Oklahoma: Tulsa vs OKC

>>1270387
Did a similar drive OP, there are two parts to oklahoma. OKC and not OKC, it's a really really boring drive.

>>1270388
I don't know much about Oklahoma, but I have heard from a few people it's boring. I just wanna make lemons out of lemonade. It can't be all that bad. Which city is less flat or has more nature close by? (relatively speaking)

I'm boring ass midwest rustbelt born and raised, so I guess a better question is which city would be the most different for me?

>>1270394
Drove from coast to coast and I would say go for OKC, tulsa is closer to nature I guess but also close to some private Indian lands you really can't go on. Personally I'd rather go somewhere I know I won't run out of things to do.

File: 122252321321.jpg (633KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

633KB, 1200x800px

Go through OKC. Even though there isn't much in it it still has "more" Stuff to do and see than Tulsa. Both cities are just old oil boom towns that never left. Western part of Oklahoma is rolling plains and prairie. Eastern part is more forest like. OKC tries to be trendy buy having brick town and the paseo arts district but no one other than wanna be hipsters go to those places. Night life consist nothing but bars and strip clubs with the exception of a few night clubs. If you are in OKC the north side closer to Warr Acers/NW Express Way/ Edmond is better than that of the south side as in better shops.

>>1270387
Tulsa is better. OKC is pretty much a giant spread-out suburb.

Tulsa's downtown has decent nightlife in the Brady District and Blue Dome District. Very driveable city, plus lots of forested & hilly areas.

Closer to lakes & forests, some good camping and hiking spots. OKC area is pretty much just plains.