I was asked this question recently by a foreigner who is new to Tulsa. He was trying to figure out whether Tulsans are by and large a more "liberal" group than those folks you find in other parts of Oklahoma.
What say you?
I'd say, no.
Tulsa has plenty of good traits, and good locations, good people, and it depends on where you go and who you run into.
OKC on the other hand, has the gov't and all those people. Liberal bastards!
But seriously, on that plain, it's probably like comparing apples to apples. If we were talking about strictly culture, I'd give Tulsa the edge. But a lot of it was built on oil. In ways, we're far more developed, than we should be (comparatively to other cities). In other ways, we're just as underdeveloped and slightly backwards, as much of Oklahoma.
Tulsa and Austin have a lot of similarities and this is a comparison that has been made for years. The natural river with walking trails is one of them. Topography is another.
Major differences, of course, are that Austin is a smart, forward thinking town that accepts all people regardless of race, religion, hairstyle and weird proclivities.
Tulsa -- not so much.
Keep Austin weird!
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Tulsa and Austin have a lot of similarities and this is a comparison that has been made for years. The natural river with walking trails is one of them. Topography is another.
Major differences, of course, are that Austin is a smart, forward thinking town that accepts all people regardless of race, religion, hairstyle and weird proclivities.
Tulsa -- not so much.
Keep Austin weird!
Sounds like a good place for you....
Parts of Tulsa probably are similar to Austin, but in general we're not. I think a large public university tends to liberalize a community. TU works in the opposite because of its identification with oil and religion and high tuition rates. Most TU students and grads seem quite conservative. Just my observation.
I had to laugh as I drove home yesterday.
Bumper stickers seen on a luxury SUV at 101st & Yale: W/04 and W/the president
Bumper sticker on a Buick sedan near Promenade: Support our Troops
Bumper sticker on a hoopty at 21st & Utica: Bush is an Idiot!
Signs hanging from overpass near TU: Ron Paul
quote:
Originally posted by HoneySuckle
I was asked this question recently by a foreigner who is new to Tulsa. He was trying to figure out whether Tulsans are by and large a more "liberal" group than those folks you find in other parts of Oklahoma.
What say you?
I spend every other weekend in Austin, so I can give a fair analysis I hope. Austin is the thinking man's city in Texas. I think the same could be said for Tulsa in Oklahoma. We are liberal for Oklahoma, like they are for texas, but the similarities end there. They are comparable in the geographic size and a few other things, but I've noticed several definite differences: The city is FULL of the 18-34 demographic, YPs, whatever you want to call them. The city is far livelier, the downtown is jumping all hours of the day and night, there are currently 10,000 downtown living units planned or in progress. Their skyline is dramatically changing, and will be completely different by 2010. It's an exciting place to be. They are regularly getting new shopping, etc. They have a lot of big city amenities such as Neiman Marcus, Barney's, Nordstrom and Sak's. They have tons of smaller locally owned shops downtown and all over. You don't see abandoned storefronts.
They are lucky since they have all the ingredients that make me green with envy: A state capitol, a huge public university (twice the size of OSU or OU) on the north side of downtown, their river is geographically better situated than ours - it is on the southern edge of downtown, not several blocks away. And instead of refineries across the river, they have South Congress, which would compare to Cherry Street or Brookside on steroids.
We are better in a few areas: their roads are no better than ours in my opinion, in fact they are undersized for the population boom they've been experiencing, so they have much worse traffic. Their older, close in neighborhoods are far more expensive (think Florence Park houses at $400,000) and are not nearly as nice as ours. In fact, when my Austin friends come to visit, they all comment on how much nicer and more cohesive our neighborhoods are, plus they are far more affordable. And for now, we have a more dramatic skyline.
They don't have an arena as far as I know, except for what's at the university, which since it's so close to downtown, is probably an ideal set up.
Austin has had it easy compared to us, all the pieces are there in place, we have a lot of things working against us that were decided 100 years ago (location of refinery, location of downtown relative to the river, lack of a public university, etc.) They also have the "Keep Austin Weird" thing which is a great trademark, they're known as the live music capital, and they have a "cool" reputation, which is largely due to their liberal roots. And despite their liberalism, they have a lower sales tax rate than us and people actually seem happy to live there, even conservative folks. :)
Only in Austin:
(http://www.willisms.com/archives/lesliecochran.gif)
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
Tulsa and Austin have a lot of similarities and this is a comparison that has been made for years. The natural river with walking trails is one of them. Topography is another.
Major differences, of course, are that Austin is a smart, forward thinking town that accepts all people regardless of race, religion, hairstyle and weird proclivities.
Tulsa -- not so much.
Keep Austin weird!
Tulsa. Austin without the tolerance? Yeah, I never thought of it like that. How about Tulsa, Austin without the environmental stewardship?
Thought this might be interesting. It shows some of what is going on in Austin at the moment building wise. (compare that to what I have started on this forum in another thread). You can see why its so frustrating being here and seeing so little life compared to other cities I visit or that are near us. Though I know some of these cities are larger than us, even then if you say we are a third the population of such and such a city, we dont have nearly a third the amount of development going on, a tenth even lol.
Austin Developments
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=124346
Denver Developments
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=132788
Omaha Developments
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=77118
Only a fraction of the Fort Worth Developments. Not even gonna put Dallas on here, we all know what thats like lol.
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=135222
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=135221
St Louis
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=76120&page=5
Something to keep in perspective when comparing Tulsa to any of those cities, is Tulsa is a youngster comparitively.
It just seems sad from an architectural standpoint to only have one or two examples of contemporary architecture in our downtown. The Arena (which is great) and the Tech Center or new City Hall (not bad, but very basic). When your here, you may be used to it. But it makes Tulsa look old, out dated, not going anywhere. We look like a dying city that had its last heyday in the 80s and has been stuck there ever since. Just one neat, trendy, midrise condo or apartment development... Is that too much to ask for? lol
Anyone know if they strengthened the windows at One Tech Center?
Would be a shame to have them all blow out, and the next big wind probably isn't that far away.
No.
We coulda been a contender.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
No.
We coulda been a contender.
**Sniff Sniff**
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Something to keep in perspective when comparing Tulsa to any of those cities, is Tulsa is a youngster comparitively.
There are some cultural and geographical similarities between Tulsa and Austin.
However, Austin has much more going for it:
Austin is:
1) The State Capital of a prosperous state, since 1836. Benefits as does OKC from state government offices, associated law offices, lobbyist offices and the offices of other associated Tax Vampires and Connected Cronies.
2) Located in the near geographic center of one of the nation's most populous states, and intersected by multiple FREE interstate highways. A natural location for warehousing and transportion of goods across the state and the nation.
Tulsa has no free interstate highways leading anywhere. None. How CURIOUS?
3). Located in a state with NO STATE INCOME TAX.
4). Located in a state with No State SALES tax on Groceries.
5) Co-Located with a
50,000 person major state university adjacent to downtown.
6) Sports a AAA baseball team, vs. a AA Texas League team in Tulsa.
There's really no comparison.
[^]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Something to keep in perspective when comparing Tulsa to any of those cities, is Tulsa is a youngster comparitively.
There are some cultural and geographical similarities between Tulsa and Austin.
However, Austin has much more going for it:
Austin is:
1) The State Capital of a prosperous state, since 1836. Benefits as does OKC from state government offices, associated law offices, lobbyist offices and the offices of other associated Tax Vampires and Connected Cronies.
2) Located in the near geographic center of one of the nation's most populous states, and intersected by multiple FREE interstate highways. A natural location for warehousing and transportion of goods across the state and the nation.
Tulsa has no free interstate highways leading anywhere. None. How CURIOUS?
3). Located in a state with NO STATE INCOME TAX.
4). Located in a state with No State SALES tax on Groceries.
5) Co-Located with a 50,000 person major state university adjacent to downtown.
6) Sports a AAA baseball team, vs. a AA Texas League team in Tulsa.
There's really no comparison.
[^]
SNAP....thanks Friendly Bear (not to be confused with FB)
Now now, lets not seriously suggest that a city being the capital and having a large established university will have any advantage over one that does not. Oklahoma is a perfect example of that. Take OU for instance and its expansion of cancer and diabetes research. It fairly and proportionally divided the funds between the OU OKC medical campus and the OU Tulsa medical campus.
Here is the expansion Tulsa is getting, just broke ground a while back actually. A 2 story 7.5 million dollar expansion of about 23,000 square feet. "its the highlighted area"
(http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/83/img1554axv0.jpg)
Here is the perfectly fair and proportional part that OKC is getting for their OU medical campus. A 7 story 120 million dollar expansion of about 220,000 square feet.
(http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/3613/ouokcpartxd1.jpg)
No favoritism or bias. Its share and share alike. [B)]
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Now now, lets not seriously suggest that a city being the capital and having a large established university will have any advantage over one that does not. Oklahoma is a perfect example of that. Take OU for instance and its expansion of cancer and diabetes research. It fairly and proportionally divided the funds between the OU OKC medical campus and the OU Tulsa medical campus.
Here is the expansion Tulsa is getting, just broke ground a while back actually. A 2 story 7.5 million dollar expansion of about 23,000 square feet. "its the highlighted area"
(http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/83/img1554axv0.jpg)
Here is the perfectly fair and proportional part that OKC is getting for their OU medical campus. A 7 story 120 million dollar expansion of about 220,000 square feet.
(http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/3613/ouokcpartxd1.jpg)
No favoritism or bias. Its share and share alike. [B)]
That's your best post ever, no joke! I totally agree, never any favoritism for OKC at all(sarcasm off). OKC would be a ghost town today if it hadn't become the capital by stealing it from Guthrie. The tradition of thievery is alive and well in OKC.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Something to keep in perspective when comparing Tulsa to any of those cities, is Tulsa is a youngster comparitively.
There are some cultural and geographical similarities between Tulsa and Austin.
However, Austin has much more going for it:
Austin is:
1) The State Capital of a prosperous state, since 1836. Benefits as does OKC from state government offices, associated law offices, lobbyist offices and the offices of other associated Tax Vampires and Connected Cronies.
2) Located in the near geographic center of one of the nation's most populous states, and intersected by multiple FREE interstate highways. A natural location for warehousing and transportion of goods across the state and the nation.
Tulsa has no free interstate highways leading anywhere. None. How CURIOUS?
3). Located in a state with NO STATE INCOME TAX.
4). Located in a state with No State SALES tax on Groceries.
5) Co-Located with a 50,000 person major state university adjacent to downtown.
6) Sports a AAA baseball team, vs. a AA Texas League team in Tulsa.
There's really no comparison.
[^]
SNAP....thanks Friendly Bear (not to be confused with FB)
We won't confuse you with Axoaxoa either......heh...
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Now now, lets not seriously suggest that a city being the capital and having a large established university will have any advantage over one that does not. Oklahoma is a perfect example of that. Take OU for instance and its expansion of cancer and diabetes research. It fairly and proportionally divided the funds between the OU OKC medical campus and the OU Tulsa medical campus.
Here is the expansion Tulsa is getting, just broke ground a while back actually. A 2 story 7.5 million dollar expansion of about 23,000 square feet. "its the highlighted area"
(http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/83/img1554axv0.jpg)
Here is the perfectly fair and proportional part that OKC is getting for their OU medical campus. A 7 story 120 million dollar expansion of about 220,000 square feet.
(http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/3613/ouokcpartxd1.jpg)
No favoritism or bias. Its share and share alike. [B)]
Well, I'm going to be contrarian. OKC has not relied entirely on government money, it has invested in itself. It is a much larger city both geographically and population wise. Its media and its institutions serve the entire southern half of the state. The main connection between Dallas,Texas and the midwest runs right through OKC, I-35. they think big, they work big and they exploit their opportunities.
Contrast Tulsa. We are limited in growth potential and can't wait to kick out illegals. Our largest higher education institutions are Presbyterian and Evangelical private colleges. Our media is largely unpopular and innefective outside of midtown. You have to pay a toll to enter and exit the city easily. We whine about OKC getting unfair advantage but can't come together to invest in ourselves preferring instead to fragment into boroughs. We are politically confrontational, industrially lazy, provincial, self absorbed and reactionary. But a good place to raise a family..(sarcasm).
Recently, I picked up a 1993 issue of US NEWS & World Report while cleaning the basement. A feature story was about how cities were changing their focus towards, you guessed it, Improving Infrastructure, Education, Crime and Establishing Ties to the Suburbs. Minneapolis was featured along with some southern cities. That's when OKC and a lot of other cities started to make changes. We didn't. We like to whine about the unfairness of it all but we need only look to ourselves.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
Now now, lets not seriously suggest that a city being the capital and having a large established university will have any advantage over one that does not. Oklahoma is a perfect example of that. Take OU for instance and its expansion of cancer and diabetes research. It fairly and proportionally divided the funds between the OU OKC medical campus and the OU Tulsa medical campus.
Here is the expansion Tulsa is getting, just broke ground a while back actually. A 2 story 7.5 million dollar expansion of about 23,000 square feet. "its the highlighted area"
(http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/83/img1554axv0.jpg)
Here is the perfectly fair and proportional part that OKC is getting for their OU medical campus. A 7 story 120 million dollar expansion of about 220,000 square feet.
(http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/3613/ouokcpartxd1.jpg)
No favoritism or bias. Its share and share alike. [B)]
IN all fairness, the medical campus in OKC is much larger than ours and has been around much, much longer. It used to be where all OU med students, doctors, nurses, etc. were trained. Tulsa has always seemed like more of a satellite branch to me.
I've never seen OU-OKC, but that sounds right.
OU Tulsa is just getting started, and that medical building is one of many projects going on at that campus.
OU Tulsa might be a big deal in a few years.
See, in my opinion thats exactly why Tulsa should be getting the larger building. They owe us. We have been neglected and have decades, generations to make up for. It shouldnt be that we get less, we should be getting more in order to make up for all the years they "got" and we didn't.
As for waterboys assertion that Tulsas largest higher ed institutions are religious or private. Thats because we werent allowed to have public higher ed graduate universities. Look at what we do have including TCC, OSU Tulsa and OU Tulsa. We pay for the majority of that. Look at the new buildings on the OSU and OU Tulsa campus they are mostly paid for by Tulsa tax payers (vision 2025) and Tulsa donors. (many of the buildings on the OSU Medical Campus in OKC, and the campus in Norman for that matter, have wealthy Tulsans names on them because they were paid for by Tulsa donors, not to mention generations of Tulsa tax payers. We werent allowed to have a public college here for so many years so there was no place to donate to.) You would think that what is built now would try to rectify some of that disparity that happened all those years. Even, heaven forbid, thank us for what generous Tulsans gave them over the years and all the benefits they have gotten over that time as well.
In other words for ages we have paid state and federal taxes for the colleges, medical research, etc. in and near OKC. Now we are still paying for them AND on top of that if we want something for ourselves we tax ourselves more (vision 2025) and thank goodness donors from here help us out.
Who pays for TCC btw?