Really a great thread going here. I don't want bring the bummer brigade in here, but I can't help but share some thoughts.
After over 100 years as an incorporated city, Tulsa has landed itself smack dab on the edge of "making it". We're in a precarious position
demographically,
geographically and quite simply
numerically (population).
First, the fact that we haven't developed a true marketable identity to a more
diverse demographic of people in over 100 years speaks volumes about the city. My gut tells me that it cannot be changed until the overall demographic in Tulsa "naturally" turns over. This city is overrun with white, middle-class, baby boomers who live vicariously through their families and their churches. Is this a bad thing? Not for them. Is this bad for the overall viability of Tulsa as an attractive destination to the young creative class who will spawn tomorrow's companies and lead Tulsa into a future beyond oil and call centers? Absolutely.
I know this view is probably unpopular (I'm sure many on here fit this description) and I'm certainly not trying to pick on the Joneses, Thomases and Smiths out there who have raised impeccable children, teaching them the importance of family and faith. We need more people like that in most parts of the country. Here in Tulsa, we have it in spades and while it doesn't breed intolerance purposefully, I believe it sends a certain message of "preference" that resonates well beyond the edges of our city boundaries. Are there other cities that have succeeded with a conservative base? Definitely. But how many of those cities are the size of Tulsa now? And how are they doing?
Also, I realize that this is probably coming off as way more of a poltical message than I intend, so let me be clear. This has nothing to do with Republicans versus Democrats. This has everything to do with tolerance, diversity and education, in my humble opinion. Changing the demographics in Tulsa will result in more creativity, more education for the masses and more entrepreneurs. Aside from waiting it out, I don't have a quick-fire solution here.
Geographically, Tulsa I believe has some things going for it and some things going against it. On the positive, we have many many lakes within a short driving distance and I believe many of them have been marketed thoughtfully and represent a wonderful escape for those living in the city. Folks who work hard also like to play hard and to me Tulsa has much to offer in this regard.
Sure there is always an oportunity to develop more shopping as those other cities have, but in the end, setting ourselves apart means embracing the uniqueness of our area. Let's face it, west of I-35 and east of the Rockies, from Canada to Mexico, this country has little to offer in the way of truly unique or attractive geography (save maybe the Black Hills of SD and parts of the Wichita Mountains). Tulsa, thankfully, is much further east. In my opinion we should be more actively embracing the nearby hills, lakes and streams that are regarded by many as enjoyable paths to diversion from day to day life.
The negative part of Tulsa's geography is the fact that in the end, we're still a plains city. While we do have some lakes and streams in close proximity, we don't have a major ski resort or ocean beach within a half a day drive. We're not alone there obviously. OKC, Wichita, K.C., Des Moines, Omaha and even St. Louis pretty well fit in too. However 2 of those cities I mentioned had the benefit of a much larger population boom due to the fact that a) They were settled much earlier than Tulsa and b) They were keys hubs of commerce as railroads literally transformed our country.
A third city (OKC) cannot physically be avoided if you want to pass through the state of Oklahoma via Interstate highway. And while that may not seem very important to some, you can never overestimate the importance of location. Just ask your local real-estate agent.
Also (a bit ironically too) the isolation that I mentioned earlier leads to unrestrained growth due to the seemingly limitless expanses of cheap land. This turns into abundant affordable housing, which can be good but also leaves us with 100 square miles in South Tulsa that is so overly homogenous, I do believe we ought to go ahead and just open a strip mall museum.
In the end we are left in a very small niche of cities who are trying to find out how to reach critical mass in an area of the country that has no geographic limitations to encourage density, which in turn is how you naturally attract more people!!! And that brings me to the final issue of....
Population. Tulsa is slipping into a realm of the census that some people around here probably don't mind so much (I'm thinking baby boomers again here) but others see as an ever growing wall that keeps Tulsa from reaching that critical mass that I believe most on these boards are wanting to see. And while population in and of itself isn't a symptom, I believe in today's world it CAN be a very real barrier in terms of marketability.
In 1980, Tulsa was outdistancing areas of the country like Austin, Buffalo, Charlotte, Louisville, Birmingham and Alberquerque. Today, we are struggling to keep enough people around the core of Tulsa to compete with Fresno, Dayton and Grand Rapids. We have quickly found ourselves knocked from the area of low-end 1st tier/high-end 2nd tier into arguably the dreaded 3rd tier of US cities.
Trying to reach critical mass while ignoring stagnant population growth numbers can't be done. I'm not sure what the answer is here, but Tulsa has clearly done something to alienate the creative class and young entrepreneurs (who will always be the drivers behind innovation and growth).
Ideally speaking, Tulsa should be pouring historic amounts of monies into marketing for our city in an attempt to reverse the trend that, in my opinion, is only barely beginning to slow. On top of that, we ought to be investing in the things that will attract the number one most important growth catalyst of any other...more people. And not surprisingly, baptist churches, fast-food restaraunts and banks don't rank near the top of anyone's list. Fortunately, cheap real-estate is a plus. But honestly, I believe that is inadvertently targeting a group of people who don't necesarily seek to "innovate" or "create", but simply seek to "get".
So there's my rant. I know I don't post on here often, but I read quite a bit.
I'm sorry to William for not contributing more ideas or solutions in this post (which I'm pretty sure was his original intent), but I guess I wanted to get some of these things off my chest.
Flame away.