^

Right, a decent step for the LGBT scene in OKC would be to do a much better job with the strip on 39th west of Penn.

It's still a relic of the old days where the industrial appearance and discrete signage was all part of not wanting to draw attention to themselves due to social pressures.

In other words, we have a long, long way to go in this area as compared to most cities, let alone the cities like Dallas that have an amazing situation.

When you consider how socially conservative Oklahoma still is today, I can only imagine what it was like 40 or so years ago when 39th St probably got started (just guessing). When you think about the history, its very understandable that 39th St is the way it is. Do you think OKC is ready for LGBT-oriented nightlife somewhere other than 39th? Would something like a gay bar in the Paseo or the Plaza district work? A lot of cities the size of OKC don't have gay ghettos but have the nightlife scattered through districts everyone frequents.


Hey we finally got some sidewalks and a crosswalk on 39th.. thats progress..lol Id love to see some more life in the area during the day, and clean up the appearance. some large landscaping pots with trees down the side or something. its a small district but could be very nice with the right investment.

I think part of 39th St's issue is that the focal point is a motel that there pretty much isn't any way to fix. Other than that though, I think the area could be very nice with some investment. It would be nice to see new development there as well, maybe a mixed-use project of some kind. Getting some residential in that area would help support businesses and street life during the daytime as well as at night. Probably isn't going to happen, but it would go a long way toward improving the area.

This keeps getting repeated, however we have nonstop service on major network carriers to:

Atlanta
Baltimore
Charlotte
Chicago (ORD and MDW)
Dallas (DFW and DAL)
Denver
Detroit
Houston (HOU and IAH)
St Louis
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
Minneapolis
New York (Newark)
Phoenix
Salt Lake City
San Francisco
Seattle
Washington DC (Dulles)

If you are an outstation such as OKC, that's a very healthy offering.

Not enough people use OKC to warrant additional flights beyond what we have. In the future I could see Southwest add Austin, jetBlue might eventually make it in to the market. Alaska recently added Portland to St. Louis, so if they are happy with how SEA performs maybe they could add Portland-OKC, but I'm not holding my breath for that one. (Although would love it if they did)

The majority of future growth at OKC will now come from larger equipment on mature routes such as Denver, Chicago, Houston. Increased frequencies on established but growing routes such as Los Angeles, Charlotte, and San Francisco.

We won't be a hub market. We won't have hundreds of flights a day to hundreds of cities like Dallas. That thinking needs to stop, because it is pure fantasy at this point. We need to utilize the flights we have, and maybe we'll get a few more prize routes. But you won't be flying Oklahoma City to Columbus, OH nonstop anytime soon.

My biggest issue with OKC is the prices, not necessarily flight availability. It would be nice to be able to fly out of OKC at a comparable cost to driving to DFW and flying out of there.

When you consider how socially conservative Oklahoma still is today, I can only imagine what it was like 40 or so years ago when 39th St probably got started (just guessing). When you think about the history, its very understandable that 39th St is the way it is. Do you think OKC is ready for LGBT-oriented nightlife somewhere other than 39th? Would something like a gay bar in the Paseo or the Plaza district work? A lot of cities the size of OKC don't have gay ghettos but have the nightlife scattered through districts everyone frequents.

I’m sure OKC would be fine.

Tulsa’s largest gay dance club, The Majestic, is in the center of Brady District right across the street from Guthrie Green, The Woody Guthrie Center and Caz’s, which is a dive bar for bros where women that give up their bras to the collection above the bar drink free. It’s also right next door to a Hey Mambo, a really good Italian restaurant. I’m straight and I will go there on occasion when my wife makes me, it’s her favorite dancing spot. Not that I have any problem with gay people, it’s dancing I’m not a big fan of. The Majestic has been there 10-15 years and no one has any problems with it.

Another gay club is The New Age Renegade at 17th and Main, it’s not right in the SoBo bar district at 18th and Boston, but it’s just one block away. I’ve been there too when a friend of ours performs in drag night movie recreations, which is a whole lot of fun. I know The Renegade dates at least to the mid 80s, I used to live across the street before I was married in the early nineties and The Renegade was far from new back then. At that time one of my wife’s cousins was a cage dancer there.

The Oklahoman’s for Equality Center is in the Hodges Bend area of the East Village downtown too.

When you consider how socially conservative Oklahoma still is today, I can only imagine what it was like 40 or so years ago when 39th St probably got started (just guessing). When you think about the history, its very understandable that 39th St is the way it is. Do you think OKC is ready for LGBT-oriented nightlife somewhere other than 39th? Would something like a gay bar in the Paseo or the Plaza district work? A lot of cities the size of OKC don't have gay ghettos but have the nightlife scattered through districts everyone frequents.

In the 80's I had a girlfriend that lived in the Hemingway condos which is very near 39th & Penn. We'd come home late at night and for a long time I could not figure out why there were hundreds of cars in that area. Most the places had no sign at all, or you would have to be looking for it.

That's how that entire area operated until relatively recently. Most people had no idea the clubs were even there, which is the way the gay community wanted it.

It was very sad at the time and what we have now are sad remnants of that era and mindset. It's changed some, but not that much.

In the 80's I had a girlfriend that lived in the Hemingway condos which is very near 39th & Penn. We'd come home late at night and for a long time I could not figure out why there were hundreds of cars in that area. Most the places had no sign at all, or you would have to be looking for it.

That's how that entire area operated until relatively recently. Most people had no idea the clubs were even there, which is the way the gay community wanted it.

It was very sad at the time and what we have now are sad remnants of that era and mindset. It's changed some, but not that much.

Tulsa was not that way at all. Through most of the 80s what is now Sharkey’s Pool Hall in the middle of Brookside was a gay dance club. At 2am they would close the bar and open to all ages until 6am and teenagers would flood the place. After that in the 90s there was another gay club right across Peoria where Urban Outfitters is now. We used to go there, I had an employee that was a top drag queen back then and he got everyone at work to go to his competition nights. That place used to not have traditional restrooms. They had men’s restrooms for gay men and the women’s room for everyone else. I can’t recall the name of either place though. Some of the gay bars back in the 80s had pretty shocking names. I remember one near 31st and Harvard called The Levi Packing Company. The sign was not hidden.

Tulsa has never had a Gay District and from what I was told in the 80's was due to some sort of ordinance at the time that kind of kept bars from grouping together or something of the sort. I had friends in Tulsa but we never prefered to go out there as the scene wasn't all that. OKC had a great club scene in the 80's and 90's and would even book great acts. Divine hosted a white Party at Angles. Boy George performed ( only briefly before being too coked up to continue and storming off ) along with other acts like Dead or alive ect. People would wait in lines to get into Angles and pay 10.00 cover which is pretty high for that time. one of the things I have noticed is one of the things that made attendance to the district drop was the addition of nightlife for the straight community. sure there were bars back then but Angles was #1 rated dance bar in OKC for YEARS during that time because it was one of the only Great places to go. as far as if a gay bar could survive outside the district well I don't know that its needed now. because its a lot easier as a gay man to hang at most any bar in midtown or paseo or plaza and it not be an issue. I know me and my friend frequent bars all over town without anyone caring or being uncomfortable. That wasn't the case in the 80's and 90's in this city. the Strip ( 39th) was were you could go and be yourself and not be looking over your shoulder. This city has a very interesting LGBT history and I am proud to have grown up in the time I did and to see the changes.

Is Angles still operating?? I know they were a year ago...


I remember going there for the first time in the mid-80's. It seemed *so* daring at the time and of course, I only went with my girlfriend and other couples. I honestly don't know what I thought would happen because everyone was very nice and it was such a fun setting. Best dancefloor in town by far.

But it certainly was a time where there was still a big issue with people being openly gay in OKC, so that area was the rare safe place.

Honestly, I'm not that old but sometimes when I think back on the ridiculous things that happened in my lifetime around discrimination and persecution in many forms (racial, sexual orientation, gender) I simply can't believe that stuff went on. It just wasn't that long ago and most the people on the dark side of that are still alive. Puts things in sharp perspective when some want to pretend everything is completely equal now, just because we forced some laws on the populace in the recent past.

My biggest issue with OKC is the prices, not necessarily flight availability. It would be nice to be able to fly out of OKC at a comparable cost to driving to DFW and flying out of there.

This is the real problem. You can get anywhere (kinda) from OKC, but it's so expensive and you don't really have any options. My wife is from NY and visiting home is really costly. Tickets from Dallas are almost always worth driving and paying for parking, but that's really inconvenient. Flying is probably the thing she misses most about being in a major city. Food is pretty on par with Dallas.

People describing Dallas as urban are really kidding themselves. There ARE urban districts there, but people in the burbs never go there. I've been to Dallas hundreds of times with tons of friends and family and I have never been invited downtown, outside of once for a wedding. They have really nice districts and amenities, but the city is so inaccessible and difficult to commute that no one really takes part.

I disagree. OKC is one of the most poorly planned cities I have ever seen. The grid system is nice, but just looking from above, one has to wonder why the metro looks like one discombobulated irregular shaped blob rather than other cities that have a distinct center with better access to suburbs. I was speaking more of the metropolitan area.

Most US cities large enough to have suburbs have a single favored direction of growth, OKC's was north/northwest. The two biggest factors keeping the core from being pushed to an edge over the last seventy years was Tinker and OU

This is the real problem. You can get anywhere (kinda) from OKC, but it's so expensive and you don't really have any options. My wife is from NY and visiting home is really costly. Tickets from Dallas are almost always worth driving and paying for parking, but that's really inconvenient. Flying is probably the thing she misses most about being in a major city. Food is pretty on par with Dallas.

People describing Dallas as urban are really kidding themselves. There ARE urban districts there, but people in the burbs never go there. I've been to Dallas hundreds of times with tons of friends and family and I have never been invited downtown, outside of once for a wedding. They have really nice districts and amenities, but the city is so inaccessible and difficult to commute that no one really takes part.

OKC is in sort of that no-man's land - large enough to have a healthy level of service from the legacies, but not large enough to attract low-cost competition such as Spirit or Frontier. That and our reputation as a "driving state" (referred to in one of the aviation threads awhile back) - I suspect - are what lead to relatively high fares out of OKC. And now we're down to 3 legacies from 6 (plus Southwest of course), so they're printing money and have no reason to lower fares. The airlines have probably done the math and figured that enough people are paying the high fares out of OKC that there's no need to really lower them. And if people are willing to save money by driving to DFW, so be it.

People describing Dallas as urban are really kidding themselves. There ARE urban districts there, but people in the burbs never go there. I've been to Dallas hundreds of times with tons of friends and family and I have never been invited downtown, outside of once for a wedding. They have really nice districts and amenities, but the city is so inaccessible and difficult to commute that no one really takes part.

A lot of people in Edmond and far NW OKC also never go to places like Midtown, the Paseo, or the Plaza District. They may hit up Bricktown every once and a while or go to a Thunder game but that's about the extent of their dealings with downtown. There is usually quite a bit of complaining about parking downtown and the perception of high crime. Norman residents are even less likely to spend a lot of time in downtown OKC. It isn't that out of the ordinary for people who live in suburban areas to not frequent the more urban areas in the city. This is probably more pronounced in a large metro like DFW where there are plenty of focal points of activity even in the suburbs.

I wouldn't say people don't frequent downtown Dallas because it is inaccessible (in my opinion its as accessible as it can possibly be for a city that size), but because there simply isn't that much of a need to go there if you live somewhere like Irving or Carrollton. When I lived in Charlotte, I rarely went downtown because I had access to everything I wanted to do in the Ballantyne and Steele Creek areas.

A lot of people in Edmond and far NW OKC also never go to places like Midtown, the Paseo, or the Plaza District. They may hit up Bricktown every once and a while or go to a Thunder game but that's about the extent of their dealings with downtown.

I know tons of people in Edmond and outlying areas and they all go downtown for various reasons quite frequently.

It's not just Thunder games, its the Dodgers and concerts and the Arts Festival and the Christmas stuff and the restaurants and bars and plays and art shows and museums.

I stay with my good friend in Oak Tree when I'm in town which is about as far away from downtown as you can get; plus, no freeways anywhere near. And it takes less than 25 minutes to get to downtown, even in traffic.

That's very, very different than the people living out beyond LBJ in the Dallas area.

I know tons of people in Edmond and outlying areas and they all go downtown for various reasons quite frequently.

It's not just Thunder games, its the Dodgers and concerts and the Arts Festival and the Christmas stuff and the restaurants and bars and plays and art shows and museums.


I am sure there are many suburbanites who do frequent downtown, probably moreso than in DFW for reasons I stated in my last post, but I am just saying some of that suburban reluctance to participate in the urban core also exists here. It definitely also depends a lot on your social circle. During my first year and a half or so back here my social circle was primarily in Edmond and I rarely went downtown at all because the people I hung with avoided it other than to go to a Thunder game or occasionally Bricktown Brewery.

I am just saying some of that suburban reluctance to participate in the urban core also exists here.

Way, way less so than Dallas, which is what we're discussing.

Saw Jeff Speck speak in Dallas yesterday and it was interesting to see his critiques of Dallas and the complaints of locals. It pretty much sounded like the exact same concerns as OKC's, but Speck highlighted OKC's Project 180 changes as a model. A big focus was Dallas' unwalkable core... Very interesting.

Saw Jeff Speck speak in Dallas yesterday and it was interesting to see his critiques of Dallas and the complaints of locals. It pretty much sounded like the exact same concerns as OKC's, but Speck highlighted OKC's Project 180 changes as a model. A big focus was Dallas' unwalkable core... Very interesting.

He has to highlighted Project 180 in his standard talk for a couple years now, then contrast that with Cedar Rapids with that being another large makeover but at a much lower price to implement.

I wouldn't say people don't frequent downtown Dallas because it is inaccessible (in my opinion its as accessible as it can possibly be for a city that size), but because there simply isn't that much of a need to go there if you live somewhere like Irving or Carrollton.

This is incorrect. I've driven in a lot of cities as big or bigger than Dallas where people travel well beyond their own burbs. Dallas is built to move 7 million people at a steady rate, so even when there aren't cars on the road, you're only moving at a rush hour pace. Giant medians, 6 lane roads, basically no U-Turns. Imagine having to drive Memorial road everywhere.

Edmond and Yukon don't have any kind of urban/downtown experience, so if you were with people who never went downtown it was because they weren't interested in that kind of experience. Each Dallas burb has it's own urban district because it's such a hassle to get to Dallas proper.

He has to highlighted Project 180 in his standard talk for a couple years now, then contrast that with Cedar Rapids with that being another large makeover but at a much lower price to implement.

The irony of P180 is that is also paid for the skywalk connection from Devon to Oklahoma Tower and in turn connected the complex to the entire Underground system, which is the mortal enemy of walkable streets.

Somehow that always gets forgotten.

This is incorrect. I've driven in a lot of cities as big or bigger than Dallas where people travel well beyond their own burbs. Dallas is built to move 7 million people at a steady rate, so even when there aren't cars on the road, you're only moving at a rush hour pace. Giant medians, 6 lane roads, basically no U-Turns. Imagine having to drive Memorial road everywhere.

What other cities are you familiar with that are on the level of Dallas but more accessible? Houston and Atlanta are much worse in my opinion. Los Angeles/Southern California is about as multipolar as you can get. What about the California Bay Area? Miami? I would say Dallas probably is the most accessible out of all of those cities. Many of the things you and others are complaining about (accessibility, traffic, multiple downtowns) are things that are simply part of living in a large metropolitan area.

Small metropolitan areas, like OKC, are more accessible by nature.



Edmond and Yukon don't have any kind of urban/downtown experience, so if you were with people who never went downtown it was because they weren't interested in that kind of experience. Each Dallas burb has it's own urban district because it's such a hassle to get to Dallas proper.

I do find that is the case for a lot of people in Edmond that I know. They have no interest in a downtown, urban experience at all. There are others who do want it though. Personally I think some of the upcoming developments in downtown Edmond as well as Chisholm Creek will compete with downtown OKC for people who live in Edmond. As the OKC metro grows its going to become more multi-polar. As I've said before, the people I know who go to downtown OKC the least are my friends who live in Norman. They usually go to Campus Corner instead.

Is Angles still operating?? I know they were a year ago...


I remember going there for the first time in the mid-80's. It seemed *so* daring at the time and of course, I only went with my girlfriend and other couples. I honestly don't know what I thought would happen because everyone was very nice and it was such a fun setting. Best dancefloor in town by far.

But it certainly was a time where there was still a big issue with people being openly gay in OKC, so that area was the rare safe place.

Honestly, I'm not that old but sometimes when I think back on the ridiculous things that happened in my lifetime around discrimination and persecution in many forms (racial, sexual orientation, gender) I simply can't believe that stuff went on. It just wasn't that long ago and most the people on the dark side of that are still alive. Puts things in sharp perspective when some want to pretend everything is completely equal now, just because we forced some laws on the populace in the recent past.

Angles doesn't operate weekly and is just open for special events or bookings which is a horrible plan. the previous owners who owned it, The park and the wreck room sold Angles first. the owners of the boom which was then located on 36th street in a small building that use to be the bar Levi's were interested in buying Angles so they could relocate and have more room. The owners of Finishline and Copa didn't like the idea of competition and bought Angles instead and have basically let it sit and only use it now and then. None of that makes sense since its a much nicer space than the Copa which is the dance bar they operate. The Boom then just decided to build on 39th and moved there and now operate and have a pretty successful Sunday Brunch and think they are pretty busy most the time also hosting local theater productions as well as thier own produced shows and theater. some pretty good productions I have seen there. Anyway.. way off topic.

The irony of P180 is that is also paid for the skywalk connection from Devon to Oklahoma Tower and in turn connected the complex to the entire Underground system, which is the mortal enemy of walkable streets.

Somehow that always gets forgotten.

Geez I didn't know that - the oil money throwing it's weight around to the detriment of downtown (somewhat). Business as usual.

I'm no fan of skywalks - and also understand Pete's oft-repeated position that TIF is a gift that keeps on taking - but it must be pointed out here that P180 and the skywalk in question were paid for by a special TIF that was generated solely by increased property values assessed on the completed Devon Tower and related private improvements. It also bears repeating that this money would not have been available to anyone (in fact would not have existed at all in the public purse) had Devon Tower not been built. And finally it should be highlighted that besides the skywalk almost every single penny paid by Devon as a part of the P180 TIF was dedicated to PUBLIC improvements (streets/sidewalks/MBG), which runs VERY counter to the handouts usually sought by large developments.

I'm no fan of skywalks - and also understand Pete's oft-repeated position that TIF is a gift that keeps on taking - but it must be pointed out here that P180 and the skywalk in question were paid for by a special TIF that was generated solely by increased property values assessed on the completed Devon Tower and related private improvements. It also bears repeating that this money would not have been available to anyone (in fact would not have existed at all in the public purse) had Devon Tower not been built. And finally it should be highlighted that besides the skywalk almost every single penny paid by Devon as a part of the P180 TIF was dedicated to PUBLIC improvements (streets/sidewalks/MBG), which runs VERY counter to the handouts usually sought by large developments.

We are getting way off track here but to clarify...

The Devon TIF (TIF #8) and Project 180 are two completely separate things. P180 is partially funded by the Devon TIF but also got a big chunk from general obligation bonds and other City sources. It wasn't/isn't just Devon TIF money. In fact, when the Devon TIF fell short of projections, the City actually more than offset the shortfall with more funds.

The Devon TIF partially funds P180 but also has a $40 million economic incentive fund; OPUBCO was a recent beneficiary.

Also, the Devon TIF involves both property tax and sales tax.

And finally, the idea these funds wouldn't be generated if not for Devon is an assumption, not a fact. That property would have certainly been developed by now, although likely not to the scale of Devon Energy Center.


Not arguing, there is just way too much misunderstanding of TIF's and Project 180.

^^^^^^^^
I understand that there were other funds involved. The point remains that P180 had broad community benefit; very little of it directly benefited Devon. It was certainly an appropriate use of bonds, which would have been used exclusively at some point to rebuild crumbling streets and sidewalks downtown.

And to counter your point I think a case can easily be made that not only would the property have NOT been developed to that extent, but that much of the ancillary development now going on in the urban core would not have happened without Devon Tower as a catalyst. You can start with the CLR relocation.

Bringing this back to the original topic, Dallas does have a few skywalks downtown but nowhere near as many as OKC does. I don't think skywalks are as big of a detriment to downtown vibrancy as is commonly stated on OKCTalk. One thing Dallas has in its downtown is plenty of residential, both new construction and historic structures converted to lofts/condos/apartments. When a downtown is 24/7 and not just 8-5 M-F it makes a huge difference, far more than what is made by having or not having skywalks.

It's a chicken-or-egg thing. I think if we had more sidewalk vibrancy to begin with, developers and companies would be less-inclined to build skywalks and tunnels. But when they ARE built, it does retard the natural vibrancy that would otherwise result from an influx of new employees.

Bringing this back to the original topic, Dallas does have a few skywalks downtown but nowhere near as many as OKC does.

I don't know that this is true. Here is an excerpt from the Dallas Convention Bureau:

"Explore three miles of underground tunnels and sky bridges full of shops and restaurants. Major entrances at Thanks-Giving Square, Renaissance Tower, One Main Place and Bank of America Plaza. Closed evenings and weekends."

So, how many miles in downtown OKC?

I don't know that this is true. Here is an excerpt from the Dallas Convention Bureau:

"Explore three miles of underground tunnels and sky bridges full of shops and restaurants. Major entrances at Thanks-Giving Square, Renaissance Tower, One Main Place and Bank of America Plaza. Closed evenings and weekends."

So, how many miles in downtown OKC?

I wasn't aware that Dallas had an underground. It doesn't seem to be impacting street life that much though as there are usually plenty of people out and about in downtown Dallas 7 days per week.

What other cities are you familiar with that are on the level of Dallas but more accessible? Houston and Atlanta are much worse in my opinion. Los Angeles/Southern California is about as multipolar as you can get. What about the California Bay Area? Miami? I would say Dallas probably is the most accessible out of all of those cities. Many of the things you and others are complaining about (accessibility, traffic, multiple downtowns) are things that are simply part of living in a large metropolitan area.

Small metropolitan areas, like OKC, are more accessible by nature.



I do find that is the case for a lot of people in Edmond that I know. They have no interest in a downtown, urban experience at all. There are others who do want it though. Personally I think some of the upcoming developments in downtown Edmond as well as Chisholm Creek will compete with downtown OKC for people who live in Edmond. As the OKC metro grows its going to become more multi-polar. As I've said before, the people I know who go to downtown OKC the least are my friends who live in Norman. They usually go to Campus Corner instead.

Your thinking is completely suburban and car centric. The grade shouldn't only be how easy is it to get around the city by car, it's how easy is it to get to places you want to go to. So there needs to be methods to get to those places either by having those places nearby due to density or accessible by transit in addition to the car. Dallas, and Atlanta and Houston lack transit, lack density and have crushing traffic. These other cities you mention also have crushing traffic but have the density and transit options that remove to need to always travel by car. This is the point.

Los Angeles first off isn't comparable, it's too much larger than these other cities. LA does have awful traffic and does lack good mass transit but it is MUCH more dense. Los Angeles has far more to do as well, in all parts of the metro area. LA's peers are New York and Chicago, and it's certainly the worst of the three.

Now you mentioned the Bay Area, which is a great area and about the same size as DFW, but could not be more different. SF and Oakland have good train/subway service and are so much more dense than anything in the Dallas area that everything you need is right by you without needing to travel by car. San Francisco's big issue is too many people on the streets, walking, it can even more than New York at times. You can get claustrophobic, where does that happen in Dallas? I only know of one mall in SF, and it's main entrance has a train station. There is just one Target in the city, it's downtown and is two floors with restaurants along the street wall and it has no parking. There are no Wal-Marts in the city at all.

Dallas' population density is 3,645 per square mile, which is going to be very close to what Tulsa and OKC's density would be without the undeveloped areas on the fringe of the cities. San Francisco's is 18,187 per square mile. Oakland has 7,282 per square mile. If you want the suburban life in the Bay Area, you have San Jose, which still has mass transit that is far more useful than Dallas' and is still 44% more dense with 5,256 per square mile.

Then there's everything to do and all the jobs in the bay area. Dallas is nothing remotely close as a city.

Washington, Philadelphia, Miami and Boston also all have densities above 10,000 people per square mile with truly useful mass transit. Atlanta's density is 3,382 per square mile and Houston's is 3,662.

Your thinking is completely suburban and car centric. The grade shouldn't only be how easy is it to get around the city by car, it's how easy is it to get to places you want to go to. So there needs to be methods to get to those places either by having those places nearby due to density or accessible by transit in addition to the car. Dallas, and Atlanta and Houston lack transit, lack density and have crushing traffic. These other cities you mention also have crushing traffic but have the density and transit options that remove to need to always travel by car. This is the point.

Los Angeles first off isn't comparable, it's too much larger than these other cities. LA does have awful traffic and does lack good mass transit but it is MUCH more dense. Los Angeles has far more to do as well, in all parts of the metro area. LA's peers are New York and Chicago, and it's certainly the worst of the three.

Now you mentioned the Bay Area, which is a great area and about the same size as DFW, but could not be more different. SF and Oakland have good train/subway service and are so much more dense than anything in the Dallas area that everything you need is right by you without needing to travel by car. San Francisco's big issue is too many people on the streets, walking, it can even more than New York at times. You can get claustrophobic, where does that happen in Dallas? I only know of one mall in SF, and it's main entrance has a train station. There is just one Target in the city, it's downtown and is two floors with restaurants along the street wall and it has no parking. There are no Wal-Marts in the city at all.

Dallas' population density is 3,645 per square mile, which is going to be very close to what Tulsa and OKC's density would be without the undeveloped areas on the fringe of the cities. San Francisco's is 18,187 per square mile. Oakland has 7,282 per square mile. If you want the suburban life in the Bay Area, you have San Jose, which still has mass transit that is far more useful than Dallas' and is still 44% more dense with 5,256 per square mile.

Then there's everything to do and all the jobs in the bay area. Dallas is nothing remotely close as a city.

Washington, Philadelphia, Miami and Boston also all have densities above 10,000 people per square mile with truly useful mass transit. Atlanta's density is 3,382 per square mile and Houston's is 3,662.

You definitely make some great points here. Dallas is by and large a car-centric city similar to Atlanta and Houston as opposed to a transit oriented city like the Bay Area, Philadelphia, and DC. However, the original purpose of this thread was comparing OKC to Dallas and laying out what advantages Dallas still has over OKC. In terms of the automobile, Dallas is more accessible than most of its similar-sized peers.

Since we are talking transit, here is a big one. It's possible to live without a car and do it comfortably in Dallas, providing that you live and work within a reasonable distance from a DART station. Even if you own a car, you don't have to be completely chained to it. In OKC it is currently impossible to live comfortably without a car. That could change in 5-10 years once the streetcar is in place but as of now, that is a big advantage that Dallas still has.

EDIT: I want to say that I understand this isn't the reality for a majority of people in the DFW metroplex. Most people are just as chained to their automobiles as are people in OKC. I am simply stating that the car-free lifestyle can work in Dallas while its very difficult and requires a lot of sacrifice here.

In OKC it is currently impossible to live comfortably without a car.

This is an outright lie and I'm really tired of seeing you repeat this line over and over.

CarlessInOKC reads and posts on this forum and I'm not surprised they haven't called you out yet. Sid did it when he lived here as well. Are you saying that they don't/didnt have comfortable lives here? That every day is some massive struggle for them? Or is this another line that you continue to repeat that is not based in fact?

This is an outright lie and I'm really tired of seeing you repeat this line over and over.

CarlessInOKC reads and posts on this forum and I'm not surprised they haven't called you out yet. Sid did it when he lived here as well. Are you saying that they don't/didnt have comfortable lives here? That every day is some massive struggle for them? Or is this another line that you continue to repeat that is not based in fact?

My coworker did it for six months and it was a massive struggle for him. With public transportation as limited as it is in OKC, it isn't practical for most people and there is nothing untruthful about that. It's a little easier now than it used to be with Uber and expanded bus hours, but its still impractical in my honest opinion for a vast majority of people. Things will change once the streetcar is in place, especially if the Phase 2 expansion to the Chesapeake campus happens. By that time also, services that are currently missing in the urban core should be here. For now though I couldn't imagine being without a car in this city.

I think both of you are right. Guys like Sid with his minimalistic lifestyle can probably handle a carless life in OKC better than say your ordinary average Joe. Can it be done, of course, but I think it takes the right person. But for most, eh, I'm gonna side with bchris in that we aren't quite there yet, but it is much easier. It is certainly not "impossible" though.

No easier in Dallas.

No easier in Dallas.

Except they have a light rail system with a train that runs every 30 minutes and a streetcar in place downtown. A few months ago I was very close to having a job in downtown Dallas and the place where I was looking at moving was a few blocks from a DART station. Had that have happened, I would have still kept my car but I would be much less reliant than I currently am in OKC. That said, I will admit that most DFW residents don't have easy DART access and living car-free there requires planning around it i.e. living and working around DART access.

Except they have a light rail system with a train that runs every 30 minutes and a streetcar in place downtown. A few months ago I was very close to having a job in downtown Dallas and the place where I was looking at moving was a few blocks from a DART station. Had that have happened, I would have still kept my car but I would be much less reliant than I currently am in OKC. That said, I will admit that most DFW residents don't have easy DART access and living car-free there requires planning around it i.e. living and working around DART access.
Dart is a commuter system. Once you get to your neighborhood in the burbs, you still are car reliant. It isn't a good point to point system in a massive sprawl city. I could live quite comfortably here in OKC if I wanted. Just like in Dallas, I might have to plan a little better to get some places I want to go, but I can grocery shop, clothes shop, go to practically any style restaurant, go to church, get to hospitals and clinics.....all within comfortable walking and biking distance. For the other few things, I can call uber.

I live in OKC without a car just fine, and have for years. I drive a truck.

I live in OKC without a car just fine, and have for years. I drive a truck.

Post of the Year!!!!

Going carless in Dallas would be pretty similar to doing so in OKC unless you're a parking lot inspector. In that case the DART would be ideal. I had a long conversation with people from Dallas this weekend about how far Dallas has to go to be a decent urban city. With poor walkability, no downtown grocery store, and a transit system made for commuting in a sprawl city, it's a tough go. Very similar to OKC... Except OKC has Native Roots. Does Dallas even have that? (Honest question)

Going carless in Dallas would be pretty similar to doing so in OKC unless you're a parking lot inspector. In that case the DART would be ideal. I had a long conversation with people from Dallas this weekend about how far Dallas has to go to be a decent urban city. With poor walkability, no downtown grocery store, and a transit system made for commuting in a sprawl city, it's a tough go. Very similar to OKC... Except OKC has Native Roots. Does Dallas even have that? (Honest question)

What Dallas does have, in all fairness, are small urban-like communities within some of the suburban townships. The Legacy is an example. There are others.

Going carless in Dallas would be pretty similar to doing so in OKC unless you're a parking lot inspector. In that case the DART would be ideal. I had a long conversation with people from Dallas this weekend about how far Dallas has to go to be a decent urban city. With poor walkability, no downtown grocery store, and a transit system made for commuting in a sprawl city, it's a tough go. Very similar to OKC... Except OKC has Native Roots. Does Dallas even have that? (Honest question)

A Whole Foods is under construction in downtown Dallas as we speak as part of an impressive mixed-use development.

I agree that DART has a long way to go as an urban transit system. It has a few stations that I think are cool but a lot of them have a ways to go and development doesn't really interact with the system in the way it should. It's a good start though. Likewise, OKC's streetcar, when it opens in 2019 or 2020, will be a foundation for what it might eventually become. Development at first will be spotty as far as interaction with the streetcar system but as time goes it will become more and more organic.

I've stayed at the Sheraton a lot in downtown Dallas. Literally, right next to it, is a Dart station. Within two stops, it stops about 150 ft. from Target. I have taken the Red Line the most, which is the one that goes into north Plano, almost into Allen. At least on the Red Line, almost every Dart Station has a bunch of really neat housing around it. Very, very livable areas. I don't know how much they cost, but everything from apartments, lofts and houses. From what I have seen, it would be very very easy to live in Plano/Richardson/Addison and work in downtown Dallas with no car. I know they offer monthly passes, I don't know about yearly passes though, but I don't know how much that is.

What Dallas does have, in all fairness, are small urban-like communities within some of the suburban townships. The Legacy is an example. There are others.

Legacy is nice enough. However, it seems most of the shoppers drive there. It is always hard to find a parking spot. We disguise shopping centers as urban centers, but they rarely are "neighborhoods". Let's call them what they are...suburban shopping centers. It would be like calling Quail Springs a urban center....there are LOTS of apartments within walking, and lots of restaurants, etc. Doesn't make it a neighborhood. Legacy and others like it are sort of a mirage unless they become a true neighborhood.

^Very much like how everyone is thinking that Chisolm Creek is going to be this awesome 'Lifestyle Center' when reality it is still another suburban shopping center.

Legacy is nice enough. However, it seems most of the shoppers drive there. It is always hard to find a parking spot. We disguise shopping centers as urban centers, but they rarely are "neighborhoods". Let's call them what they are...suburban shopping centers. It would be like calling Quail Springs a urban center....there are LOTS of apartments within walking, and lots of restaurants, etc. Doesn't make it a neighborhood. Legacy and others like it are sort of a mirage unless they become a true neighborhood.

There is no comparison between Quail Springs, which is a vanilla suburban shopping mall, and a lifestyle center like Legacy. I can agree that lifestyle centers provide a faux urban experience that only mimics the real, organic thing but there is a HUGE difference between a well-done lifestyle center and the early 1980s suburban shopping mall. In my opinion, lifestyle centers are a big step forward. They are designed to be walkable and are oriented towards the pedestrian while areas like the QSM area are designed 100% for the automobile with zero-regard for pedestrians. OKC currently has nothing in the metro that compares to Legacy or any of the other lifestyle centers that dot the suburban DFW landscape. That may change if Chisholm Creek becomes what it has the potential to be.

There is no comparison between Quail Springs, which is a vanilla suburban shopping mall, and a lifestyle center like Legacy. I can agree that lifestyle centers provide a faux urban experience that only mimics the real, organic thing but there is a HUGE difference between a well-done lifestyle center and the early 1980s suburban shopping mall. In my opinion, lifestyle centers are a big step forward. They are designed to be walkable and are oriented towards the pedestrian while areas like the QSM area are designed 100% for the automobile with zero-regard for pedestrians. OKC currently has nothing in the metro that compares to Legacy or any of the other lifestyle centers that dot the suburban DFW landscape. That may change if Chisholm Creek becomes what it has the potential to be.

It is not unusual to see lots of people walking in QSM if you are trying to count walking vs Legacy. But we argue walking inside or outside. A huge part of Legacy shoppers arrive by car to their restaurant or destination, park in front, or walk a block or two. Lots of the "lifestyle" centers are more Disneyland than true neighborhood. They are reconfigured shopping malls. Legacy residents don't generally work in the neighborhood, but get in their cars and go work other places. It is a mirage neighborhood. It is like a lot of hipster activity ....they simulate something old of value, but don't originally create it themselves. We need to enhance and grow organic neighborhoods, not build brand new faux downtowns. I'm sorry if I don't love Legacy, but if I want all the same shops and restaurants I can get that in most suburban major intersection corners. Give me something more local, organic, and real. Give me The Plaza anytime over Legacy. Shoot, give me lower Greenville in Dallas and you have my support. Just not the faux city centers.

We need to enhance and grow organic neighborhoods, not build brand new faux downtowns. I'm sorry if I don't love Legacy, but if I want all the same shops and restaurants I can get that in most suburban major intersection corners. Give me something more local, organic, and real. Give me The Plaza anytime over Legacy. Shoot, give me lower Greenville in Dallas and you have my support. Just not the faux city centers.

I think both can and should be done. I really wish that OKC, as suburban oriented as it is, offered more of a modern suburban lifestyle like you see in DFW and other metro areas across the nation that includes lifestyle centers and more recreation. Suburbia in OKC is pretty much straight out of 1983.

I am with you on Lower Greenville. It's a great urban district. I really like the maturity, density, and critical mass the neighborhood has.

I don't know how the Shops at Legacy got brought up. I've been to the Shops on several occasions. Nice area and I like how they incorporate housing into the area, but frankly its nothing special. A big part of its success is it serves as a de facto urban district for a lot of people that live out in the hinterland suburbs like Frisco, Little Elm, Prosper, etc. In fact a lot of the more popular restaurants there are actually 2nd or 3rd locations for places that can be found in Uptown, Oak Lawn, etc. The places have (correctly) assumed people living out in far out exurbs are not going to drive 45-60 minutes to go out to Uptown.

OKC does not have a similar dynamic. You can get from Edmond to the Plaza or Midtown in 30 minutes or less in most cases. And you would be in a more walkable, "authentic" area to boot. So why would OKC need a development like Legacy? And no, Chisholm Creek is not the same.

I don't know how the Shops at Legacy got brought up. I've been to the Shops on several occasions. Nice area and I like how they incorporate housing into the area, but frankly its nothing special. A big part of its success is it serves as a de facto urban district for a lot of people that live out in the hinterland suburbs like Frisco, Little Elm, Prosper, etc. In fact a lot of the more popular restaurants there are actually 2nd or 3rd locations for places that can be found in Uptown, Oak Lawn, etc. The places have (correctly) assumed people living out in far out exurbs are not going to drive 45-60 minutes to go out to Uptown.

It isn't that much different from how many of Bricktown's most popular restaurants, especially Hal Smith group ventures, have Edmond/Quail Springs locations in addition to downtown locations. Legacy though provides an environment that cannot currently be found anywhere in OKC, urban or suburban.


OKC does not have a similar dynamic. You can get from Edmond to the Plaza or Midtown in 30 minutes or less in most cases. And you would be in a more walkable, "authentic" area to boot. So why would OKC need a development like Legacy? And no, Chisholm Creek is not the same.

Lifestyle developments are being built in cities all across the country both large and small. The only reason OKC doesn't have one yet comes down to bad luck and the timing of the Great Recession.

I don't know how the Shops at Legacy got brought up. I've been to the Shops on several occasions. Nice area and I like how they incorporate housing into the area, but frankly its nothing special. A big part of its success is it serves as a de facto urban district for a lot of people that live out in the hinterland suburbs like Frisco, Little Elm, Prosper, etc. In fact a lot of the more popular restaurants there are actually 2nd or 3rd locations for places that can be found in Uptown, Oak Lawn, etc. The places have (correctly) assumed people living out in far out exurbs are not going to drive 45-60 minutes to go out to Uptown.

OKC does not have a similar dynamic. You can get from Edmond to the Plaza or Midtown in 30 minutes or less in most cases. And you would be in a more walkable, "authentic" area to boot. So why would OKC need a development like Legacy? And no, Chisholm Creek is not the same.

Exactly. And that was my point in bringing it up.

Spent the day in Dallas yesterday and took a long walk from West End up through Uptown, exploring the different areas on foot. This is my first visit since taking a greater interest in urbanism so I wanted to point out a few things.

The Good:

- Lighting and placemaking downtown. Both the streets and buildings are much better lit than OKC and and it really does affect the feel of the city. Lots of artwork and sculptures displayed everywhere that really helps give it a sense of place

- The Majestic; Beautiful theater with a lot of character. Makes me think of what OKC could have done with the original Criterion had it have been saved.

- Uptown. This is a truly impressive district. For all the deficiencies downtown Dallas had, Uptown makes up for it. Street after street, things were done almost perfect. Thing is, none of the things I was the most impressed by is out of the realm of possibility for OKC. I was more impressed by quality of architecture, the street activity and synergy than I was the high-rise construction. I was impressed that chain restaurants and retailers there actually were able to conform to urban standards, something they too many times say they can't do in OKC.

-Sidewalks. Dallas has done a great job at maintaining their sidewalks in their urban core. You simply don't have the huge gaps that you do in OKC and it makes it much easier to walk.

The Bad:

-One-way streets in most of the urban core and traffic moves way too fast to the point it can be intimidating for pedestrians. Long waits for walk signals also. While Dallas is probably about 30 years down the road in urban development compared to OKC, both cities share a similar "cars first" development style and in some ways Dallas is worse with its one way streets

-Still too much surface parking and urban development gaps in the immediate core. At the rate they are growing these will probably get filled in, but it kind of shocked me how much is still there.

-Street interaction lacking in too many places. While much of Uptown does a great, great job of street interaction and synergy, there is a lot, especially closer to the CBD that looks great from a distance but once you walk up to it, it is set back way off the sidewalk and there is no street interaction and it creates a pedestrian dead zone. There are many places in downtown Dallas that make it difficult to believe I am really in the fourth largest metro area in the US.

-Klyde Warren Park; Myriad Gardens is just so, so much better

Dallas reminds me of a big small town. It just doesn't feel like a Big City

Dallas reminds me of a big small town. It just doesn't feel like a Big City

I wouldn't say "big small town" but I would agree it doesn't feel its size.

It actually reminds me a lot of Charlotte in their downtown. Uptown Dallas is a notch above what Charlotte offers but the difference isn't as big as you would expect given the difference in size between the two cities. Keep in mind Charlotte is a metro of only 2.4 million people, well below Dallas' 6 million. Houston and Atlanta have a lot more of a "big city" feel for their size.

Dallas feels smaller than it is because of its sprawl and the fact there are so many centers of commerce scattered throughout the metro. It feels like a lot of small cities joined together rather than one big city. When I am down there I don't feel like I am in the fourth largest metro area in the country. If all the highrises and commercial centers sprawled up the Central Expressway, the NDT, Frisco, etc was concentrated downtown, Dallas could rival cities like Chicago and the SF Bay Area.

I wouldn't say "big small town" but I would agree it doesn't feel its size.

It actually reminds me a lot of Charlotte in their downtown. Uptown Dallas is a notch above what Charlotte offers but the difference isn't as big as you would expect given the difference in size between the two cities. Keep in mind Charlotte is a metro of only 2.4 million people, well below Dallas' 6 million. Houston and Atlanta have a lot more of a "big city" feel for their size.

Dallas feels smaller than it is because of its sprawl and the fact there are so many centers of commerce scattered throughout the metro. It feels like a lot of small cities joined together rather than one big city. When I am down there I don't feel like I am in the fourth largest metro area in the country. If all the highrises and commercial centers sprawled up the Central Expressway, the NDT, Frisco, etc was concentrated downtown, Dallas could rival cities like Chicago and the SF Bay Area.

This is so accurate, one of my friends from OKC was always obsessed with Dallas, and was like its a big city. I always told him, wait until I show you Houston. He was always not interested. I took him on a tour 2 weekends ago, and he was like wow this is a big city. He ended up liking it better than Dallas. He said he never went further than Dallas because of the driving distance, be he is disappointed he never did. Houston is HUGE....he couldn't believe how many tall buildings existed outside of downtown.

This is so accurate, one of my friends from OKC was always obsessed with Dallas, and was like its a big city. I always told him, wait until I show you Houston. He was always not interested. I took him on a tour 2 weekends ago, and he was like wow this is a big city. He ended up liking it better than Dallas. He said he never went further than Dallas because of the driving distance, be he is disappointed he never did. Houston is HUGE....he couldn't believe how many tall buildings existed outside of downtown.

A lot of truth to this. However, "big city" is a fairly loose term. DFW is very much a big city in the mold of a Los Angeles, sprawling and swarming with freeways. Population alone can define a "big city." But if we use the word "urban" and compare to Chicago, NYC, Boston - then no, Dallas isn't close.

A lot of truth to this. However, "big city" is a fairly loose term. DFW is very much a big city in the mold of a Los Angeles, sprawling and swarming with freeways. Population alone can define a "big city." But if we use the word "urban" and compare to Chicago, NYC, Boston - then no, Dallas isn't close.

"Big city feel" can depend a lot on perspective. Oklahoma City feels like a big city when your perspective is somewhere like Fort Smith AR or Amarillo. When coming from Houston or Chicago it doesn't as much.

I've traveled enough to cities of various sizes to get a general feel for what is "big city" and what isn't. Dallas compares very favorably with cities in the 2-4 million population range but doesn't so much with its 5+ million population peers. I could live somewhere like Charlotte and have almost everything available I would have in Dallas, but without the headaches like the traffic.

Dallas compares favorably with cities in the 2-4 million population range because that is actually a fair comparison, IMO. They don't have 6+ million people unless you include Fort Worth, a very large city in itself, and its suburbs. Not sure what the population would come down to if you removed Fort Worth and suburbs, but I would guess around 2 million less. I used to live in Dallas and my wife used to live in Houston, and never have I felt like Dallas was a bigger city than Houston.

Dallas compares favorably with cities in the 2-4 million population range because that is actually a fair comparison, IMO. They don't have 6+ million people unless you include Fort Worth, a very large city in itself, and its suburbs. Not sure what the population would come down to if you removed Fort Worth and suburbs, but I would guess around 2 million less. I used to live in Dallas and my wife used to live in Houston, and never have I felt like Dallas was a bigger city than Houston.

Good point. I guess if you consider only Dallas' side of the metroplex, it feels about right.

Does Fort Worth and its suburbs function as its own entity rather than as a suburb of Dallas? It's important to note that McKinney, one of the northernmost Dallas suburbs, is farther from downtown Dallas than Fort Worth is. The sprawl between the Dallas and Ft Worth side of the metroplex is also continuous. Dallas/Fort Worth is also one MSA as opposed to other metroplexes like Minneapolis/St Paul and Raleigh/Durham, both divided into separate MSAs despite continuous sprawl.

Fort Worth is very much it's own city. Having Dallas within a stones throw obviously helps, but it definitely holds its own.

When I think of a city, I think of the metro. It's nearly continuos development from L.A. to San Diego which I drove today all along a massive highway. I just throw those two cities in together and view them as the L.A. metro. Same thing with Dallas, when I of Dallas, I think of the DFW metroplex- not just Dallas proper. I know plenty of people who think of the city as the city and I've used to have friends in Dallas that lived in Plano and would say, do you want to go to the city tonight? So I guess it varies.

Good point. I guess if you consider only Dallas' side of the metroplex, it feels about right.

Does Fort Worth and its suburbs function as its own entity rather than as a suburb of Dallas? It's important to note that McKinney, one of the northernmost Dallas suburbs, is farther from downtown Dallas than Fort Worth is. The sprawl between the Dallas and Ft Worth side of the metroplex is also continuous. Dallas/Fort Worth is also one MSA as opposed to other metroplexes like Minneapolis/St Paul and Raleigh/Durham, both divided into separate MSAs despite continuous sprawl.

It seems a little yes and no, Dallas feels like the first among equals in it's region, where as Houston is practically the king of it's region.