Oklahoma City friends seem to care rather little about where they're living and, in fact, will jump ship, so to speak, if the right opportunity comes along. They seem to spend little time thinking about where they live or if they do they don't share it.
So I've come to think of Tulsa as the place where the people feel they've arrived and are so happy with it that they revel in describing it and especially the great achievements of history. Whereas Oklahoma City seems more to be people still on the move and most happy with change and always talking about what the future will be.
I think even in this thread it is that way with the Oklahoma City advocates dissatisfied with their status quo and looking to the future. And the Tulsa advocates say "Well, look at Tulsa because it already is that."
Obviously just my observation though and no disrespect intended to either city or those who prefer one or the other. Quite the contrary I truly do enjoy reading and hearing the views of those who are so passionate about their places.
I haven't been able to put my finger on it, but you've explained the vibe and attitude of the cities well.
Its interesting to see how the cities developed over time. Tulsa was a tiny Indian village until oil was discovered in Glenn Pool. Then, all of the businessmen from IL, NY, NJ, moved there and brought their northern attitudes and tastes. The city was meticulously planned out and in some places have the "feel" of a suburb in Chicago or Long Island. Its roots are definitely white collar. Its funny because even as Tulsa enjoyed the fruits of being the oil capitol of the world there was very little oil produced in and around Tulsa once the Glenn Pool ran dry, whereas OKC to this day sits on a very active field.
OKC wasn't settled until the land run. Everyone just kind of showed up and figured it out from there. Which is the attitude you can still somewhat see now, the emphasis on changing and adjusting for the future. OKC does not have a beach, hills, or some great climate. If anything , the past few weeks have shown this is quite a harsh place to live. But beaches and hills don't pay bills. People come here for the opportunity. And its always been like that. There really isn't a lot of "old money" in OKC, outside of a few blocks in Nichols Hills and Heritage Hills. This is very much a new money, pull yourself up town. The downside to this is OKC didn't necessarily get all of the things the rich like to fund, until the MAP's tax in the 90s sort of jump started everything.
Tulsa, of course, has oodles of trust fund babies and old oil investments that has blessed the city with a plethora of great architecture, museums, and and other cultural attractions that most cities of its size would kill for. But this cuts both ways. There is a very clear divide between the haves and have-nots. Consider this: nobody in power in Tulsa noticed the massive departure of the energy industry to Houston in the 80s and 90s. And why would they? The wealthy power structure was content living off their oil overrides. Its not a coincidence that OKC has been growing faster (in some cases much faster) for at least the past 15 years. Tulsa seems to be shaking out of its rut and moving in a positive direction, though.
As for me, I would personally rather live in OKC, a place where people are "on the move" as flintysooner put, but I can definitely see the advantages of Tulsa. I think the tangible amenities are about the same, but their are intangible pleasantries in Tulsa that OKC does not have. I think the OP should take a trip to both and see which he likes.
Yes, and they are not only willing to take risks but actually seek them out. Another thing is they are absurdly independent. If the risk turns against them and it often does they assume that somehow they'll figure out a solution.
This spirit or character traits or whatever you call it is amazingly widespread.
I haven't been able to put my finger on it, but you've explained the vibe and attitude of the cities well.
... The downside to this is OKC didn't necessarily get all of the things the rich like to fund, until the MAP's tax in the 90s sort of jump started everything.
Tulsa, of course, has oodles of trust fund babies and old oil investments that has blessed the city with a plethora of great architecture, museums, and and other cultural attractions that most cities of its size would kill for. But this cuts both ways. There is a very clear divide between the haves and have-nots. Consider this: nobody in power in Tulsa noticed the massive departure of the energy industry to Houston in the 80s and 90s. And why would they? The wealthy power structure was content living off their oil overrides. Its not a coincidence that OKC has been growing faster (in some cases much faster) for at least the past 15 years. Tulsa seems to be shaking out of its rut and moving in a positive direction, though.
As for me, I would personally rather live in OKC, a place where people are "on the move" as flintysooner put, but I can definitely see the advantages of Tulsa. I think the tangible amenities are about the same, but their are intangible pleasantries in Tulsa that OKC does not have. I think the OP should take a trip to both and see which he likes.
The oil industry left WELL before the 80's. Most of the majors ran away to Houston in the 1950's and 1960's once Texas passed the county option and drilling advances opened the GOM up. Tulsa was enthralled with Orel Roberts and his church of $$$$ in the 1970s and early 80's and pushed out the regional players. It does have a growing Midstream sector (gas treating, transport and NGL) whereas OKC companies tend to be E&P based (just production and treatment). Tulsa did let the industry go and I really don't understand why. I think once the Gulf opened up, they could not stop the H-town express.
To me, the best thing that can happen to Oklahoma is for energy professionals to refuse Houston positions. I do on a regular basis. The industry is short on all types of personnel and with the shale plays being in the mid continent, there is no longer a reason for everyone to get stuck in the sludge of H-town. Tulsa, OKC, Denver, DFW, and Pittsburgh are hotbeds for shale players.
Last edited by flyingcat2k; 06-07-2013 at 10:10 PM..
I haven't been able to put my finger on it, but you've explained the vibe and attitude of the cities well.
Its interesting to see how the cities developed over time. Tulsa was a tiny Indian village until oil was discovered in Glenn Pool. Then, all of the businessmen from IL, NY, NJ, moved there and brought their northern attitudes and tastes. The city was meticulously planned out and in some places have the "feel" of a suburb in Chicago or Long Island. Its roots are definitely white collar. Its funny because even as Tulsa enjoyed the fruits of being the oil capitol of the world there was very little oil produced in and around Tulsa once the Glenn Pool ran dry, whereas OKC to this day sits on a very active field.
OKC wasn't settled until the land run. Everyone just kind of showed up and figured it out from there. Which is the attitude you can still somewhat see now, the emphasis on changing and adjusting for the future. OKC does not have a beach, hills, or some great climate. If anything , the past few weeks have shown this is quite a harsh place to live. But beaches and hills don't pay bills. People come here for the opportunity. And its always been like that. There really isn't a lot of "old money" in OKC, outside of a few blocks in Nichols Hills and Heritage Hills. This is very much a new money, pull yourself up town. The downside to this is OKC didn't necessarily get all of the things the rich like to fund, until the MAP's tax in the 90s sort of jump started everything.
Tulsa, of course, has oodles of trust fund babies and old oil investments that has blessed the city with a plethora of great architecture, museums, and and other cultural attractions that most cities of its size would kill for. But this cuts both ways. There is a very clear divide between the haves and have-nots. Consider this: nobody in power in Tulsa noticed the massive departure of the energy industry to Houston in the 80s and 90s. And why would they? The wealthy power structure was content living off their oil overrides. Its not a coincidence that OKC has been growing faster (in some cases much faster) for at least the past 15 years. Tulsa seems to be shaking out of its rut and moving in a positive direction, though.
As for me, I would personally rather live in OKC, a place where people are "on the move" as flintysooner put, but I can definitely see the advantages of Tulsa. I think the tangible amenities are about the same, but their are intangible pleasantries in Tulsa that OKC does not have. I think the OP should take a trip to both and see which he likes.
Thanks for this explanation of the differences in how OKC and Tulsa developed. Looking at OKC's history, it makes more sense as to why the city is lacking some of the things that might be expected in a city its size and also why the recent 'downtown renaissance' is such a big deal. OKC lacks the old money that makes the kind of amenities taken for granted in other cities possible, most notably in the arts/culture realm. It's also a great deal that MAPS was able to jumpstart the process of bringing some of those amenities to OKC. It was great to see how lively things were at the Oklahoma Arts Festival back in April or in Bricktown during a Thunder game.
Like Griffis, I am very hard on OKC comparing it to Charlotte, but it really isn't that terrible (other than the weather). It's just a different type of city.
Tulsa's development patterns were far more in line with your traditional urban areas in the Southeast, which is why it has that feel.
My Tulsa friends absolutely prefer Tulsa and both expound its merit while disparaging Oklahoma City (or any other city for that matter). It has been this way so consistently over the years with so many friends that I've come to expect it from Tulsans. In fact I notice the absence of the attitude when it occurs because it is so rare. I've come to think it is like those who always have to feel they have the best dentist and the best shoe store and the best physician and the like.
Mostly my Oklahoma City friends seem to care rather little about where they're living and, in fact, will jump ship, so to speak, if the right opportunity comes along. They seem to spend little time thinking about where they live or if they do they don't share it.
So I've come to think of Tulsa as the place where the people feel they've arrived and are so happy with it that they revel in describing it and especially the great achievements of history. Whereas Oklahoma City seems more to be people still on the move and most happy with change and always talking about what the future will be.
Interesting. Perhaps that is the legacy of the land run that OKC people have. I think #1 Sooner's post really explains the nuances between the two places.
I will say however, that many Tulsans are very quick to be dismissive about OKC while I rarely hear anyone in OKC criticize Tulsa. Generally OKC people like Tulsa. Furthermore, it seems that OKC's focus tends to be more on DFW than Tulsa in terms of comparison and emulation.
Interesting. Perhaps that is the legacy of the land run that OKC people have. I think #1 Sooner's post really explains the nuances between the two places.
I will say however, that many Tulsans are very quick to be dismissive about OKC while I rarely hear anyone in OKC criticize Tulsa. Generally OKC people like Tulsa. Furthermore, it seems that OKC's focus tends to be more on DFW than Tulsa in terms of comparison and emulation.
Mostly, in my experience at least, Oklahoma City people just don't really much care what other people think, especially about status. Now it does seem to me that over the last 2 or 3 decades that has changed some so perhaps it is just a function of age. Tulsa does seem to be much older than Oklahoma City.
I guess it's a little like choosing neighborhoods maybe. There are a few neighborhoods in the Oklahoma City area that you might live in if you wanted to make a statement about your status. But it seems to me you are more likely to discover a gigantic house built in the most unlikely area around Oklahoma City and often hidden from the most public view. Obviously there wasn't much thought given to status. So maybe choosing a city is a little like that. If you really want to make a status statement you'd probably live in NYC or Chicago or San Francisco with one of your homes in Santa Fe. You probably wouldn't choose Oklahoma. But if you did you'd probably go for Tulsa rather than Oklahoma City.
You're right about Oklahoma City people liking Tulsa as a place to visit but I've also noticed that Oklahoma City people like travelling a lot. Just Saturday I happened to visit with a young woman and the conversation turned to where we were in the tornados. She'd been in NYC and we both laughed at the attitudes of people there who expressed such horror that we'd live in Oklahoma. Apparently we think them as quaint as they think us stupid.
There is an affinity I think for the Dallas area on the part of Oklahoma City citizens. When I lived in Dallas for a while I noticed that the "feeling" of the area was more similar to what I felt in Oklahoma City except it was just a lot bigger, greater. Kind of an "aliveness" or an energy or a vibrancy that I had missed in Kansas City. Oklahoma City to me is like that but less. Lots and lots of Oklahoma folks in the Dallas area.
PS: Dallas, on the other hand, is definitely status conscious in my experience.
Last edited by flintysooner; 06-09-2013 at 08:17 AM..
Reason: Added PS
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
