The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

This is simply my opinion, but I've figured out what we need.

1. Most bike lane per capita than any city in the country.

2. Best city public schools in the country.

3. Invest in soccer. The other major sports are too established. This gives us a sports culture.

4. Tear down some highways. Start connecting neighborhoods.

5. Make the University of Tulsa a public school.

Do those five things, we become something special. 2/5 are education for a reason.

Good to have a vision. Here to throw cold water on it  ;)

1. I don't care about "the most bike lanes." The gulf coast of Florida has a ton of bike lanes, almost all unusable as they are too small, not separated in any way, don't go anywhere, and are really just an afterthought to say "we have 654 miles of bike lanes!" Lets do it right.

2. AGREED.

3. I agree soccer is an area open for development, but its not like we are in on the ground floor. Unfortunately, the Roughnecks may be killing the MSL dream as we speak. I hope soccer does well and I hope the city supports it - but it isn't the City's place to throw millions of dollars into the pockets of whomever owns a franchise by handing out incentives or building a stadium (which would be required to land a higher league team).

4. We JUST redid the downtown loop. While tearing a leg out makes some sense, this is a very long term plan that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and have minimal return (we don't have the density at this time).

5. The University of Tulsa is the highest ranked college in the state. It is a 120 year old private institution with more than $1,000,000,000 in endowment funds and building and grounds in excess of $2,500,000,000. Admissions wants to see an ACT over 30 and a GPA over 3.8 with more than 70% of admissions being in the top 10% of the high school (95/99 selective). Nearly 10% are Presidential scholars. Tuition is in excess of $42,000 a year.  26% of students are international and only ~35% are from Oklahoma.

All in all, a poor candidate to convert to a public school in the State of Oklahoma. How would that even work? The State kicks in tens of millions of dollars a year to educate mostly out of state kids and foreign nationals?

It seems unlikely that the Board of Trustees would sign the deed over the State of Oklahoma when it can't manage much of anything, and neither the City nor the State can "make" the University public.  A true 4-year public institution in Tulsa would be great... but give it up. Langston, NSU, OSU, OU, TCC, Rogers State --- all want a piece of the pie (with TU and ORU of course).

If I'm going to criticize, I should contribute my 2 cents or I'm not being constructive... so my attempt:

1) Set the goal of having the best equipped, staffed, ad run public schools in the State (measuring performance demands overcoming demographics, which is an entirely different challenge)

2) Continue supporting and encouraging entrepreneurs and start ups in a big way (instead of putting that effort into luring low wage out of state companies with bribes)

3) Promote the development and revitalizing of urban spaces with zoning, building codes, tax incentives, and a streamlines process (to differentiate ourselves both from sprawling suburbs and from regional competitors like OKC, Wichita, and Bentonville)

4) Relentless focus on quality of life (that is a broad reaching statement: police, infrastructure, AND parks, etc.)

5) Beautify the city (mow the medians, paint the bridges, etc. When coupled with crumbling roads causing debris, many areas look like you could shoot a Mad Max film there)


Added together, I think we both keep and draw and motivate the people that want to live in a great city. Its easy to let your yard go to hell if the area around you looks like crap. its easy to move away when everyone else moves away. Its easy to go to the place everyone wants to be... so lets be that place.

I think your #2 and #5 are the best, and most likely, strategems. It's like making sure you're bathed and well dressed before a job interview. The others are somewhat co-dependent on the city and state's economy.

Of course if you don't recognize that the state's economy is not doing well but instead prefer to perceive it as "not doing badly considering...."

I keep hearing about how bad Oklahoma is doing, but don't see it in the business' I go to - stores, restaurants, etc.  They all "seem" to be busy at kind of normal levels... I realize my visits are just little 'snapshots', but there aren't a lot of cobwebs being spun on the doors of most business'.  As of 8 months ago, the only year we experienced any real issue with "doing well" was 2009, when we lost GDP.  4% isn't booming, but still isn't too bad, especially when you look at the rest of the US and most of the world.

Government and mining (oil/nat gas/coal) are our two biggest economic components at 15% each.   (Link at bottom)

And most of our state budget problems are self-inflicted from electing Mary Failin' and her ilk.



There are many questions I have about economic issues, but a couple seem to stand out and keep crossing my mind.  Oklahoma has probably the worst 'tunnel vision' on these, but it is also a national/worldwide phenomenon.

First, oil base economic dependency.  Wood had it's day as primary fuel.  Coal had it's day.  Now oil is most likely nearing the end of it's day as primary - meaning largest usage base, not sole source.  When is Oklahoma going to start realizing that 15% (see table link at end) has been going down and will continue to decline?   We always go into a tailspin when oil prices/revenue does go down - that suggests our dependency is at much higher level than it's 15% contribution to the economy!  This is unsustainable (to overuse a term I find mildly "cliche"...)!!

Oil consumption worldwide has gone down this year.  It will become a smaller part of the overall energy usage mix going forward.  That's just a fact, but none of the current non-leaders in state government are understanding or acting on that reality!  We have talked at length about what is coming - well, the future is here.  Now.  And making an impact worldwide that will grow every year.  If we don't stop continuing with the UnVision leadership we seem to love so much, we WILL continue our lackluster piddling along!

We have an exceptional opportunity in this state to get ahead of one of the curves - and I bet - no...I guarantee - we miss it completely!!  Agriculture here ain't bad...we have a lot of things happening, but the biggest chunks are still limited in variety.  Cattle, corn, wheat, canola.  Those make up the majority of our farm products.  We also have a lot of land that could be more effectively used for growing marijuana - not for medical or recreational, but for oil product production - fuels, lubricants, etc.  This country enforced an ethanol program for years based on corn - with biomass production capabilities of a ton or so per acre.  Switchgrass is touted as a "wunderkind" plant at 8 to 9 tons per acre.  Marijuana easily comes in at 12 to 15 tons per acre.  We have approx 33 million acres of ag land - 13 million considered "prime' ag land.  If we used maybe 10 million of the non-prime land for marijuana, we end up with over half a billion gallons of biomass liquids that could be used just as fuel - like biodiesel - but could also be used as feedstock for a high tech specialty oils/lubes/bio-chem products industry that could add significantly to the state.

We have the ag part of it done very well with OSU.  We have the petrochem part of it done very well with TU.  We could really shine on the world stage!  And not just from our half billion gallons, but we could also buy grass from surrounding places - anyone ever see trucks full of hay moving around?  Well put it on trains so the transport costs are cost-effective and bring it from KS, CO, TX.

500 million gallons of something made into a market value of $5 or $10 a gallon - $50 billion - or about 1/4 of the state GDP!   BHAG's!!!  Big, Hairy, Audacious Goals!!

Second, the world economy in general has dependent on cheap (read that as "slave") labor for hundreds of years.  It is literally what allowed the expansion of western European society across the world stage.  It made for a "growth" economy that is now ALL we understand, and no where can I find evidence that anyone is looking at any other model.   (Enlightenment appreciated here.)

Before that, from what I have read and studied, relatively speaking, the world was "growing", depending on the success of the various imperialistic entities, at slower rates.  It was not quite, but more in the direction of a "steady-state" economic model than recent history.  With lots (all ! ) of the wealth accumulation at the top.   When you run out of new parts of the world to move into for exploitation - the labor markets are no longer just slave wage places...China, Mexico, VietNam, etc. - how does one approach a more steady state model?  Seems to me based on history, you just enslave more people...  The question(s) that arise relate to whether anyone is doing any serious study about this?   And whether a low growth economy can work without enslavement?  Agricultural societies in small groups seem to have been more the norm in distant past and almost certainly low growth - is that the only way economies can work?



Here is an interesting history of GDP...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Oklahoma

I have actually seen marijuana occur naturally on sub-prime (in my opinion) farm land in the state. So apparently we have the ecosystem for it. That's certainly out of the box (legal) thinking.

Turning University of Tulsa into a public school would be a monumental disaster. It already has a huge endowment for a school that size (heck for any school). I figure if they wanted to get bigger they would. MIT/Harvard/Boston College/Northeastern all seemed to work fine for Boston. Public university isn't necessarily a silver bullet.

And on that note, do we really need a public university (lower level courses) that just pulls more of the same in to Tulsa. Everybody has one. If you want more bang for the buck I would think focusing on the medical schools or something of that caliber would be much more beneficial. We want the most talented, not just some dummy that could pass the extremely low bar the Board of Regents has. Why not work to make OSU on par with Baylor Medical. Capitalize on the momentum that Spartan creates. Medical and Aviation are two perfectly good fields to focus on because of the potential in the future.

Also in agreement with the sports (for the most part). Look what Oklahoma City did with Rowing. A good portion of the Olympic team trains there now. Tulsa could be that for biking for sure. I think it very wise for Tulsa to avoid just trying to become a "major league city" by route of NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL. Because what will basically happen is they will be a third rate league city. It will be interesting to see what happens in OKC over the next decade. Not that we should wait that long to do anything. They have a truly dedicated management team, but I don't know if that is enough. Apparently hardly any players want to live in OKC, and you can't pin that on the lack of an NBA team this time.

Completely agree. The benefits to this are two fold. You create meaningful jobs that are less likely to bolt for the next best offer of another city. And the owners are generally more giving in their communities.

I am familiar with one such example. Omni Air International is a jumbo jet charter company (think renting a 777, government type stuff most often). Rarely does one of their jets make it's way to Tulsa, heck they don't really even have a base here, just a warehouse and office. But... the office is here, 100 jobs or so. Good jobs. But the owner gives big to charities in town. Particularly they started New Leaf, an organization that provides individuals with developmental disabilities with life skills, marketable job training through horticultural therapy, community-based vocational placement, and residential services to increase independence.

Take that one step further - make a pitch for them!  

A New Leaf has a garden center on South Elm in Broken Arrow.  And they grow very good plant stocks for your gardening pleasure!!  Don't forget them when you are putting in your gardens!  Better plants than you will ever find at Wally-World, Lowe's, or Home Depot....  We have been buying there since about as far back as I can remember...



http://www.anewleaf.org/

In clandestine fashion, it has always been a top cash crop in the state...yep, we got the ecosystem for it.


We have good "first two year" and associate degree programs at TCC.  Don't really need the full 4 year university program here IF there were better synchronization of curriculum paths, giving easier transition to the 4 year programs here!  Something that should have been done decades ago!  


And for the nattering nabobs of negativity - yeah, I know 500 million gallons isn't really a huge thing in the overall fuel scheme of things - couple days worth of gasoline usage in the US.  BUT if you do "value added" processes, it can become something very good for the state!  Way bigger than any other agricultural contribution!!  And we already have the infrastructure available to pursue this!

Oklahoma isn't going to grow marijuana, legally. We can't even get medical marijuana. We're suing surrounding states for letting them grow it. Lets stay in the realm of possibilities.

When I was a kid, the Tulsa World/Tribune used a trucking company to deliver bundles of newspapers around the city. It was called, "Magic Empire" iirc. I always thought that was a cool description for a city. We should resurrect it in conjunction with the Gathering Pace opening.

Consider this. I asked for contributions a few weeks ago about where you would take visitors to Tulsa, namely what it was that makes us special from a local's perspective. I got three comments. CF was able to list some but either I am intensely unpopular on this site or the locals just don't think there's much to do here. I hope its the latter but I suspect its both! We are more than downtown and river development.

Anyway, if you want to make this a Magic Empire you have to start with self esteem and that starts with low level entrepreneurial success. Stop bending over for big important names and start engaging young people and retiring folks or empty nesters. Those are the ones with discretionary income and assets.

I must have missed that visit request...or did I??   Can't remember...I got lots of ideas, but probably too late now...

"Best Local Stuff" july 11th under Development and New Business, though I think the topic has been deleted.

Still there.  I replied but it wasn't much help...didn't list anything.

I have made lots of lists in the past...will have to go back and see if can get all into one big list.

The ones I mentioned a few days ago are still good ideas...under Tulsa Economy, reply #36.  Woolaroc and Tall Grass Prairie are both good 'stand alone' destinations.  And soon the prairie will have what I hope is a decent little restaurant opportunity!

And the garden center.   There are lots of little ones I touch on from time to time that would make a good package tour.

And the light display at Honor Heights Park is always a nice tour.  Kinda have to get there just before dark or get WAY bogged down in traffic....timing is an issue.  Their azalea festival in spring is recovering nicely, too, after way bad ice storm damage a few years ago.

Kids love the Castle at Muskogee, but that is one of those things where a very small dose goes a very long way!  The Renaissance Fair is interesting.  Norman, OK has one, too for longer 'destinations'....

Thanks. Good ideas.

Eliminate all fast food restaurants....

I don't dislike you.  You are a fellow old-timer. ;D   My interests are not typical of the modern urban crowd.  I go to the airport to hang out with friends.  I got over hanging out at bars after I got out of the Navy.  I like museums and am aware of some of them but I don't have anything out of the ordinary to offer to visitors that other folks here can offer.

Five things:

First, forget bike lanes. Let's educate both motorists and cyclists to use the existing road network. It's much less expensive than building new infrastructure. If you really MUST do something, reduce the speed limit city wide to 25mph, making all of Tulsa safer for bicyclists and pedestrians and also allowing the use of neighborhood electric vehicles.

Second, make a commitment to first class schools staffed by respected and well paid educators. It costs money. Get over it.

Third, fix the d@mned streets. Really. It's embarrassing. The city looks third rate.

Fourth, muzzle some of the yahoos in state government whose comments are worthy of some intellectually challenged third graders. Sure, it's not strictly a Tulsa issue, but people outside this state think it's run by a bunch of drooling inbreds.

Fifth, develop the various Route 66 alignments to draw tourists (and their money) to a city that grew up in the heyday of both the Mother Road and Art Deco.

I try to remember how I treated old-timers when I was under 40. Mostly with respect though I found them humorous. Still lots of good advice. Your experience is probably how most over 50 are living. We've condensed life into the things and people we really enjoy and have settled comfortably among them. That has implications for marketing and development.

I really like the way you think. We are such a cheapskate state. Just over the border in Texas a starting teacher can make $20,000 more per year. Even in budget struggling Kansas to the north starting teachers make $7,000 a year more than here! And its all the way down. We love our low pay scales.

When I got my drivers license, all streets within the downtown area were limited to 20mph. Of course cars were big and clunky but still you didn't find higher speeds until the arterials. Now drivers reach 35 within one block from a grade school. Speed, cellphones and bad roads make Tulsa driving crazy. Add in the ignorance about merging, yielding, red lights, etc and I'm surprised insurance companies aren't doubling their rates here.

Here's a vision: mass produce BMW Isettas converted to electric drive and limit all non commercial travel in the downtown area to bikes and Isettas. They can be parked at lots around the downtown area free for use by anyone. An Isetta is about the same size as a bike so it seems fair to have them share the roads. I'm such a socialist.

The Isetta or a Fiat "Topolino" were the Smart Cars of their day, not all that different from a NEV though they were probably a little faster. Two or three would fit in a standard parking space. I could see limiting vehicle access to downtown as London does with congestion pricing. It increased use of public transportation as well as walking and cycling. Imagine a ring of parking lots outside the IDL with transportation inside the loop dependent on other modes. Sure, some would see it as a PITA but all of a sudden those surface parking lots downtown look much more attractive for infill development.

We're geniuses! Now checking on Fiat dealerships.

1.  I agree Tulsa has tremendous potential to be one of the top bicycling cities.  I would add completing the river trail loop should be a priority, with the missing sections being Jenks Riverwalk to Turkey Mountain, along Avery Drive to Hwy 97 and along the Levee to Newblock Park.  

2.  Completely agree the city or local charitable organizations need to step up to fund city schools because the state is failing us.

3.  Soccer seem to be the most easily attainable pro sports franchise for Tulsa.  I would love to see a stadium where Home Depot is located.

4.  YES especially the east leg of the IDL and create a new Blvd in its place

5.  Never going to happen but TU should be closer to 10k students with more research and medical facilities, more similar to Vanderbilt or TCU as a private university that is an economic engine for its city/region.  Amending the law that OU or OSU can't offer the same 1st and 2nd year classes as TCC would be a better solution so those campuses can grow.  Or whatever is protecting Langston, TCC and/or NSU.  Grow the downtown OSU campus to 10k students with the bulk of all OSU research being done in Tulsa.  Grow the OSU medical center and health sciences center.  Grow the OU midtown campus to 5k students with housing and additional buildings.

I'll also add making the open space west of Chandler Park into an urban wilderness preserve would help take some of the load off Turkey Mtn and open up an even larger wild area for hiking and biking.  No other cities in this part of the country would have the same kind of recreational options so close to the city.

Streets.  Unbelievable in the 21st century that we would be at this point.


People outside this state have a better recognition of reality than the voting majority inside the state.  That's why we are right "up" there with Mississippi and South Carolina as laughing stocks.   Example - the toothbrush was invented in Oklahoma!  How do we know?  If it had been invented anywhere else, it would be called a 'teethbrush'....

TU should (and will) remain a private university. Oklahoma needs at least 1 good private university. The idea of TU becoming a public university and that being a good thing is laughable. TU is growing but at a slow steady pace. You cannot just get closer to 10k students like that is just some choice they decide one day.
Being in one of the lower populated states in a mid-sized city with limited local choice of students who meet the academic criteria makes it tough to grow fast. TU is a bit more like Rice and SMU (very small private universities close to urban core) than TCU/Baylor/Vanderbilt. Furthermore, all of those schools are in much larger metro areas.

Still, TU is expanding all of the time with practically an entire newly renovated campus with more being added all of the time. TU is one of the few great institutions that has thrived in Oklahoma, practically rebuilding the entire campus with a 20 year plan from 1990-2010. The student body is the best it has been, the endowment is extremely high for a university of 4000 students with a very good academic reputation and the athletics have been very successful overall for a while now (have won more titles in American Athletic Conference than any other school since joining - Did the same in C-USA). TU is improving the entire area (see the "West Park" development at 6th and Lewis which is about to expand yet again!). The campus is gorgeous with harmonized architectural styles. In government hands, the university would look like the hodge-podged campus in Norman or the tacky cheap metal-topped government building looks of Stillwater or NSU.

Someone thinks TU would be better off in the Oklahoma state governments hands!? Let OSU, TCC, Rogers, NSU and the other state schools keep doing what they do under continuously diminishing state funding. OU, as an exception, is doing well as a public university. TU does not need government funding or management and we should be extremely thankful we have at least 1 good private university in this state. Sure a 4-year public university in the Tulsa metro would be great, but it should be OSU-tulsa, RSU or OU-Tulsa.

Tulsa never being granted the right to a four year public university by the State Board of Regents seems to be predicated on the same thinking that OKC generally gets preferable treatment over Tulsa.  There is no reason to have this mishmash of higher learning other than Tulsa being crapped on by the power structure in OKC, as it always has been.

As discussed above, it is codified in State law. I have heard it was TCC & Langston protectionism that lobbied for the deal, but OKC. So while I agree with your major premise, I don't think it applies here.

Re University of Tulsa, I have heard strong rumor that they think they need to grow to 5k undergrad students (from ~3500) to make the top 50 University list.  The idea being that you can't offer the wide range of programs and have the research budget they want to see in order to crack the top 50 without more kids. That and more students means more professors and researchers, publishing, lecturing, and talking to colleagues about where they work. Which helps the overall reputation.

And unfortunately the only way to change that is to elect leaders from Tulsa that will be able to push that agenda in OKC and get past the local interests protecting TCC, Langston and NSU.  

I'd be curious to know GT Bynum's take on this issue. 

OSU Tulsa needs a gathering place sized funding campaign for buildings and endowments and needs those laws changed.

OSU Tulsa being freed of those stupid laws and allowed to become a full four year PHD granting research university is the single biggest boost this city needs. TU is going for quality over size and that's fine, but Tulsa really needs a real public university. It's stupid that a metro area this size doesn't have one. The Oklahoma City metro has two.

This goes back to the establishment of UCAT, now OSU Tulsa.  UCAT offered year 3 and up courses, TCC offered 1000 and 2000 level.  The original idea was to help protect OU and OSU which I always thought was ridiculous.  At least when this was applicable to me in the mid 1980’s, kids who were bent on the idea of going away to Stillwater or Norman would not have been dissuaded by an upstart four year public university in Tulsa.  

It is interesting this was not a law that applied to UCO Edmond nor any other four year schools scattered throughout the state if the logic truly was to protect other institutions.

It would have made far more sense to allow a four year school in Tulsa than the 12 or so rural universities throughout the state.  That’s a lot of infrastructure cost we all associate with decentralized services.  But universities, like prisons or funding for a 100 student school district, was some of the only pork an influential legislator could bring home to their rural district.

Oklahoma is a great study in inefficiency and sprawl.

As an aside to this rant, we really should celebrate the idea that Tulsa does have a great law school at TU and that OSU and OU both have very good medical programs here in Tulsa.

Completely agree and TU is a huge asset for Tulsa.  I think a few things would make it even better:
1.  Expand to at least 5k students
2.  Expand research programs and facilities
3.  Expand health sciences options with the partnership with OU including having a future university hospital
4.  Maintain a competitive athletic program while continuing to update facilities
5.  Continue to improve the surrounding neighborhood with more of an emphasis on 11th Street creating a mixed-use "Campus Corner" area

OSU and OU should both be 4 year universities in Tulsa that complement, not compete with, TCC and Langston.  OSU should build up its downtown campus as an urban alternative to Stillwater with a good variety of undergraduate and graduate programs and a focus on science and engineering.  OSU should also be doing the bulk of its research in Tulsa.  The OU campus should also have a variety of programs but with its focus on health sciences (in partnership with TU), education and arts&sciences at the midtown campus.

I don't think the laws bear that out. They are meant as a protection for TCC when OSU Tulsa (University Center Tulsa) was created:

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=104059&hits=249+248+247+160+159+158+73+72+71+47+19+18+17+

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=104060

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=104062

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=104067


The language limits what OSU and OU Tulsa can do. No indication that this is to protect Stillwater or Norman, rather it was to protect TCC, Langston, and NSU undergraduate programs. The effect is that Tulsa will never have a full four year college and will maintain a patchwork, unless the laws are changed. But I think that's our doing (TCC, Langston, NSU), and not OKC.

Coulda just been two states....Oklahoma and Sequoyah.  Whole other set of problems then....

Yeah, it's stupid we don't have the full research university. 

I note that your citations were mostly added in 1998 through 2001 and appear to address the transition from UCAT to OSU Tulsa.  They don’t address the formation of UCAT.  UCAT was established in 1982, the actual land and buildings started going up around 1985, and courses were offered through OSU, OU, Langston, and NSU IIRC. 

I’m simply stating what the buzz was at that time:  There was plenty of concern about it taking students away from other institutions.  I don’t recall all the machinations of it, but the State Board of Regents had a stated opposition to competing with the big campuses over in Stilly and down in Norman. Perhaps one of the other elder members like Aqua will remember.  The article below will put some context to how it was feared that the programs offered in Tulsa might be a drain on the other schools even including our local private universities.

http://newsok.com/article/1997100

So rather than "drain students" from those universities, they would rather hamper/drain the whole state by making our cities less vital and competitive.

Sounds like a plan.  Not a very good one though.

 ;D
 

I remember the "buzz" about UCAT and the alleged fear that OU and OSU would lose students if they didn't restrict them. Mostly I remember everyone being confused as to what it was all about. Laws can be changed if the legislature found those fears to be baseless.

Quite true.  Much like our beleaguered sales tax financing for our city which is consistently insufficient.  That could be changed as well, but it isn't.  Tulsa always seems to draw short straw when it comes to the Oklahoma State Legislature.

Ironically, a very strong four year public university might actually create enough population growth in Tulsa that our system of city funding might make sense.

The panhandle, which has roughly the population of Bixby has a university. Tulsa does not. Think on that.

Thread drift, sort of.   But yeah, I don't understand Panhandle State, or several of the other small colleges in OK.   Northwestern in Woodward is only two hours East, and West Texas A&M and Wayland Baptist are in Amarillo.   Those three can serve the Panhandle.

We’ve driven past the turn-off for the school several times this summer going back and forth to New Mexico.  Other than the sign for the intersection, there is no indication there is a four year university anywhere in the vicinity.

I was previously unaware that the school was established in 1909 until just now.  I can see why there might have been a far flung university system closer to statehood, as travel was far more difficult as well as communication.  That’s still no excuse as to why Tulsa still does not have a full four year U.

The schools in rural areas still exist mainly as they are one of the few sources of jobs in those areas, and there’s a good sized cost to running all these institutions, but that is another discussion for another thread.

There are 15 public universities in Oklahoma offering 4 year degrees.  That is insane for a state our population size.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_universities_in_Oklahoma

I get that politics and political deals likely played a part in many cases (as I recall, Rogers State become a four year college as part of the OSU Tulsa deal), but this is a real drain on the higher ed budget.

While Tulsa may not have the main campus for any public university, what they do have is still eons better than Panhandle State. Tulsa has OSU, OU, and Northeastern State within the metro. All vastly superior campuses compared to Panhandle.

The Oklahoma Plan.

Brilliant! ::)

A major college campus doesn't necessarily equate to thriving city.

For example, the list below is the largest cities without a single major university campus (in this case not larger than 15,000):

Phoenix - ASU-Downtown (6,595)
Dallas - SMU (10,938)
Fort Worth - TCU (9,142)
Nashville - Vanderbilt (12,714)
Oklahoma City - OSU-OKC (5,824)
Colorado Springs - UCCS (9,745)
Omaha - Nebraska-Omaha (14,665)
Tulsa - Tulsa (4,185)
Oakland - Holy Names (1,164)
Wichita - Wichita State (14,577)
New Orleans - New Orleans (11,276)

Look at OKC even. I would say by any measure they are doing pretty well as a city and the biggest they have is OSU-OKC. Tulsa by far has the most prestigious school of the two major cities. Dallas, Fort Worth, Nashville. It just seems that we are making the mistake of thinking a major university will bring all this goodness. I just don't think that it will. Unless of course you are considering putting a Cal-Berkely caliber school here, which obviously is not what we are talking about.

ASU Downtown Phoenix is one of four campuses in the Phoenix metro area aside from the main campus in Tempe. ASU needed to expand beyond the limits of the Tempe Campus so they purchased vacant buildings in downtown, as well as vacant land where a mall used to be in Scottsdale, unused facilities at Phoenix Mesa Gateway Airport (formerly Williams Air Force Base) and in northwest Phoenix.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_State_University_Downtown_Phoenix_campus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_State_University_Downtown_Phoenix_campus)

https://campus.asu.edu/ (https://campus.asu.edu/)

Cal State has 23 campuses across California and has ~430,000 students.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_University)

https://www.calstate.edu/datastore/campus_map.shtml (https://www.calstate.edu/datastore/campus_map.shtml)

UCAL has 10 campuses.

https://secure.californiacolleges.edu/College_Planning/Explore_Schools/Higher_Education_Options/UC_Map.aspx (https://secure.californiacolleges.edu/College_Planning/Explore_Schools/Higher_Education_Options/UC_Map.aspx)

OKC also has OCU with about 3000 students, if we are counting public and private universities.

You may as well count UCO in Edmond as a part of OKC since the two cities sort of bleed into each other. OU, with it’s proximity to the OKC metro is a fairly good contributor to the OKC economy.  If OSU’s main campus were located in Owasso or Broken Arrow, I suspect the Tulsa economy would benefit greatly from it.

OKC has Edmond and Norman as suburbs. Oakland has Berkeley.

Cal-Berkeley, which might be the best public university in the nation, is just five miles north of downtown Oakland. You can't draw the lines at city limits, a comprehensive public university will impact the whole metro area. Tulsa is still the only city on this list where the metro area does not have any comprehensive four year public university.

Oklahoma City of course has OU and Central Oklahoma.

ASU's main campus in Tempe, which does have a downtown campus anyway, is only eight miles east of downtown Phoenix, ASU in Tempe being the single largest college campus in the nation.

The DFW area has 10 public universities including UT-Arlington with 37,000 students, North Texas State with 37,000 students and UT-Dallas with 25,000 students.

All these other cities have public universities, most of them in the city or very close by.

Tulsa's advantage is that our potential major public school is next to downtown. This needs to happen.

Vanderbilt, with 12k students and its huge medical center, is a major economic engine for Nashville.  That should be what TU should hope to aspire to someday.

And a couple good comparisons for OSU-Tulsa are CU-Denver and UW-Milwaukee.  Both are urban satellites for their respective universities but offer a wide variety of undergrad and grad programs, and operate independently.  UAB in Birmingham is another one in a fellow southern state with low education funding.  OSU already has the health sciences center and hospital in Tulsa it just needs the 4 year university and research component.

Yep.  I’m not sure how many are aware of the large research complex just to the west of the OU HSC in OKC.  The research center has about 700,000 sq. ft. of office and lab space.

I closer look might show that your proving our point... concentrating on significant schools:


Phoenix  - Arizona State is directly across the river and has 83,000 kids enrolled.

Dallas - as you pointed out, there are several excellent medium sized Universities (TCU & SMU), there is also UT-Dallas with 23k, and U North Texas in Denton with 30+k. And Ft. Worth is metro Dallas.

Nashville - Vanderbilt (13k) as mention, also Tenn State (10k), Bellmont (7.5k), and in the metro area there is also Middle Tennessee State (go Hilltoppers!) with 20k+ kids. as well as U Nashville, Bellmont and Fisk being in town. So what, 60k college kids within 20 miles?

Oklahoma City - In the metro area you also have University of Central Oklahoma with 17k kids, University of Oklahoma with ~ 30k kids, in addition to OCU and other smaller colleges.

Colorado Springs - UCCS, you also have the Air Force Academy! As well as two military bases and the US Olympic training center (which takes a lot away from the need for a
medium city [metro about half of Tulsa metro] to have more than 2 sizable Universities)...but there are also several small (<4k) elite colleges including Colorado Tech.

Omaha - Nebraska-Omaha (14,665) as well as Creighton (8k), and the University of Nebraska is less than 20 miles away.

Oakland - It physically borders UC-Berekely with 39,000 kids, the border of the University is the City limits of Oakland. It is also in a metro area with Stanford, UC San Francisco, US Santa Barbara, City College of San Fran, Cal State, St. Mary's, UC Santa Clara, Cal State East Bay - more than 100k students just at the large state schools within 25 miles of Oakland.

Wichita - Wichita State (14,577), I count that as a major State University. Kansas has 2 flagships, on major, and four minor universities (Pittsburgh, Emporia, Washburm and Ft. Hayes being the minor schools). I'd consider Northern Iowa, Missouri State, etc. to be major universities even though they aren't a flagship school. The MSA is ~400k less than the Tulsa MSA and they have a major State University.

New Orleans - New Orleans (11,276), Tulane (11k), Layola (4.5), Xavier (3.5k)...

Tulsa - Tulsa (4,185), also has Rogers State (4K), NSU (1k), ORU (3.2k), OSU-Tulsa (2.8k), OU-Tulsa (1k)...


Notice a pattern - the cities you listed all have one or two colleges of significant size in their immediate metro as well as small colleges. Tulsa just has a mashup of minor players. If Tulsa had a major university in Sand Springs or Wagner...I don't think we'd be having this discussion. No one in St. Paul is saying they need a new State School because U Minnesota is in Minneapolis.  It is equally ridiculously to say OKC doesn't have University with UCO and OU on their borders.

OSU has a unique structure with the two vo-tech schools, something you don't see at a lot of major universities.  It should look like this:
Stillwater - flagship campus with 25k+
Tulsa - urban campus with 10k+
Tulsa - health sciences center and hospital
Tulsa - research campus
OKC - technical school
Okmulgee - technical school

And for OU:
Norman - flagship campus with 25k+ / research campus
Tulsa - urban campus with 5k+
OKC - health sciences center and hospital
Tulsa - medical school and hospital (partnership with TU)
Edmond - hospital

OSU and OU absolutely can have two "independent" 4 year universities that complement and don't compete with each other.  CU-Boulder and CU-Denver.  UW-Madison and UW-Milwaukee.  UT-Austin and UT -San Antonio.  Nebraska-Lincoln and Nebraska-Omaha.  There are literally dozens of examples of this being done across the country.