Hilti moving headquarters to Dallas (http://www.newson6.com/story/26785150/hilti-moving-corporate-headquarters-from-tulsa-to-dallas-fort-worth)
TULSA, Oklahoma - Hilti North America has announced that its Tulsa-based North America Corporate Headquarters will be moving to the Dallas-Fort Worth area. The move will be complete in June of 2015, a news release states.
Hilti manufactures tools and fastening systems for construction professionals.
The company cited a broader base of customers and workers available in the metroplex as its motivation for the move. The 250 workers affected by the move will be offered relocation packages, the release states.
"Moving the Corporate Headquarters to the Dallas Metroplex puts us in the middle of a top five construction market and gives us greater access to a much larger talent pool as we expand our business over the next decade," said Cary Evert, Hilti North America President and CEO.
"With $26 billion in construction in Dallas, relocating our test lab, and repair service and distribution operations within the Metroplex strengthens our ability to enhance our coverage in this marketplace and throughout Texas," said Evert.
They will continue to provide some services in Tulsa including customer service, credit, accounting and training.
Sad Trombone (http://sadtrombone.com/?play=true)
Edit as seen in the Fallin sucks political thread
Sucks to see them moving. They are a good company. But indeed, there is still a lot of construction going on in the Dallas area. Last time I was there a few months ago I counted 22 skyscraper/high-rise cranes in the air, just on my route from my hotel back to Tulsa.
As I posted in a different thread about Failin and tax cuts, what are things that could have been done to increase the talent pool that Hilti refers to? What can increase the talent pool in Tulsa?
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mhj45eegjl/introduction-51/ (http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mhj45eegjl/introduction-51/)
The comments from Hilti were that they were moving to DFW area because of a larger talent pool. Are they looking for more management, accounting, technical, production, testing, product development, and sales staff? It just seems rather sudden, and while it may sound small with only 250 positions, that doesn't include spouses and children, so the negative effect is close to 1000 people. (250 jobs, 250 spouses, and a guess of 2 children per household)
It's surprising (not really) that a major employer is moving the management of a company from Tulsa to a city in Texas, without any prior notice.
Looking at the cities referenced as top construction areas, it is apparent that the move is to cities that have been growing since the 70's. The cities with continuing growth and construction growth referred to in the other thread have been experiencing growth since the 70's. They have gone through expansion and contraction and have maintained constant growth for years. Yes they have had lean times, DFW/Houston during the oil fallout in 1984, Phoenix during the 2008 housing crash, Austin, Atlanta quietly growing and having their own 2008 issues. San Jose might as well be part of silicon valley and SF. These areas have survived the ebb and flow and continue to grow.
So as I asked, what would increase the talent pool in Tulsa? Hilti made it clear, the talent pool is better in DFW.
We can't currently compete with the rate of growth that those areas have, and imho we sure don't want a very much higher rate of growth with our current zoning and planning in place. (representatives from Austin and others have warned us that we would currently experience the same headaches they have experienced... unless we learned from those mistakes and made the changes that are laid out in our new comprehensive plan,,, but we don't seem to be wanting to do that).
So we aren't going to attract simply by having the word go out that we are a progressive city or a "rapidly growing" city.
Tulsa has lost a considerable amount of momentum per it's "buzz". People seem less excited about our potential. The one bright spot is The Gathering Place. But one negative spot on top of that is that we are in Oklahoma and a lot of talented people around the county keep hearing the "strange news" that continues to emanate from our State leadership, and are quite turned off by it.
You can't just be OK and compete for talent, you have to be better in some way.
I know I sound like a broken record on the issue of good urban development. But I really do believe that Tulsa, even being the small city that it is, actually in some part because it's the small city it is, could kick some serious butt in relation to creating some extremely attractive, lively, bustling, high quality, urban living. We could blow Dallas out of the water on that front. And it would be SO SIMPLE to do, especially compared to other issues we of course want to tackle like, crime, education, etc.
CHANGE the danged zoning laws and allow good urban development to happen. We have such incredible potential with our downtown and some surrounding areas. We could compete way above our size class on at least this issue. So many talented young people want that lifestyle, whether to live in it themselves or to be able to conveniently "visit it" whenever they want to. It's low hanging fruit for Tulsa. Why we aren't reaching up and grabbing it I do not know. I am simply baffled why we aren't going for this one when it would be SO easy to do, and when our city has SO much potential in this area.
It could be the "killer app" that changes the perceptions about our city and begins to ramp up our growth and desirability. And again, compared to just about anything else you could mention that could have as much impact, it's the EASIEST, and by far, least expensive, thing we could do.
I simply think those were words drafted by whomever handles PR for Hilti without much thought. In other words, it's just an excuse which sounds logical in a 250 word press release. I find it incomprehensible we don't have the talent pool they seek. At least the way I read it, I don't believe they are moving and hiring 250 new people because they can't find that talent in Tulsa. It sounds as if 250 Tulsans will be moving to Dallas. Did they say how many more jobs they will add to the HQ in Dallas?
Certainly it's understandable you want a great presence in a large construction market, but I really fail to see what moving your HQ does for you. It's not like contractors go to the "Hilti store" to purchase Hilti fasteners and it's not like you couldn't canvass the entire DFW market with 10-20 sales reps without picking up stakes and moving the HQ to Dallas.
I suspect it has to do with long term profitability objectives. Either they are being paid greenmail to move there or the overall taxation situation is more favorable to them.
My contribution to creating a deeper talent pool, or the image of having one, is we need to quit getting screwed by the state board of regents. We need a real four year public university program going instead of the cobbled-together system Tulsa has now.
We are doing the right things in creating and promoting our amenities to make Tulsa more attractive like BOK Center, Guthrie Green, new museums, The Gathering Place/Turkey Mountain/Riverparks. We have no shortage of options for dining and entertainment. The two last pieces of the puzzle in my mind are a four year public university in the urban core with affordable student housing situated nearby and a pedestrian-friendly village on the east side of downtown.
It's all MBA BS...if they 'needed' a broader' base of workers, then why take 250 from here with them? Wouldn't they have the pick of the crop down there? (Answer would be yes if that were a real factor).
They did just fine for many decades here, and the customer base is pretty much by definition nationwide - wherever construction occurs - so, Somewhere, North Dakota would be the place to move to if customer base were a real issue.
More likely scenario, the top executive(s) wanted the 'high life' of living in Dallas and concocted the 'business case' to prove it would benefit the company. They most likely are from elsewhere to start with and got tired of the "hicks-from-the-sticks" lifestyle that Mary Failin' is the poster child and head cheerleader for!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 15, 2014, 11:12:27 AM
It's all MBA BS...if they 'needed' a broader' base of workers, then why take 250 from here with them? Wouldn't they have the pick of the crop down there? (Answer would be yes if that were a real factor).
They did just fine for many decades here, and the customer base is pretty much by definition nationwide - wherever construction occurs - so, Somewhere, North Dakota would be the place to move to if customer base were a real issue.
More likely scenario, the top executive(s) wanted the 'high life' of living in Dallas and concocted the 'business case' to prove it would benefit the company. They most likely are from elsewhere to start with and got tired of the "hicks-from-the-sticks" lifestyle that Mary Failin' is the poster child and head cheerleader for!
But why would anyone want to subject themselves to the daily traffic asspain that is Dallas? The chemical company I used to work for is located about 1 mile WNW of the old Texas Stadium in Irving. Once I was in management, I found myself there every 4-6 weeks for meetings or to teach a rep school. They made repeated overtures about wanting to move me to DFW and I refused. I simply do not like the pace of life there and cannot stand the traffic.
Tulsa is definitely more my speed if I have to live in a metro area. If we could just get rid of the Sally Kerns, Mary Fallins, and Dewey Bartlets (sic) in the Oklahoma political landscape, Tulsa would be perfect! It's a great size and we don't suffer from a lack of things to do. Anyone who claims: "There's nothing to do in Tulsa" suffers from severe myopia.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 15, 2014, 09:51:36 AM
I simply think those were words drafted by whomever handles PR for Hilti without much thought. In other words, it's just an excuse which sounds logical in a 250 word press release. I find it incomprehensible we don't have the talent pool they seek. At least the way I read it, I don't believe they are moving and hiring 250 new people because they can't find that talent in Tulsa. It sounds as if 250 Tulsans will be moving to Dallas. Did they say how many more jobs they will add to the HQ in Dallas?
Certainly it's understandable you want a great presence in a large construction market, but I really fail to see what moving your HQ does for you. It's not like contractors go to the "Hilti store" to purchase Hilti fasteners and it's not like you couldn't canvass the entire DFW market with 10-20 sales reps without picking up stakes and moving the HQ to Dallas.
I suspect it has to do with long term profitability objectives. Either they are being paid greenmail to move there or the overall taxation situation is more favorable to them.
I agree the stated reason seems pretty flimsy. The North American headquarters of a tool company does not need to be next door to a construction project - is so, they need a lot of "headquarters" all over the country.
While the allure of Big-D probably played a role, don't underestimate the impact of Tulsa's limited number of direct flights out of the airport. It is simply hard and a hassle to get to Tulsa from the coasts and, in Hilti's case, from an European headquarters.
Quote from: DTowner on October 15, 2014, 11:53:13 AM
don't underestimate the impact of Tulsa's limited number of direct flights out of the airport. It is simply hard and a hassle to get to Tulsa from the coasts and, in Hilti's case, from an European headquarters.
That is a really good point. I've got some good friends that moved to Denver because of this. Travel time and cost cut significantly. (The mountains didn't hurt)
Quote from: Conan71 on October 15, 2014, 11:28:47 AM
But why would anyone want to subject themselves to the daily traffic asspain that is Dallas? The chemical company I used to work for is located about 1 mile WNW of the old Texas Stadium in Irving. Once I was in management, I found myself there every 4-6 weeks for meetings or to teach a rep school. They made repeated overtures about wanting to move me to DFW and I refused. I simply do not like the pace of life there and cannot stand the traffic.
Tulsa is definitely more my speed if I have to live in a metro area. If we could just get rid of the Sally Kerns, Mary Fallins, and Dewey Bartlets (sic) in the Oklahoma political landscape, Tulsa would be perfect! It's a great size and we don't suffer from a lack of things to do. Anyone who claims: "There's nothing to do in Tulsa" suffers from severe myopia.
I agree - I have been to Dallas way more than I really ever wanted, and would not like living there. I also have friends who have been there for decades and cannot imagine life anywhere else...go figure! Makes no sense to me, but hey, that's what it's all about - to each their own! Got a couple friends that live in the Bronx, NY, and I just tell them flat out they are psychotic nutcases!! These are the ones who are afraid to come visit, 'cause the Indians might have an uprising while they are here! Seriously!! Even after I have told them I would mediate a truce just for their visit, so they could travel worry free!
I have an uncle who lived in Hawaii for almost 40 years! Then about 12 years ago, moved to New York City (Manhattan) for the lower cost of living.... Geez...I gotta get closer to family!! See if some will rub off on me!!
As for the 'nothing to do...' - well, there was a place in Dallas called Confetti's long, long, ago...and they had 'naughty nightie night' on Thursday's. On Greenville, somewhere near Lover's Lane. Never saw anything quite like that in Tulsa....
Quote from: DTowner on October 15, 2014, 11:53:13 AM
I agree the stated reason seems pretty flimsy. The North American headquarters of a tool company does not need to be next door to a construction project - is so, they need a lot of "headquarters" all over the country.
While the allure of Big-D probably played a role, don't underestimate the impact of Tulsa's limited number of direct flights out of the airport. It is simply hard and a hassle to get to Tulsa from the coasts and, in Hilti's case, from an European headquarters.
We have several companies locally that have been acquired in recent years by European companies like Siemens, ABB, Sercel and others. Skycam went to Ft Worth. Stanley already removed Bed Check.... I suspect some of them are possible candidates to move 'headquarters' to Texas, leaving branches here.
There are others - these just are near the surface since I have known and/or worked with people at each.
Now NORDAM turns around and says they are creating 300 jobs for an engine program:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/aerospace/nordam-announces-contract-that-will-eventually-bring-jobs-to-tulsa/article_be9ce4ea-6575-548f-8451-4c3e90a9860e.html
Quick rebound.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 15, 2014, 09:51:36 AM
I simply think those were words drafted by whomever handles PR for Hilti without much thought. In other words, it's just an excuse which sounds logical in a 250 word press release. I find it incomprehensible we don't have the talent pool they seek. At least the way I read it, I don't believe they are moving and hiring 250 new people because they can't find that talent in Tulsa. It sounds as if 250 Tulsans will be moving to Dallas. Did they say how many more jobs they will add to the HQ in Dallas?
Certainly it's understandable you want a great presence in a large construction market, but I really fail to see what moving your HQ does for you. It's not like contractors go to the "Hilti store" to purchase Hilti fasteners and it's not like you couldn't canvass the entire DFW market with 10-20 sales reps without picking up stakes and moving the HQ to Dallas.
I suspect it has to do with long term profitability objectives. Either they are being paid greenmail to move there or the overall taxation situation is more favorable to them.
My contribution to creating a deeper talent pool, or the image of having one, is we need to quit getting screwed by the state board of regents. We need a real four year public university program going instead of the cobbled-together system Tulsa has now.
We are doing the right things in creating and promoting our amenities to make Tulsa more attractive like BOK Center, Guthrie Green, new museums, The Gathering Place/Turkey Mountain/Riverparks. We have no shortage of options for dining and entertainment. The two last pieces of the puzzle in my mind are a four year public university in the urban core with affordable student housing situated nearby and a pedestrian-friendly village on the east side of downtown.
I agree with you for the most part. One thing that I do find that is still a negative for Tulsa is it's still stagnant downtown. Weekly, and I do mean weekly (and I am not really at the shop that often) I personally hear people who come into my shop from out of town say...
What's wrong with your downtown? (oddly enough have heard that exact phrasing multiple times)
Where is everyone?
Are there any more shops open? Where are the rest of the shops? (per retail, I think that DECOPOLIS is the only shop open late Thurs, Friday, and Saturday, other than Home Depot)
I need to get.... is there any place within walking distance where I can get it? (Usually the answer is no)
Person walks into the shop with a puzzled look on their face and says "Is there something going on? Where are all the people? I don't understand?"
Etc. etc. etc. over and over and over and over. It really starts to get frustrating and make you feel awful. This can't be good for our city. It can't be good for visiting business people, say in town to have a meeting with Hilti as an example. This can't be good for business recruitment, etc.
Sure there are people who are only familiar with suburban style stuff and could care less. But, for plenty of other people, the first and often only place they go is downtown, and they often of course go straight to the central core of it, and look around in utter puzzlement. I have had people get downright cranky at me and my employees while we are behind the desk trying to make excuses and apologize. You try and say things like "Things are getting better" "Well on Friday and Saturday nights in this and that district over in that part of downtown it is really busy" or "You should see First Fridays in the Brady Arts district, it get's so packed...". They just give you this disgusted look and walk off. Sometimes they say "Oh, great store by the way." "You should consider leaving and moving to____, you would do well there."
Quote from: TheArtist on October 15, 2014, 06:12:23 PM
Person walks into the shop with a puzzled look on their face and says "Is there something going on? Where are all the people? I don't understand?"
Reply by asking them how they got past all the barricades. There's a zombie movie shoot going on and it's a closed set. You'd like them to hurry up because it's disrupting your business.
Quote from: BKDotCom on October 15, 2014, 07:19:37 PM
Reply by asking them how they got past all the barricades. There's a zombie movie shoot going on and it's a closed set. You'd like them to hurry up because it's disrupting your business.
That could work, especially with the occasional mentally ill/drug addicted person stumbling by giving the story an air of authenticity.
If our "city fathers" were actually interested in doing something, they would go to Milwaukee to look around and talk with people/places/etc there! 600,000 population - about the same as the vaunted Oklahoma City. Light years beyond OKC. And sadly, Tulsa. Very bike friendly, pedestrian friendly, looks like fairly decent public transportation, and a fantastic "feel" to it....!! There are rough edges there, too, but downtown is ALWAYS hopping!!
Plus there appear to be some pro sports....Brewers? Whatever they are....basketball, baseball, or something.... and Bucks, Admirals, Wave.
And even though it is a chain - they have Rock Bottom!! Some serious beer there!
And in spite of their recent insanity with Scott Walker, there is just an attitude, even if it is Yankee, that seems to motivate overall much more than here.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 15, 2014, 09:51:36 AM
The two last pieces of the puzzle in my mind are a four year public university in the urban core with affordable student housing situated nearby and a pedestrian-friendly village on the east side of downtown.
We would still need a usable transit system, at least downtown. Numbers I have seen regarding catching a transit ride are that people are generally willing to walk 1/4 mi.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 15, 2014, 09:17:45 PM
If our "city fathers" were actually interested in doing something, they would go to Milwaukee to look around and talk with people/places/etc there! 600,000 population - about the same as the vaunted Oklahoma City. Light years beyond OKC. And sadly, Tulsa. Very bike friendly, pedestrian friendly, looks like fairly decent public transportation, and a fantastic "feel" to it....!! There are rough edges there, too, but downtown is ALWAYS hopping!!
Plus there appear to be some pro sports....Brewers? Whatever they are....basketball, baseball, or something.... and Bucks, Admirals, Wave.
And even though it is a chain - they have Rock Bottom!! Some serious beer there!
And in spite of their recent insanity with Scott Walker, there is just an attitude, even if it is Yankee, that seems to motivate overall much more than here.
I laud the city leaders for looking at Portland and wish that could eventually have some effect on our urban growth policies. A peer city though I think we could learn a lot from is Louisville. While the Arkansas is not the Ohio there are some comparisons and they have nice riverside parks like we do. They also have a large state university which helps drive growth. A big part of OKC's recent growth is from OU, both the university and the health sciences center. That is our missing piece in this puzzle. TU is a great university but so small, if it were more like TCU or Vanderbilt that would have a big effect.
Unfortunately I think not having non stop flights to Europe and other major markets plays a big role here.
I see that a lot of the thoughts you all have given are ones that I have thought of from I was living there, and things I have seen since I moved away. I always hoped that what is now OSU Tulsa would have become more after it was originally built, it just seems as more of an extension center (which was the original purpose IIRC) but wanted it to be more of a real campus. (Not knocking TU, and I am glad to see that TU has grown)
Tulsa has always had a lack of a real public transit system, I know that decades ago it was better and don't want to rehash that it's been covered numerous times. I think the biggest issue has been the lack of vision by the leaders, and a lot of it coincides with the "white flight" and the move out of downtown by retail, and by businesses, and the terrible loss of so many buildings over the years, and the whole "Who goes downtown anymore?" attitude of from the late '60s through the '90's. And it's really sad that for years no one tried to change things.
Other cities I have visited and lived in seemed to try and invest in the core of their DT during the lean times, and most had mass transit in mind and planned for transit in the future and improved on things as best they could.
Looking to Portland, Milwaukie, and other cities as models and ideas is great, but JMO Tulsa sat on it's collective donkey and watched businesses leave and just though "It's okay, we know someone will move in a fill the empty space."
Dallas started it's DT resurrection back in the mid to late 80's, Phoenix grew and shrank but continued to try and improve, Portland has gone through times similar to those two, but had already started things before, and has a lot in place that they kept improving on. The other thing about Portland is it is a seaport so it was not as affected as Dallas/Houston/Tulsa/OKC during the early 80's oil fallout. (Houston as a seaport helped them as well)
I think a lot of it goes back to short sightedness of the leaders of Tulsa. I am glad to see that DT is becoming something again, I used to go there in my teens and 20's, and remembered some of it's glory days, and always longed for life to come back to it. I though Main Mall and Williams Center Forum would be that starter back in the 70's.
Quote from: SXSW on October 16, 2014, 04:36:53 PM
Unfortunately I think not having non stop flights to Europe and other major markets plays a big role here.
While a great idea, the unfortunate thing about TIA is that there is not the volume of travelers to have nonstop flight to Europe. In Phoenix there is one flight out and one in on British Airways to Heathrow, KLM tried, but they could not compete with BA since the route was similar, and flying international out of Portland you wind up at Sea/Tac, Vancouver BC, San Francisco, LAX or Phoenix, and the sad thing is depending on how your flight is routed you could wind up in Salt Lake to get to LAX or SFO to get your connection. I won't even try to describe flying out from where I live.
Quote from: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 17, 2014, 02:03:35 AM
I see that a lot of the thoughts you all have given are ones that I have thought of from I was living there, and things I have seen since I moved away. I always hoped that what is now OSU Tulsa would have become more after it was originally built, it just seems as more of an extension center (which was the original purpose IIRC) but wanted it to be more of a real campus. (Not knocking TU, and I am glad to see that TU has grown)
Tulsa has always had a lack of a real public transit system, I know that decades ago it was better and don't want to rehash that it's been covered numerous times. I think the biggest issue has been the lack of vision by the leaders, and a lot of it coincides with the "white flight" and the move out of downtown by retail, and by businesses, and the terrible loss of so many buildings over the years, and the whole "Who goes downtown anymore?" attitude of from the late '60s through the '90's. And it's really sad that for years no one tried to change things.
Other cities I have visited and lived in seemed to try and invest in the core of their DT during the lean times, and most had mass transit in mind and planned for transit in the future and improved on things as best they could.
Looking to Portland, Milwaukie, and other cities as models and ideas is great, but JMO Tulsa sat on it's collective donkey and watched businesses leave and just though "It's okay, we know someone will move in a fill the empty space."
Dallas started it's DT resurrection back in the mid to late 80's, Phoenix grew and shrank but continued to try and improve, Portland has gone through times similar to those two, but had already started things before, and has a lot in place that they kept improving on. The other thing about Portland is it is a seaport so it was not as affected as Dallas/Houston/Tulsa/OKC during the early 80's oil fallout. (Houston as a seaport helped them as well)
I think a lot of it goes back to short sightedness of the leaders of Tulsa. I am glad to see that DT is becoming something again, I used to go there in my teens and 20's, and remembered some of it's glory days, and always longed for life to come back to it. I though Main Mall and Williams Center Forum would be that starter back in the 70's.
Many of the cities that have downtowns that have done well have pedestrian/transit friendly zoning in them.
The other day I got into a heated debates with one city person here at a meeting, almost got to yelling at each other lol. He was saying he was against any "government intrusion into trying to promote certain types of development" He said "look at the main mall and what the city tried to do there and it failed, cities all over the country tried it because it was the "fad" it was a complete failure and waste of money" as an example.
I said, "Not every cities main mall areas failed. Those that also put in pedestrian/transit friendly zoning ended up creating areas that succeeded and are still some of the most active and desirable areas of their cities even today" Putting in planters, fountains, trees, etc. with no zoning/direction to back it up, was yes, a waste of money.
Reminds me of this...
"Alice came to a fork in the road. 'Which road do I take?' she asked.
'That depends a good deal on where you want to go?' responded the Cheshire Cat.
'I don't much care where,' Alice responded.
'Then,' said the Cat, 'it doesn't matter which way you go."
"As long as it's somewhere" Alice added as explanation.
"Oh your sure to do that" said the cat.
Our downtown zoning says "I don't care much where,". Yet on the other hand put in planters and fountains etc. "hoping" to get to a certain place. But then get upset or frustrated when that "I don't care much where" direction/zoning did not take us anywhere we actually wanted to go.
Quote from: dbacksfan 2.0 on October 17, 2014, 02:25:26 AM
While a great idea, the unfortunate thing about TIA is that there is not the volume of travelers to have nonstop flight to Europe. In Phoenix there is one flight out and one in on British Airways to Heathrow, KLM tried, but they could not compete with BA since the route was similar, and flying international out of Portland you wind up at Sea/Tac, Vancouver BC, San Francisco, LAX or Phoenix, and the sad thing is depending on how your flight is routed you could wind up in Salt Lake to get to LAX or SFO to get your connection. I won't even try to describe flying out from where I live.
I understand TIA will likely never have flights to Europe, or a domestic hub operation of any kind. If something like that is important to a business then they will go where they have those options. Not saying this is the case with Hilti but could be considering the main HQ is in Europe. I actually knew a couple people growing up that were from Germany that moved to Tulsa to work for Hilti NA.
As for TIA, I think keeping the existing limited service we have is the first step. Losing Newark and Washington Dulles for the winter (hopefully returning in the spring) on UA and the downsizing of flights on Southwest to Denver, St Louis and Dallas because of the Wright Amendment ending are not steps in the right direction. Adding Charlotte is a good move though. Tulsa could do well with just being served by all of the major airlines with decent frequencies and even some mainline planes on certain routes. Adding San Francisco and Los Angeles on the west coast and getting a flight into NYC (either JFK or LGA) would have us pretty well covered. Regional flights to Kansas City, Austin and Nashville would be nice to have but Southwest would likely be the only one to offer those and we wouldn't be able to fill 737's to those non-hub cities. Increasing frequency to the most popular markets (Dallas, Houston, Denver, Chicago, Atlanta) would be great for business travelers who likely have to connect there anyway.
Quote from: SXSW on October 16, 2014, 04:36:53 PM
Unfortunately I think not having non stop flights to Europe and other major markets plays a big role here.
They've lived without that for how many years now? I'm sure it would help, but the real issue is probably exactly what they say it is, the dwindling talent pool as the young folks flee. It's fine now, but if you're looking to the future, things are looking pretty bleak. People are starting families later and later, and those who do have kids are increasingly likely to opt for a more urban lifestyle. 40some percent of millennials neither own a car nor want one. It will become increasingly hard to attract a diverse pool of talent unless something is done. Unfortunately, at present, the message we (I guess I should start saying you soon, since I'm presently sitting in Florida writing this post) are sending is that we are unwilling to change with the times.
People here on TNF are doing their damnedest to push to make Tulsa a better place, but our fellow citizens have made clear they don't want it. They want more Target in the suburbs. They want to throw away what makes Tulsa unique and turn it into Dallas or any of the other sprawl-monster cities. It would be one thing if there really was a push to let downtown, cherry street, and brookside be the urban(ish) centers they could be, but for whatever reason it seems that those in sprawlville can't brook any part of their fair city being different, so zoning makes it very difficult to achieve that goal outside the IDL. Even simple things that should be nonthreatening like FBC in a small portion of the city are rejected.
And then we get to the transit issue, which again the vast majority of Tulsans have made perfectly clear is not welcome except perhaps in theory. South Florida is by and large sprawl central, but somehow they manage to prioritize having decent (but by no means exceptional) bus service. Take a page from Denver's book. Quit bucking around and build. Oh, that's right, the direct benefit would be realized mostly by the poor. Can't have that. Never mind that companies need workers at all wage levels and it's less than helpful when those at the lower end of the distribution can't get to work on time due to unreliability of the system or are dead tired because of long travel times day in and day out.
Quote from: SXSW on October 16, 2014, 04:36:53 PM
I laud the city leaders for looking at Portland and wish that could eventually have some effect on our urban growth policies. A peer city though I think we could learn a lot from is Louisville. While the Arkansas is not the Ohio there are some comparisons and they have nice riverside parks like we do. They also have a large state university which helps drive growth. A big part of OKC's recent growth is from OU, both the university and the health sciences center. That is our missing piece in this puzzle. TU is a great university but so small, if it were more like TCU or Vanderbilt that would have a big effect.
Unfortunately I think not having non stop flights to Europe and other major markets plays a big role here.
I think they just wanted a little "walk on the wild side" by visiting Portland....the basic mind set is diametrically opposed to Tulsa (and Oklahoma), so there really is no way to compare/contrast/evaluate what might even be considered "similar" points....they are too different.
Louisville is a much better choice than Portland...even though has some fundamental differences, KY is much closer to us than the Portland section of the left coast. And they make baseball bats!!
Vanderbilt about 6,000 students. TU - about 3,500. And tuition at TU is $35,000 this year!!! Whew! Am so glad I went there back when it was cheap!!
I believe they took this group to Louisville several years ago.
Louisville has a large (22,000+ students) state university that has embraced an urban agenda as a needed counterpoint to the U of K. Tulsa has nothing remotely similar. OTOH, Vanderbilt U is in Nashville, home to a good many educational institutions but no large state universities. Nashville is not too shabby a role model IMO. All we have to do is steal the state capitol from OKC in the middle of the night. That plan rings a bell . . .
Portland has a very different vibe than Tulsa, but I think the same is true of most large cities. They became large cities for different reasons, but once there they were positioned to benefit from the new urbanism movement that has arisen over the past ten years or so. Credit has to be given to the political and economic leaders who had the vision and skill to get in on the leading edge of such trends. Compare Pittsburgh to Cleveland or Detroit. All three are rust belt cities that were in decline 30 years ago. Only Pittsburgh nimbly pivoted from being a dirty, slag-heap ridden manufacturing city to being a sparkling financial services/insurance city. It is now a coveted role model, while Detroit and to a lesser extent Cleveland are still looking for a way out.
The problem with Tulsa isn't that it isn't on the coast or in the mountains. It is that its citizens are slow to recognize the need to adapt and are excessively risk-averse. Whether Sauerkraut is a troll, a satirical performance artist, an interesting experiment in artificial intelligence (as odd as that seems), or a genuine, live, red-blooded tea-bagger, is beside the point. He unfortunately voices the sentiments of a great many people who don't hang out in the TNF, but who show up at the polls and vote. So while some Tulsans I know and work with are seeking a way of turning Tulsa into Portland or Pittsburgh, many Tulsans are satisfied with policies that will result in Tulsa becoming Muskogee. They don't seem to understand that in the real world there is no status quo, there is only progress and decline. For all of its conservatism, OKC seems to have grasped that and is making the investments in itself and taking risks on the chance that it may be able to move into the major city/destination category it so badly wants. The use of public investment to nurture private development is central to its efforts. Tulsa used to use public/private partnerships to good advantage, but the current city administration doesn't even know how to get out of its own way.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on October 19, 2014, 11:04:27 PM
I think they just wanted a little "walk on the wild side" by visiting Portland....the basic mind set is diametrically opposed to Tulsa (and Oklahoma), so there really is no way to compare/contrast/evaluate what might even be considered "similar" points....they are too different.
Louisville is a much better choice than Portland...even though has some fundamental differences, KY is much closer to us than the Portland section of the left coast. And they make baseball bats!!
Vanderbilt about 6,000 students. TU - about 3,500. And tuition at TU is $35,000 this year!!! Whew! Am so glad I went there back when it was cheap!!
Quote from: cynical on October 20, 2014, 01:47:28 PM
Louisville has a large (22,000+ students) state university that has embraced an urban agenda as a needed counterpoint to the U of K. Tulsa has nothing remotely similar. OTOH, Vanderbilt U is in Nashville, home to a good many educational institutions but no large state universities. Nashville is not too shabby a role model IMO. All we have to do is steal the state capitol from OKC in the middle of the night. That plan rings a bell . . .
Portland has a very different vibe than Tulsa, but I think the same is true of most large cities. They became large cities for different reasons, but once there they were positioned to benefit from the new urbanism movement that has arisen over the past ten years or so. Credit has to be given to the political and economic leaders who had the vision and skill to get in on the leading edge of such trends. Compare Pittsburgh to Cleveland or Detroit. All three are rust belt cities that were in decline 30 years ago. Only Pittsburgh nimbly pivoted from being a dirty, slag-heap ridden manufacturing city to being a sparkling financial services/insurance city. It is now a coveted role model, while Detroit and to a lesser extent Cleveland are still looking for a way out.
The problem with Tulsa isn't that it isn't on the coast or in the mountains. It is that its citizens are slow to recognize the need to adapt and are excessively risk-averse. Whether Sauerkraut is a troll, a satirical performance artist, an interesting experiment in artificial intelligence (as odd as that seems), or a genuine, live, red-blooded tea-bagger, is beside the point. He unfortunately voices the sentiments of a great many people who don't hang out in the TNF, but who show up at the polls and vote. So while some Tulsans I know and work with are seeking a way of turning Tulsa into Portland or Pittsburgh, many Tulsans are satisfied with policies that will result in Tulsa becoming Muskogee. They don't seem to understand that in the real world there is no status quo, there is only progress and decline. For all of its conservatism, OKC seems to have grasped that and is making the investments in itself and taking risks on the chance that it may be able to move into the major city/destination category it so badly wants. The use of public investment to nurture private development is central to its efforts. Tulsa used to use public/private partnerships to good advantage, but the current city administration doesn't even know how to get out of its own way.
Perhaps we need to seek out younger candidates for Mayor who appreciate new urbanism. Bartlet (sic) is old school Tulsa. He doesn't seem to embrace anything remotely progressive when it comes to development. Essentially, Plani-Tulsa was shelved from the moment he stumbled into office.
Taylor, on the other hand is a very visionary leader. She managed to ruffle a lot of feathers with her head-strong style. If she wanted something, it generally got done. So where would downtown be without the ball park? Where would it be without some of her close contemporaries, like George Kaiser?
I really hated the move of City Hall to OneTech at the time, but now that we are getting quality renewal with the A-Loft to help complete the convention area and we don't have all the deferred maintenance hanging over the city with that old building, I think that's been a winner as well.
Though not a Taylor project, since it was ushered in under LaFortune, can anyone imagine the transformation or viability of downtown without this venue? Well, I can think of a few people who still seem to think it was a net loss, but they no longer post here.
Quote from: cynical on October 20, 2014, 01:47:28 PM
The problem with Tulsa isn't that it isn't on the coast or in the mountains. It is that its citizens are slow to recognize the need to adapt and are excessively risk-averse. Whether Sauerkraut is a troll, a satirical performance artist, an interesting experiment in artificial intelligence (as odd as that seems), or a genuine, live, red-blooded tea-bagger, is beside the point. He unfortunately voices the sentiments of a great many people who don't hang out in the TNF, but who show up at the polls and vote. So while some Tulsans I know and work with are seeking a way of turning Tulsa into Portland or Pittsburgh, many Tulsans are satisfied with policies that will result in Tulsa becoming Muskogee. They don't seem to understand that in the real world there is no status quo, there is only progress and decline. For all of its conservatism, OKC seems to have grasped that and is making the investments in itself and taking risks on the chance that it may be able to move into the major city/destination category it so badly wants. The use of public investment to nurture private development is central to its efforts. Tulsa used to use public/private partnerships to good advantage, but the current city administration doesn't even know how to get out of its own way.
That is a good point. A large percentage of Tulsans across the political spectrum are very complacent about Tulsa and a vision for its future and future growth. I'm surprised at the number of times I've heard people say they don't want Tulsa to grow larger because they don't want it to become "too big." We seemed to shake off this slumbering attitude in the early 2000s when Tulsans finally realized that ugly old Oklahoma City was reinventing itself and blowing us out of the water. Sadly, with the BOK Center and Oneok Field now in place, many of those folks seem to think we've done all we need to do and have fallen back asleep. Those folks fail to grasp that cities are growing or they are dying.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 20, 2014, 02:11:15 PM
Taylor, on the other hand is a very visionary leader. She managed to ruffle a lot of feathers with her head-strong style. If she wanted something, it generally got done. So where would downtown be without the ball park? Where would it be without some of her close contemporaries, like George Kaiser?
Muskogee.
The Kathy Taylor history is one of my pet peeves. I have heard Republicans say for years "we need to run the city/state/country like a business." Were they serious? Has any business ever cut and slept its way to prosperity? Well, they got exactly what they had asked for with Taylor. She did what successful CEOs do - she set goals and then did what it took to achieve those goals, even carrying out her promise not to run for re-election in order to depoliticize the vote to establish the stadium improvement district. The Republicans on the council didn't much like any of it. I won't paint all Republicans with that brush, but there were councilors who only knew the word "no." They tormented Susan Savage, Bill LaFortune, Taylor, and Bartlett. Though I now believe that their attitude was motivated by pure malice, at the time I attributed it to a Tulsa condition in which people around here are better at telling why an idea won't work than at coming up with any ideas that do work. Taylor had the worst council of them all, and still got stuff done. Amazing.
The only thing that Bartlett has accomplished since taking office was to clear the council of the worst naysayers, though he also got rid of one or two who were correct in saying "no." He also attempted to pack the council with toadies but failed. Nonetheless, with a council in place that could have teamed with him to do good things, he went back to sleep. I don't think Bartlett is malicious. I think he's tired and misses his BBF, Terry Simonson.
Incidentally, while I was typing this, DTowner posted his reply using the same sleepy metaphor. I promise I'm not plagiarizing. It is just the description that fits best.
The irony is that of all Mayors from James Maxwell on, only Jim Inhofe had the same sort of single-minded drive to get it done no matter what. When the voters turned down his low water dam proposal, he worked the land swap with Lincoln Properties to get it done without the voters. Though he lost his mayoral reelection bid to the lowly Terry Young, because he is male, or because he is Republican, or because he is both, he was rewarded with a lifetime appointment to the US Senate. Maybe a similar reward awaits Taylor some day.
Quote from: cynical on October 20, 2014, 01:47:28 PM
The problem with Tulsa isn't that it isn't on the coast or in the mountains. It is that its citizens are slow to recognize the need to adapt and are excessively risk-averse. Whether Sauerkraut is a troll, a satirical performance artist, an interesting experiment in artificial intelligence (as odd as that seems), or a genuine, live, red-blooded tea-bagger, is beside the point. He unfortunately voices the sentiments of a great many people who don't hang out in the TNF, but who show up at the polls and vote. So while some Tulsans I know and work with are seeking a way of turning Tulsa into Portland or Pittsburgh, many Tulsans are satisfied with policies that will result in Tulsa becoming Muskogee. They don't seem to understand that in the real world there is no status quo, there is only progress and decline. For all of its conservatism, OKC seems to have grasped that and is making the investments in itself and taking risks on the chance that it may be able to move into the major city/destination category it so badly wants. The use of public investment to nurture private development is central to its efforts. Tulsa used to use public/private partnerships to good advantage, but the current city administration doesn't even know how to get out of its own way.
This goes to the revelations in recent years about how less educated tend to vote more conservatively - excessively risk averse.
sauer is absolutely voicing the sentiments of most of the people in the state - no doubt about that. That's how we keep the likes of Inhofe, Kern, Failin', Lankford, etc.
Sadly.
There have been a lot of good thoughts here, and a lot of them are similar to what I have thought for a long time, and mainly the biggest thing is that after the shift in the oil industry in the mid 80's, Tulsa just went to sleep. Oil business, and related industry like Seismegraph shrank or closed up, Telex had its tail handed to them by IBM and HP and just never seemed to catch up, which led to people going into technology fields left for Texas and TI, and silicon valley. Aviation held on until the contraction of the industry in the 90's and it became survival like Boeing, or by up and mergers like General Dynamics/Lockheed/Martin/Chance Vaught, McDonnell Douglas bought Bell who had bought Hughes, and then they were bought up by Boeing. It's sad to think of how many aviation companies there where just over 30 years ago.
Anyway, I wandered for a moment. The one visionary that I remember, and not for his accomplishments, but that his vision was not of this reality, Mayor Dick Crawford whose suggestion for traffic issues was to build double deck city streets, with fake sky painted on the under side of the upper deck so you would not feel enclosed.
It just seems that although there are great things going on, it going to take a major shift to get way from the myopic view the leadership has now. You can travel to other cities and "OOH! Look at that! We need that!" and getting back to Tulsa and it winds up in a file to not see the light of day again. Tulsa needs a vision, and people that can make it happen and doing it in a responsible manor to not overbuild and under deliver, or over deliver and under promise. It's not one big thing but putting together the smaller pieces in the right order. And most of you here know that so I may just be preaching to the choir.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 15, 2014, 02:12:25 PM
Now NORDAM turns around and says they are creating 300 jobs for an engine program:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/aerospace/nordam-announces-contract-that-will-eventually-bring-jobs-to-tulsa/article_be9ce4ea-6575-548f-8451-4c3e90a9860e.html
Quick rebound.
Apparently NORDAM did not read Artist's post back on page 1 of this thread.
Quote from: guido911 on October 22, 2014, 02:25:40 AM
Apparently NORDAM did not read Artist's post back on page 1 of this thread.
Oh, I am pretty sure they "read it/get it" as well, Just as I do.... and am still here working to expand my business as well. But have watched my brother move to Denver, one of my biggest clients/partners in the art industry move to Nashville, my biggest client move to OKC, my old business partner move to Austin, and many of my best friends move to the Dallas area, one to Portland. Didn't make any of those up. All of them are excited and thrilled about where they live and are always asking me to come visit and ask me why I am still here. I have deep roots here and perhaps I am just not the moving type, who knows. I also believe I can make a difference here.
Most people will complain that it's boring or there is nothing to do here, as a for instance. Also more and more want an urban lifestyle which I believe Tulsa could offer one day, and that many people find exciting and interesting. Then there are a smaller number of people that see that as an opportunity to "make it interesting or build something to do" to make things better, here. But I do not begrudge people simply going to where they can to enjoy the life they want now, versus working to build the life they want... and perhaps never seeing it. Many companies too will simply go where the action is, versus the much smaller handful that will stay with whatever little town or city they are in and try to create something special there.
Anyone who thinks Tulsa is boring or there is nothing to do here isn't trying very hard. I might have agreed with that assessment 20-25 years ago.
I do agree aspiring urbanites would be underwhelmed with Tulsa today and they will find more options elsewhere. However, look at the options which have sprung up in the last five years like GreenArch and the lofts in the Brady. Building an urban core takes time in the absence of a huge explosion of wealth like there was in the oil boom days. Give it another five or ten years and I suspect we will have a much more adequate housing inventory in the IDL for those who aspire to an urban lifestyle.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 22, 2014, 09:27:04 AM
Anyone who thinks Tulsa is boring or there is nothing to do here isn't trying very hard. I might have agreed with that assessment 20-25 years ago.
I do agree aspiring urbanites would be underwhelmed with Tulsa today and they will find more options elsewhere. However, look at the options which have sprung up in the last five years like GreenArch and the lofts in the Brady. Building an urban core takes time in the absence of a huge explosion of wealth like there was in the oil boom days. Give it another five or ten years and I suspect we will have a much more adequate housing inventory in the IDL for those who aspire to an urban lifestyle.
Every time I have stayed in a city where I didn't have to drive and where there was a nice amount of pedestrian friendly development, and then came back to Tulsa... well it's that perspective that I am talking about. I remember coming back from such a place once and then driving down 71st between Memorial and Mingo, an area here we might often think of as being "chock full of stuff" traffic, buildings, restaurants, shops, etc. but from my new perspective saw it as being cut your wrists depressingly isolating and boring. Didn't see anyone, everyone was in a car. There is more to see in a couple blocks of pedestrian friendly urbanity than miles of suburban sprawl. You feel alive in those places, not isolated and cut off in some vast, blah, emptiness.
Think of Main Street and the area around Blue Dome during Mayfest/Blue Dome Fest, or Cherry Street on a Farmers Market. Whats an exception here, with all the people and activity, live music, street vendors, art activities, etc. in many places is a normal, almost everyday occurrence, street after street, after street after street. Versus mostly street after street of strip malls with hardly a human in sight, and autos. Then on top of that the things we have like concerts, games, museums, parks, etc. There is an old saying in "urban circles" that if you have to have "festivals" and such to get your streets to be alive... your not doing it right. Also, a good street is one that, if your driving down it, you should feel awful that your not already out of your car and out there enjoying yourself with all the other people, or you should wish that your out of your car wishing you were walking down enjoying that beautiful space, that's what good streets are like. I get that feeling driving down parts of Brookside and Cherry Street, and down Boston Ave.
It's also not just about having more housing in the IDL, though that will indeed help. Dallas has more high-rise housing for example than we have by far, but I would dare say that we have almost as much good, pedestrian friendly urbanity as they do and I think we can actually, quite easily have a far better balance of urban/suburban living quicker than they will. Brady Arts-Blue Dome, Cherry Street & Brookside... versus their "Uptown" I think we can give them a good run for their money. And they are a whole lot bigger and faster growing than we are. But, it's just that kind of example that wets ones appetite to want to try to really take it up to the next level and show em all how it's really done. And we so have the potential to do it if we could only make a few minor changes, and or at least keep putting that dream out there so other developers "get it", and pushing for it ourselves.
Quote from: TheArtist on October 22, 2014, 05:25:24 PM
It's also not just about having more housing in the IDL, though that will indeed help. Dallas has more high-rise housing for example than we have by far, but I would dare say that we have almost as much good, pedestrian friendly urbanity as they do and I think we can actually, quite easily have a far better balance of urban/suburban living quicker than they will. Brady Arts-Blue Dome, Cherry Street & Brookside... versus their "Uptown" I think we can give them a good run for their money. And they are a whole lot bigger and faster growing than we are. But, it's just that kind of example that wets ones appetite to want to try to really take it up to the next level and show em all how it's really done. And we so have the potential to do it if we could only make a few minor changes, and or at least keep putting that dream out there so other developers "get it", and pushing for it ourselves.
I couldn't agree more. MC and I generally tend to gravitate toward places when we travel where we can park and walk. I try to avoid soul-sucking places like 71st & Hell at all cost. Unfortunately, there's simply times it cannot be avoided.