I watched in shock half an hour ago as a commercial for "South County Tulsa" came on the air.
For those like myself who are/were wondering what South County Tulsa is, it appears to be a concerted effort by Bixby, Jenks and Glenpool to oust the city of Tulsa from the area completely.
On the website (http://www.southcountytulsa.com (//%22http://www.southcountytulsa.com%22)), Tulsa is presented as merely an afterthought to the grand, immaculate communities of South County [V]. Even the name of the place has things backward... Those communities are located in South
Tulsa County, not South County Tulsa.
quote:
South County is a community that encompasses the fast-growing cities of Jenks, Bixby, and Glenpool.
Yes, South County offers a tremendous diversity of recreation, entertainment, shopping, and housing. More important, it offers a sense of community, a sense of pride, and a sense of excitement like no other place in Oklahoma.
There's no place like South County.
quote:
Only minutes away from the quiet suburbs of South County lies Tulsa, home of world-class museums and theater companies, historic buildings and music venues, wonderful parks and golf courses, an international airport, movie theaters, shopping and services galore, professional sports teams, The University of Tulsa and other renowned higher-education institutions, and numerous annual community events such as International Mayfest, Oktoberfest (one of the largest in the world), the Tulsa State Fair, and The Tulsa Run...
I'm pretty sure that statement has it completely wrong.
Tulsa isn't minutes away from the suburbs--the
suburbs are minutes away from
Tulsa.
Though the website has some decent photography, I'm pretty disgusted at the whole notion.
I think the people behind this are about 30 or more years behind the whole idea of suburbs being the 'in' place to be.
It's vision 2025 at work.....you didn't see this coming when you voted for the arena?
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
It's vision 2025 at work.....you didn't see this coming when you voted for the arena?
Could you explain how this is Vision2025???
I'm not really making a connection.
We handed the reins over to the county chieftons. They deserted us after they got their take.....
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
quote:
Originally posted by aoxamaxoa
It's vision 2025 at work.....you didn't see this coming when you voted for the arena?
Could you explain how this is Vision2025???
I'm not really making a connection.
I think that roughly translates to "they pissed enough people off by pushing things like an arena through now watch what the rich folks do in response."
Somewhat like how Southern Hills was founded...which I heard was in several respects a protest to shenanigans going on at Tulsa Country Club. People couldn't get the club to play ball, so to speak, so they said screw you and got Phillips to donate the land for SHCC... IOW, they moved south just for spite.
quote:
There's no place like South County.
Except Ankeny/Johnston (Des Moines Suburbs), Park City/Kechi or Derby (Wichita), Elk Horn/La Vista/Papillion (Omaha)... shall I go on? There are plenty of suburbs around mid sized cities that offer new McMansions in not-so-cleverly named subdivisions with strip malls between them, shiny new schools, and farm fields waiting to be converted.
Does Jenks, Bixby or Glennpool offer anything that any of the subdivisions in KC, St. Louis, Dallas, or any other metro area Tulsa size or larger doesn't offer? Do any of them have a unique character, architecture, or history? Standing alone, are any of them even on the map?
No. And that's why I chose to live as close to the heart of the city as I can. No matter what city it is you may as well experience it as best you can. The suburbs of Tulsa could just as well be the suburbs anywhere else in the nation.
Not to take away from what they offer. They are peaceful, quit, and only 10 minutes away from everything Tulsa has to offer. They are the ideals of Anytown USA. But I don't want to live in AnyTown USA, I want to live in Tulsa.
Nice website though.
CF, Please use another name than Anytown USA. I believe when we use Anytown USA it refers to the educational program to teach young people about tolerance sponsored by the old NCCJ which is now the OCCJ.
Its also a movie, a camp, and about 1000 other things. Its generic nature is what made it useful in my little soliloquy. John Q doesn't refer to the movie, nor does John Doe necessarily refer to a dead person. Its not my fault placeholder names have been hijacked by others who want instant branding.
Leave my vernacular alone!
They forgot something in the video with the chairs and such flying through the air, leaving Tulsa and going south. They forgot to put Drillers Stadium sweetly, gently, flying through the air and landing in some pretty green field out there. [:P]
I know it may not be the proper response. But every time I see that video I cant help but fall out of my chair in laughter. lol
That's a pretty field. Have they plopped a subdivision on it yet?
^First, they had to get rid of all those pesky trees. Here is a more recent picture:
(http://lincoln.slc.k12.ut.us/pt3lincoln/dalton/landfillalbum/images/bulldozer2_jpg.jpg)
I find it ironic that the images they are using to lure people out south is the very thing that will be destroyed once the subdivisions move in. Kind of like saying: "look what you can destroy--beautiful country side."
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
^First, they had to get rid of all those pesky trees. Here is a more recent picture:
(http://lincoln.slc.k12.ut.us/pt3lincoln/dalton/landfillalbum/images/bulldozer2_jpg.jpg)
I find it ironic that the images they are using to lure people out south is the very thing that will be destroyed once the subdivisions move in. Kind of like saying: "look what you can destroy--beautiful country side."
Wind River doesn't look destroyed. The destruction argument has always fallen short. Land leveling has to be done no matter where you build.
quote:
Originally posted by DScott28604
I watched in shock half an hour ago as a commercial for "South County Tulsa" came on the air.
For those like myself who are/were wondering what South County Tulsa is, it appears to be a concerted effort by Bixby, Jenks and Glenpool to oust the city of Tulsa from the area completely.
On the website (http://www.southcountytulsa.com (//%22http://www.southcountytulsa.com%22)), Tulsa is presented as merely an afterthought to the grand, immaculate communities of South County [V]. Even the name of the place has things backward... Those communities are located in South Tulsa County, not South County Tulsa.
quote:
South County is a community that encompasses the fast-growing cities of Jenks, Bixby, and Glenpool.
Yes, South County offers a tremendous diversity of recreation, entertainment, shopping, and housing. More important, it offers a sense of community, a sense of pride, and a sense of excitement like no other place in Oklahoma.
There's no place like South County.
quote:
Only minutes away from the quiet suburbs of South County lies Tulsa, home of world-class museums and theater companies, historic buildings and music venues, wonderful parks and golf courses, an international airport, movie theaters, shopping and services galore, professional sports teams, The University of Tulsa and other renowned higher-education institutions, and numerous annual community events such as International Mayfest, Oktoberfest (one of the largest in the world), the Tulsa State Fair, and The Tulsa Run...
I'm pretty sure that statement has it completely wrong. Tulsa isn't minutes away from the suburbs--the suburbs are minutes away from Tulsa.
Though the website has some decent photography, I'm pretty disgusted at the whole notion.
I think the people behind this are about 30 or more years behind the whole idea of suburbs being the 'in' place to be.
I'm glad it disgusts you. I'm glad all the midtown/downtown zealots are waking up and realizing they aren't the center of the universe anymore.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
I'm glad it disgusts you. I'm glad all the midtown/downtown zealots are waking up and realizing they aren't the center of the universe anymore.
I would consider myself neither a midtown nor downtown zealot... In fact, I wouldn't consider anyone on here as a zealot, a.k.a. militant. The southern suburbs are more militant than anyone in midtown could be accused of.
quote:
Originally posted by intellerWind River doesn't look destroyed. The destruction argument has always fallen short. Land leveling has to be done no matter where you build.
Some builders do a much better job at preserving old growth trees than others. Your second point--that land leveling has to be done--is exactly the same as my point. People have a right to live where they want. I just wish people would be more thoughtful about the affects of their choices. There is land that has already been developed within the city limits where people could live. To destroy undeveloped land--some of it prime agricultural--simply based upon this fantasy of bucolic bliss is irresponsible. If we continue to build according to current thinking, that scenic woodsy view will be nothing but strip malls and gated houses one of these days. Then the builders will entice homeowners further out into undeveloped land. Its a never ending quest that is designed to keep homebuilders in business. Don't get me wrong--I don't believe that we should stop building houses. My question is simply are we using are land wisely? Or are we simply looking for a quick profit feeding off of people's unattainable vision of a home?
That's it, I'm feeding hipno frog to my son's snake. Wow, now that I actually typed that out, it sounds horribly perverted. My son actually has a pretty large lizard. Damnit, that didnt help. I'll feed your frog avatar to my son's garter snake. I think that works. I give up.
- - - - -
Development does not have to start with leveling terrain. Look at the area near Gilcrease. Bulldozing everything and starting over is cheaper and faster than trying to build WITH the terrain. It also yields more generic spaces that often lack character for 20 years or more.
Not saying it shouldn't be allowed, just not my cup of tea. I wish Tulsa had area's like Dubuque, IA where the terrain was such you HAD to build around it. Always leads to interesting architecture and neighborhoods.
South County is the next in the "Sea of Sameness" or "Hey my neighborhood looks just like yours!"
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by intellerWind River doesn't look destroyed. The destruction argument has always fallen short. Land leveling has to be done no matter where you build.
There is land that has already been developed within the city limits where people could live.
all of the DESIREABLE developed land in Tulsa dried up years ago.
If you ever watch that McGraw show on Sunday morning you'll see some big wig with Simmons homes talking about some development in "South County" and I was just as in shock as you.. especially when he had the balls to say that Tulsa is moving south. Here's a reality check guys, Jenks/Bixby/Broken Arrow have nothing ..NOTHING in the way of industry that can support their city alone. They all have 5 bazillion people that live there but work in Tulsa. Why? Because Simmons and the rest of the home builder cartel makes cookie cutter homes that are worth less than the dirt that they flattened to put them on. The only reason people move out there is because the ratio of new home construction within the city of Tulsa is much lower than outside where there is plenty of beautiful land to mow down.
quote:
Originally posted by izmophonik
If you ever watch that McGraw show on Sunday morning you'll see some big wig with Simmons homes talking about some development in "South County" and I was just as in shock as you.. especially when he had the balls to say that Tulsa is moving south. Here's a reality check guys, Jenks/Bixby/Broken Arrow have nothing ..NOTHING in the way of industry that can support their city alone. They all have 5 bazillion people that live there but work in Tulsa. Why? Because Simmons and the rest of the home builder cartel makes cookie cutter homes that are worth less than the dirt that they flattened to put them on. The only reason people move out there is because the ratio of new home construction within the city of Tulsa is much lower than outside where there is plenty of beautiful land to mow down.
omg you guys are cracking me up! bwahahahahaha this is hilarious. an outsider would think that they only build "cookie cutter" homes in the suburbs and all the homes inside tulsa are these custom built masterpieces...[}:)] you want cookie cutter? Go to frickin Lortondale you rube! That might as well be the birth place of "cookie cutter". And beautiful land to mow down? Like Tulsa has never done that![}:)] Pot, meet kettle.
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said all homes in Tulsa are masterpieces. You just did though and that is not true. I'm just making a point that happens to be true which is: All new homes in the 3 cities I mentioned are cookie cutters and a 3 cities cannot survive on thier own because they have a population that is 5X the workforce since most of the population works in Tulsa. Stop overreacting.
Inteller, are you just upset that $125.00 sq/ft. is the starting rate in Swan Lake and I got in at $75 a foot? (Multiply $50 x 2,500 and see how much equity I have) Or is is because your house might break even because there are 5 other neighborhoods around you that 25% of the buyers used the same floor plan as you in a neighborhood with no shopping, no entertainment, no night clubs??...Welcome to Suburbia. Enjoy. :-)
quote:
Originally posted by izmophonik
Inteller, are you just upset that $125.00 sq/ft. is the starting rate in Swan Lake and I got in at $75 a foot? (Multiply $50 x 2,500 and see how much equity I have) Or is is because your house might break even because there are 5 other neighborhoods around you that 25% of the buyers used the same floor plan as you in a neighborhood with no shopping, no entertainment, no night clubs??...Welcome to Suburbia. Enjoy. :-)
upset? haha no I'm laughing my donkey off. Last time I checked Jenks was preparing to GET the Drillers, not lose them. You can have your narrow streets and failing infrastructure. But you better watch out, cause according to the commercial all your furniture is going to move to SOuth COunty....or as I'll start calling it SOCO.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
omg you guys are cracking me up! bwahahahahaha this is hilarious. an outsider would think that they only build "cookie cutter" homes in the suburbs and all the homes inside tulsa are these custom built masterpieces...[}:)] you want cookie cutter? Go to frickin Lortondale you rube! That might as well be the birth place of "cookie cutter". And beautiful land to mow down? Like Tulsa has never done that![}:)] Pot, meet kettle.
Actually...that was pretty darn funny.[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by izmophonik
...the home builder cartel makes cookie cutter homes that are worth less than the dirt that they flattened to put them on.
Zing!
I've been here for a few years and some things never change. People who moan and groan about the suburbs. Well get over it. I'm tired of hearing about how crappy Bixby, Glenpool and Owasso are. Also how some of you want to see those communities blown off the face of the earth and have your treasured downtown back.
The only reason we have the above mentioned communities is due to the success of Tulsa. I don't see separate communities. I see it as one city. You'll have those who complain endlessly about the North Side. Then you have those complain about downtown. Then there is whining about the south side. Some people need to get over it. Things are changing and some here will have to adjust and adapt to that change or perhaps they need to move just to save their sanity.
I have seen constructive criticism and then obtuse behavior towards anything developed south of 41st St. A lot of people live in the outlying communities such as myself. It gets real old hearing how some here act holier than thou because of Tulsa's beloved past. Well you need to get over yourselves. Yes I agree that without Tulsa, there wouldn't be these communities like I said. However, change is change. You either adapt or move on. I am all for building the Northside and downtown. You won't see me putting down the folks who live in the Northside or live downtown. The area's not for me but it is for some people. Without all of us being spread out, there wouldnt be a NORTH-EAST-SOUTH-WESTside at all.
If downtown gets a better looking Walmart than the one built by me, then good for those downtown. But Im not going to treat others like we are separate countries. The only thing anyone can do is speak their mind in meetings and vote accordingly. Otherwise eat some Lexapro.
[:P]
I'd just like to point out that Inteller called someone a "rube." I think I am more in line with izmophonik's thought on this, but Inteller, that was funny. An under utilized word to be sure.
You make a good point. I am willing to bet those areas that are now being developed would still be being developed if that land was in Tulsa. People arent moving over there just because its Jenks or Bixby. Its developing that way because thats the direction Tulsa has been developing and Tulsa has simply run out of room in that direction and the development has spilled over. Don't say its because of the schools, those schools would mostly be the same regardless of whether they were in Tulsa or not because of the demographics.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
You make a good point. I am willing to bet those areas that are now being developed would still be being developed if that land was in Tulsa. People arent moving over there just because its Jenks or Bixby. Its developing that way because thats the direction Tulsa has been developing and Tulsa has simply run out of room in that direction and the development has spilled over. Don't say its because of the schools, those schools would mostly be the same regardless of whether they were in Tulsa or not because of the demographics.
You don't want us to say it's because of the schools. But hasn't development occurred in that direction primarily because of the schools, i.e., to avoid Tulsa Public Schools?
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
I've been here for a few years and some things never change. People who moan and groan about the suburbs. Well get over it. I'm tired of hearing about how crappy Bixby, Glenpool and Owasso are. Also how some of you want to see those communities blown off the face of the earth and have your treasured downtown back.
The only reason we have the above mentioned communities is due to the success of Tulsa. I don't see separate communities. I see it as one city. You'll have those who complain endlessly about the North Side. Then you have those complain about downtown. Then there is whining about the south side. Some people need to get over it. Things are changing and some here will have to adjust and adapt to that change or perhaps they need to move just to save their sanity.
I have seen constructive criticism and then obtuse behavior towards anything developed south of 41st St. A lot of people live in the outlying communities such as myself. It gets real old hearing how some here act holier than thou because of Tulsa's beloved past. Well you need to get over yourselves. Yes I agree that without Tulsa, there wouldn't be these communities like I said. However, change is change. You either adapt or move on. I am all for building the Northside and downtown. You won't see me putting down the folks who live in the Northside or live downtown. The area's not for me but it is for some people. Without all of us being spread out, there wouldnt be a NORTH-EAST-SOUTH-WESTside at all.
If downtown gets a better looking Walmart than the one built by me, then good for those downtown. But Im not going to treat others like we are separate countries. The only thing anyone can do is speak their mind in meetings and vote accordingly. Otherwise eat some Lexapro.
[:P]
Yep, Rowdy. You have an excellent point, the region is tied together more than people want to admit. But it's the "South County" folks who have an identity crisis. Why are they trying to disassociate themselves from Tulsa?
The Mayor of Louisville, Jerry Abramson, once said, "You can't be a suburb of nowhere." But this is much more than an effort to create an "identity" out of a suburban template. It's about money. These "South County" communities are filled with people who use Tulsa everyday: they have jobs in Tulsa; they drive the streets in Tulsa, they drink water secured and cleaned by Tulsa; they flush using pipes that feed into Tulsa; they can drive a short distance to big hospitals, shopping centers, and first-class restaurants. Tulsa literally financed their growth over the decades through the TMUA. And on every level, without Tulsa, they'd be no-place. Tulsa's been an excellent neighbor for decades, but now Tulsa's stressed. It's time to pull together, but instead, they ratchet up the pressure. Threatening to buy water from some dumb creek out east, excluding poor populations, and throwing up oversized supercenters to "funnel" (siphon) people headed to Tulsa.
Everybody knows that if Tulsa loses, they lose too. And everybody knows that cities aren't private companies. Cities are there to serve the public good, not to kill the competition. Is Tulsa entitled to more than it's fair share...heck, no. But Tulsa is not a "freebie" for these guys, either. "One big city" is a nice idea, one big happy family is the way it should be. But right now, the kids are shopping for a nursing home...and that ain't right. If they aren't careful, they could get written out of the will.
I would like to point out that the cities don't have anything to do with this, this is a group of developers.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
I would like to point out that the cities don't have anything to do with this, this is a group of developers.
Noted. But, out there in the booming suburbs, I think the lines of separation between developers and government are blurry at best. I think the motives and strategies are very similar.
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
You make a good point. I am willing to bet those areas that are now being developed would still be being developed if that land was in Tulsa. People arent moving over there just because its Jenks or Bixby. Its developing that way because thats the direction Tulsa has been developing and Tulsa has simply run out of room in that direction and the development has spilled over. Don't say its because of the schools, those schools would mostly be the same regardless of whether they were in Tulsa or not because of the demographics.
You don't want us to say it's because of the schools. But hasn't development occurred in that direction primarily because of the schools, i.e., to avoid Tulsa Public Schools?
I dont think so. Those schools reflected the community they are in. The community would be no different, small town rural with an ever growing cadre of middle and upper middle class people and their kids. There was nothing wrong with the facilities of the Tulsa schools I went to, nothing wrong with the teachers per say. It was the type of students that made the school crappy. The teachers werent the ones slashing tires, beating up other students, smoking pot in the bathrooms, having no concern for learning, not having parents that didnt care or werent capable enough to make their kids grow up properly, etc. etc. it was the students. (and that was my grade school lol) As the demographics shift and become lousy in one area and better and wealthier in another, those upper middle class people are going to head to the better areas with the better demographics knowing their kids will more likely be with others like themselves.
Both of my sisters have moved, one out south and the other to BA. One sister told me that she liked mid-town and hoped to move back some day. She said she liked the school and the teachers, but honestly she didnt want her kids being around the kids that were in the school they were going to. They also wanted a larger house and the area of town they lived in had mostly small ones and the nice larger homes in mid-town are way outside their price range. So...out to the suburbs they go. The other reason they mentioned moving is that they wanted a neighborhood where they could feel that their kids were safe playing in the streets.
I drive through those South Tulsa neighborhoods all the time. Often you will see lots of kids out playing. And you will always see at least a few parents out as well keeping an eye on them. If you even dare drive a bit too fast they will in no uncertain terms let you know that you need to slow down. Trust me lol. Even if there arent any kids out those people really keep an eye out on who is going down the street and in and out of their neighborhoods. And they will watch you like a hawk. That is very different than what you will find in the typical mid town, east or west Tulsa, older neighborhood. Except for the very nicest ones in the wealthy parts.
Its just demographics. Even some of the older nieghborhoods in the suburbs like the ones I grew up in during the late 70s and early 80s are, well nasty now and the young people with families are moving to the new neighborhoods not those older ones.
More and more people are starting to move to Glenpool. Is it because people have suddenly determined that the schools there are better? Or is it just because the newer neighborhoods are being built ever more in that direction?
Demographics shift. People like being around others like themselves. Young people often want to live in new homes with their families.
If your a young couple you often start out in a cheap small older home in parts of Tulsa. But then when you get kids, are starting to make a bit more money, and want something larger. Why pay the same amount or more for an older home in an iffy, "out of style", neighborhood with linoleum counter tops, crappy tile and carpet, etc. when you can go live in a shiny new neighborhood and get your 2story entry and granite counter tops, etc? Plus you know that there are other people like yourself and your kids in that neighborhood. And the schools reflect the same demographic shift.
It's nice to think we can grow to be one big city together but all that gets washed away every time the local news cuts to an interview from the mayor of Broken Arrow saying that the river developement would not help Broken Arrow and go on to whine about how many police, fire etc.. he could hire with "that kind of money". that isn't seperatist? OR what about the Jenks Mayor with a half grin saying "After all, the Dallas Cowboys aren't in Dallas" after he was questioned about a possible Drillers move. Seperatist? Opportunist? At least I didn't mention Owasso in my original post because the Mayor actually said that without Tulsa, Owasso cannot thrive. With that comment he indicated that he understands the economics of the situation and therefore backs river development and is willing to join Tulsa idealogically in its growth whatever it may be.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by Oil Capital
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
The schools would be the same
No way, people flee TPS
War and Peace
They absolutely go for the school district. If Union were a part of TPS, those schools would not "reflect the area" nearly as much as you think they would, because, as a part of TPS as a whole, their higher average per capita income and higher retail/restraunt tax income per capita would be dispersed evenly throughout TPS. You actually think TPS would spend 3x as much on a school in what is now Union, than it would on East Central or Mcclain? Just to fit the neighborhood of course.
No. That is why suburbanites flee to suburban school districts. That way their increased per capita incomes (by excluding the poor inner city) and willingness to pass new bond issues (by having a higher percentage of people raising families who care about schools) result in schools with multiple times the money and resources of those in the inner city.
I am not a TPS hater, but I think most people have a bad perception of TPS and decide where to live based on school district. It doesnt matter if the land is in the City of Tulsa, so long as it has an "exclusive" school district with a rich tax base.
I suppose we are just looking at things on different time scales for one thing. People werent always flocking to the suburbs. I remember when some Tulsa schools were new and in new neighborhoods and the young families were moving to those new neighborhoods. They were Tulsa schools, people werent moving to Jenks and Union then. Why werent they?
They were going to those places in Tulsa because that is were the new homes were and their cohorts were moving there as well.
There arent any new homes in those areas now. The neighborhoods dont have as many children. The demographics have changed in many ways. The young families arent moving to those areas but are moving to the next area of new neighborhoods.
Jenks and Union werent always desirable school districts.
Is Glenpool a desirable school district? Is it better than Jenks? But you just watch it will start to grow and attract more people because the development is going in that direction. Not because the schools are somehow superior.
Why is Bixby growing so much faster than Sand Springs? If its about the schools?
If it were mainly about schools, everyone would be flocking to live near Booker T Washington. There are indeed some very bad schools in Tulsa but there are some very good ones as well. Including some elementary and middle schools that consistently blow Jenks, Bixby and the other suburbs away in their rankings. If its about the funds and all the funds are distributed equally to all TPS, why the disparity? And why arent people flocking to move near those great schools?
Sure the schools play a big part, but you almost cant extract the change that comes from people wanting new homes. If large influx of people wanting new homes move into an area, those people are most likely young and have kids and those "upwardly mobile" middle to upper middle class people will have kids that do better. The schools will be newer and get newer things, etc. It happened before IN Tulsa. Those schools were better that were nearer the new homes. They were still all in Tulsa. Those schools, if there were any in that area, may not have been any better initally, but because new neighborhoods cropped up and those demographics moved in, the schools got better. Just watch over the next 10 years as the schools in Glenpool get better. As BA gets larger, older, and has more schools, watch as schools in the older parts of BA get worse and the schools in the newer areas get better.
http://sde.state.ok.us/test/API/api20061107.pdf
good discussion. Let me add something as a former real estate agent who participated in the sales of homes to the burbs back in the seventies.
Real estate agents are like car salesmen, with the same integrity, yet they occupy the number one public relations position in the city. When asked direct questions that can't be asked on a forum or job interview such as related to race, crime, poverty, schools etc. they gleefully reply with the most common and racist of views. Those replies are viewed by the buyer as frank and insightful instead of greedy and self-serving.
They generally reply with what makes them the most commission and both those replies direct new home buyers to the burbs and new construction. Point in fact much of the new homes then were being built in old school districts that had terrible reputations for success. The builders and banks pay the freight for the real estate industry. Don't think for a moment that it is consumer driven anymore than GM listens.
When it comes to school districts they are pretty much like the number of br's, the size of the garage or inground vs above ground swimming pool. Conformity. Conformity yields re-sale value. If its above $300k you can't have too many br's or garage space. If its below $200k it better be 3br/2car, 4br are hard to move as well as swimming pools. And at any price the school district must be respected. TPS is not a deficit per se as it has a pecking order too (BTW, Edison, Eisenhower etc. at the top) and with open transfer not as restrictive as you think. The over $300k families aren't even considering public schools so it doesn't matter where they build which is one reason for the infill movement.
Just thought you would like some input from someone who came over from the dark side.
South County reminds me of Agrestic(replete with the accompanying hypocrisy) in the show Weeds. Little houses on the hilltop, little houses made of ticky tacky...
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by intellerWind River doesn't look destroyed. The destruction argument has always fallen short. Land leveling has to be done no matter where you build.
There is land that has already been developed within the city limits where people could live.
all of the DESIREABLE developed land in Tulsa dried up years ago.
That is probably the best comment to sum up why people are moving out into the suburbs instead of into Tulsa. People love to live in a fresh house and are proud to say that they are the first to live in it. And yes, the suburbs are quiet, peaceful, and relaxing. Suburb-minded individuals really do think that "Tulsa is minutes away from the suburbs" and not the other way around. The suburb-minded are not conservatives and only come to the city when they have to, when they want to spend their money, to attend events, and to work. All the city commotion is nonexistant. And I wouldn't say that they falsely advertised any of those suburbs. I frequent each one and that's as realistic of a depiction as you can get.
Makes one wonder that with all this development on the other side of the river, why so many Tulsan's are opposed to the convenience a new south Tulsa bridge would offer to its users. Such a bridge would ease and facilite commutes through the largest unbridged gap south of downtown (7+ mile gap).