What Dallas advantages remain?

[OklahomaNick]

From a retail perspective, one big difference is the high end luxury brands in Dallas (which I do not care about nor do 95% of people), but it is a status thing.
Money / tax dollars does leave our state because of our lack of high end options.

It would also be nice to have more than one Mall option. Quail Springs is getting a lot better, but Penn Square is king for now.
A second Apple Store and Whole Foods in OKC would be great!

OKC has come a LONG ways Retail wise, and we we are getting there as MANY national retailers are looking at locating/expanding in OKC. The next 5 to 10 years could be nuts!

OH! And Dallas has QuikTrip!

[bchris02]

Blair Humphreys had a great retweet yesterday that I think fits into this conversation. It said "Demand for walkable places in Dallas is 68%. Supply is 4% via Farr and #CNU23" While I'm not saying OKC is more Urban or walkable than Dallas by any stretch of the imagination I think it has a long way to go to actually be considered urban or walkable. Sure they have pockets that are great but in general Dallas is one giant sprawl and I feel OKC in its youth tried to sprawl out like Dallas. Thankfully both cities are understanding the merits of places that are walkable.

I would consider it more than "pockets" that are great. The entire urban core is walkable from downtown all the way to the Park Cities. It's continuous urbanism and its great. OKC's districts, at this point in time, don't even come close. That's not to say Dallas is perfect or that they can't improve as an urban city because they can. Dallas shouldn't be written off as one big sprawling mess because that's far from the truth. I think OKC can get there (on a smaller scale) in 10-15 years. OKC has only been at this since about 2000 and it's going to take longer than 15 years to fix 40 years of neglect.

[Urbanized]

As I see it:

1. Hub status for a (the?) major airline, which is a major factor in...
2. Corporate jobs and economic diversity, which leads to...
3. Large concentrations of wealth, which leads to...
4. Top tier national retail options and cultural amenities

That said, few cities in America can compete on that level, and yet I can think of many cities where I would prefer to live, obviously including OKC. Dallas has all of the amenities and economic opportunities of a top 10 (if not top 5) U.S. city, but none of the soul. In fact, I think you could say that Dallas has actually sold its soul.

Honestly I think in many ways OKC already offers a superior QUALITY of life, including some unique amenities, ease of access to all parts of town (albeit by automobile only), excellent (and dense) local food scene, plus general sense of community.

I think inclusion of the Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art in your OKC calculation PLUS the rapidly-improving concert scene and already-excellent local scene combine to greatly close the cultural gap.

[HangryHippo]

As I see it:

1. Hub status for a (the?) major airline, which is a major factor in...
2. Corporate jobs and economic diversity, which leads to...
3. Large concentrations of wealth, which leads to...
4. Top tier national retail options and cultural amenities

Damn fine list, Urbanized. I think you nailed it.

[bchris02]

From a retail perspective, one big difference is the high end luxury brands in Dallas (which I do not care about nor do 95% of people), but it is a status thing.
Money / tax dollars does leave our state because of our lack of high end options.

OKC will likely never be able to have some of the high-end luxury retail options that Dallas does. The market here just isn't large enough. It could and should be much better here though. I am hoping with the coming development of Chisholm Creek and Glimcher that OKC finally starts pulling its weight as a city of 1.3 million people on the retail front.

OH! And Dallas has QuikTrip!

OKC has OnCue though which in my opinion is as good as QuikTrip. I am more envious of the grocery stores in DFW. Kroger and Tom Thumb would be very nice to have in OKC.

[zachj7]

Dallas metroplex in my opinion has some major advantages over OKC.

Advantages
1) Theme parks. OKC has at least something, but nothing of the magnitude of DFW. This is understandable.
2) Grocery stores: Kroger, HEB, Central Market- OKC has nothing like this.
3)Faux Town Center: OKC has nothing of the magnitude of Southlake Town Square. Southlake Town Square OKC doesn't even have anything like The Shops at Park Lane. The Shops at Park Lane | Dallas Shopping Center
4) Ikea, Costco, and other shopping you cannot find in OKC. People that have moved from larger areas with these stores will go the distance and spend money in Dallas instead of OKC for the experience.
5) DFW is laid out in a much more organized manner.
6) Large airport with many direct destinations in the US and abroad. Many airlines to choose from. Whether you like it or not, a family of four+ economically would make more sense to drive down to DFW and then fly rather than flying out of OKC.

Disadvantages
1) Traffic is a million times better in OKC
2) Weather (by a little)

One other note to make is restaurants. Dallas has a much bigger variety but I believe OKC is pulling its weight when it comes to population here. Some may disagree. OKC has a great restaurant scene. OKC can work on its seafood restaurants.

[dankrutka]

If somebody has family in OKC and want to move somewhere more urban but don't want to move very far, then Dallas is a perfect option. Also, while Dallas isn't NYC (and who would expect it to be), I personally find it to be satisfying as far as urbanism is concerned. I've done a lot of exploring in Dallas on foot and found most of their urban districts are well-developed, polished, and interconnected. You don't have the huge gaps of open land or dilapidated structures that you have in OKC. If somebody wanted to live in a "finished" urban city and doesn't want to wait 10-15 years for OKC to get there and also doesn't want to move to the coast, Dallas is a perfect choice.

We'll just have to agree to disagree because I see a lot of gaps in Dallas' urban environment. Maybe I frequent different parts of the metro than you, but a lot of areas are not connected well to other areas... I just don't agree that Dallas is in any way "finished," but to each his own.

Again, Dallas has a lot more density, overall amenities, etc, but I just don't see it as a particularly well done urban city. I'm going to see Jeff Speck speak in Dallas this weekend so maybe I'll ask him how he thinks Dallas does on the urban scale...

[sooner88]

If you think Dallas is a "perfect choice" as a "finished urban city" then you have spent no time in real cities. Dallas isn't anymore urban than Oklahoma City.

Dallas' peers are The Bay Area, Washington, Boston, Philadelphia and the like. Dallas pales badly in comparison, in all ways.

I.e. places you can live without a car. I don't know a person who lives in Dallas who does not own a car and use it on a regular basis. On the flipside, I don't know a single person who lives in any of those cities (or Chicago, NYC, etc.) who have owned a car since they moved there.

[dankrutka]

I.e. places you can live without a car. I don't know a person who lives in Dallas who does not own a car and use it on a regular basis. On the flipside, I don't know a single person who lives in any of those cities (or Chicago, NYC, etc.) who have owned a car since they moved there.

All of my Dallas friends live in the core and I can never get them to take the DART anywhere. It's a total afterthought as a mode of transportation for most people in my experiences. And so many of the stations are just near parking lots, not urban places. The other day I was going to ride the DART down and then my friend was going to have to pick me up because the station wasn't close to anything... so I just drove. This is kind of what I'm talking about with Dallas' urbanism, not that Dallas isn't a neat city.

[zachj7]

Well, let’s start off with the fact that Dallas sucks as a big city. It’s one of, if not the, very worst large metros in the nation. All the pain and congestion and difficulty of a big city with so little in return. Dallas isn’t urban, it isn’t cool, it doesn’t have history, or culture, or arts. Everyone I know that lives there is working on leaving. I have no idea how it continues to grow like it does.

Think about this, Dallas-Ft Worth has a population that is rapidly approaching the size of Washington-Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, Miami and the Bay Area. It’s only a third smaller than Chicago! Think about what those cities have to offer compared to Dallas, those cities are now DFW’s peers. The truth is that Dallas and Houston absolutely suck compared real large cities.

I pointedly have not mentioned the other peer city, Atlanta, because Atlanta sucks too.

Quit trying to be Dallas.

Dallas has it's work cut out for it, but it's kind of hard to be a cool urban city if you aren't on the coast. They work with what they got, and have done a lot. I agree DFW doesn't quite level up to SF, Philly, DC. I think an obvious comparably city would be Minneapolis not because they are both on I35 and each have a major satellite city, but possibly due to similar amenities?

[bchris02]

All of my Dallas friends live in the core and I can never get them to take the DART anywhere. It's a total afterthought as a mode of transportation for most people in my experiences. And so many of the stations are just near parking lots, not urban places. The other day I was going to ride the DART down and then my friend was going to have to pick me up because the station wasn't close to anything... so I just drove. This is kind of what I'm talking about with Dallas' urbanism, not that Dallas isn't a neat city.

I agree with you on the DART stations. It is somewhat annoying that many of them are in areas where there is absolutely nothing around them. That's what you get though when you are late to the public transportation game and it's an afterthought rather than having the city develop organically around the rail system. If OKC added light rail it would also have that problem for many years until development patterns shifted. There are some cool stations though in Dallas like Cityplace and Mockingbird Station.

[AP]

Dallas has it's work cut out for it, but it's kind of hard to be a cool urban city if you aren't on the coast. They work with what they got, and have done a lot. I agree DFW doesn't quite level up to SF, Philly, DC. I think an obvious comparably city would be Minneapolis not because they are both on I35 and each have a major satellite city, but possibly due to similar amenities?

Yes very hard to be a cool urban city if you're not on the coast. Chicago, Denver and Austin accidentally did it.

[Pete]

^

Denver, too.

[bchris02]

Dallas has it's work cut out for it, but it's kind of hard to be a cool urban city if you aren't on the coast. They work with what they got, and have done a lot. I agree DFW doesn't quite level up to SF, Philly, DC. I think an obvious comparably city would be Minneapolis not because they are both on I35 and each have a major satellite city, but possibly due to similar amenities?

I agree with the Minneapolis comparison.

Yes very hard to be a cool urban city if you're not on the coast. Chicago, Denver and Austin accidentally did it.

Chicago is a special case and their lakefront might as well be the coast. Denver doesn't have the coast but they have the Rocky Mountains. Austin has the Texas hill country but when you get down to it, its live music scene, tech economy, and its liberal, live and let live culture has been the driver that has made it what it is.

[AP]

I agree with the Minneapolis comparison.



Chicago is a special case and their lakefront might as well be the coast. Denver doesn't have the coast but they have the Rocky Mountains. Austin has the Texas hill country but when you get down to it, its live music scene, tech economy, and its liberal, live and let live culture has been the driver that has made it what it is.

What does the Rocky Mountains and Texas hill country have to do with being an urban city?

[bchris02]

What does the Rocky Mountains and Texas hill country have to do with being an urban city?

You mentioned that it's hard to be a cool, urban city if you aren't on the coast, but I would say being near mountains is also a catalyst. Plains cities, like OKC and Dallas, have a more difficult time because they have to rely solely on built environment and/or culture.

[Pete]

If anyone is trying to draw comparisons between Minneapolis and Dallas, you don't know much about Minneapolis.

It's incredibly urban, green, progressive and liberal. Dallas is virtually none of those things.

Minneapolis is simply one of the best planned and truly urban cities around with tons of public transportation and bike lanes. It's a million times better than Dallas in almost every way apart from the weather.

[Swake]

Dallas has it's work cut out for it, but it's kind of hard to be a cool urban city if you aren't on the coast. They work with what they got, and have done a lot. I agree DFW doesn't quite level up to SF, Philly, DC. I think an obvious comparably city would be Minneapolis not because they are both on I35 and each have a major satellite city, but possibly due to similar amenities?

Philadelphia and Washington aren't on the ocean. Or even particularly near the coast. They are river cities and don't have mountains.

[adaniel]

That said, few cities in America can compete on that level, and yet I can think of many cities where I would prefer to live, obviously including OKC. Dallas has all of the amenities and economic opportunities of a top 10 (if not top 5) U.S. city, but none of the soul. In fact, I think you could say that Dallas has actually sold its soul.

Its not just perception, Dallas literally did "sell it soul" back in the day.

After the JFK assassination in 1963, Dallas was branded as the "City of Hate" full of kooky John Birchers and pro-segregationists never mind the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was actually a commie sympathizer. Suddenly self aware of their terrible image, a lot of leaders in Dallas at the time like Stanley Marcus (of Neiman Marcus fame) and Erik Jonsson (founder of TI) started pushing for a grand plan to completely remake the city and literally scrub the city free from its past. A lot of that is what you see today. FWIW if anyone wants a good read, the book "The Dallas Myth" is an excellent read on not just Dallas, but urban centers in the sunbelt (a lot of which can be applied to OKC)

And to piggyback on that, there is a school of thought that in order to make a "New Dallas," the city kinda sacrificed itself at the altar of the North Texas region. Starting with the decision to team up with Ft Worth to build DFW Airport while dramatically limiting activity from Love Field. It was the spark that has help this area grow exponentially, but surprisingly little of that has actually benefited Dallas. Same with DART Rail. The train system here is great if you want to get from the downtown to the burbs, but quite terrible if you actually want to get around Dallas. A big reason for that is the suburbs threatened on several occasions to pull out of DART funding if they did not get full light rail service by a certain time. So what you have is just an overgrown commuter rail system rather than true urban public transit. These are just few of many examples.

Because of this, the city, to this day, is at war with itself. And until recently, the prevailing thought is to compete with the burbs, you have to be like the burbs. I think that's where a lot of the blandness here comes from. For a big city there is not a lot of truly urban areas, and what is here is extremely expensive, partly because its so rare. Homes in M Streets, a very similar area to Edgemere Park, runs about $300/sq ft. Condos in Uptown are roughly the same. Park Cities is now topping $500/sq ft. These areas are largely off limits to even upper middle income families.

[zookeeper]

If anyone is trying to draw comparisons between Minneapolis and Dallas, you don't know much about Minneapolis.

It's incredibly urban, green, progressive and liberal. Dallas is virtually none of those things.

Minneapolis is simply one of the best planned and truly urban cities around with tons of public transportation and bike lanes. It's a million times better than Dallas in almost every way apart from the weather.

Absolutely. As for the weather, there's not a better city in the summer than Minneapolis. Absolutely perfect (for me). It would be a toss-up weather-wise, Texas heat in the summer or Minneapolis cold in the winter. Because of the extent of Minneapolis urbanity, I would have to lean that direction.

[G.Walker]

Jobs, jobs, and more jobs.

Dallas has more high paying jobs that are not just focused in the oil industry, that would attract any college grad. Most of OKC's high paying jobs are in the oil industry, outside of that, you have government, and medical jobs.

What the Dallas job market provides is they have the mid-high paying jobs, like in insurance, banking, & tech. Like Oklahoma Nick stressed above, there are many diverse Fortune 500 industries to choose from. I graduated with a MPA back in 2011 and it took me over a year to find a decent paying job in a industry that I didn't even study for, lol. If I applied for jobs in Dallas with my Masters degree, I probably would have found a job in a couple months.

[Pete]

^

Yet, OKC's unemployment rate is lower.

I don't think nearly as many people are moving to Dallas from Oklahoma for jobs as just 5 years ago and I bet that trend continues to accelerate.

Also, saying "most of OKC's high paying jobs are in the oil industry" is false. No way more than 50% of jobs paying more than $100k or so are in oil and gas. Most the well-paid people I know in town do not work in that industry and there are loads and loads of banks, legal, biotech, medical, engineering and general management jobs outside O&G. You would be surprised how many government / military jobs are well-paid as well.

If you look at the list of largest employers in the City area, you'll see there are only two energy companies in the top 30.

Only a small fraction of people in Central Oklahoma are actually employed by oil & gas. Certainly less than 5% and likely even well less than that.

[bchris02]

Its not just perception, Dallas literally did "sell it soul" back in the day.

I want to say I don't think either city can claim soul or having respect for their history as a strong point. Both made mistakes that have handicapped their vitality in big ways. I don't know a lot about Dallas history so correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe they went near as far with urban renewal as OKC did.

Imagine this city if it would have survived to this day. Imagine it fully revitalized and inhabited. Imagine how much soul and character it would have.



I think if the urban core OKC had in the 1950s still stood today, given the younger generation's preferences for urban areas this city could easily be in league with Austin and Denver.

For a big city there is not a lot of truly urban areas, and what is here is extremely expensive, partly because its so rare.

Dallas may not be San Francisco, Boston, or NYC but its dishonest to say it has no urban lifestyle or that its nothing but a huge sprawling mess. It is expensive, I agree, but no moreso than the urban life is in a major coastal city.

[Architect2010]

5) DFW is laid out in a much more organized manner.

Absolutely not. I don't think you could get more organized than OKC's grid system.

I will say this, and it doesn't affect a lot of people, but I felt as if Dallas' LGBT scene was oceans and leagues better than our own community. We could certainly do better in providing an all-inclusive environment like Dallas' Cedar Springs/Oak Lawn to our own citizens. I would think a city of 1.3 million should be able to nurture and sustain a small but vibrant LGBT community. One that doesn't feel like a ghetto, forgotten about, and crumbling away. Then again, the business owners along 39th St don't ever seem too keen to invest very much back into their buildings and the city just seems to ignore the sad state of the street, pavement, lighting, and sidewalks in that area. Hopefully that changes over time, but for reasons unnamed, I am not hopeful.

I only state this because I know for a fact Cedar Springs/Oak Lawn is a huge draw for many people in the LGBT community. A lot of my friends/acquaintances/local celebrities drive to Dallas 2-3 times a year just to experience a variety of venues, shows, bars, clubs, in an urban and walkable area that outshines any district in OKC BUT Bricktown. It's a huge draw and I would think that Dallas probably pulls a lot of our LGBT population away from Oklahoma.

Not really sure what can be done about that though.

[Rivalyn]

^

Yet, OKC's unemployment rate is lower.

I don't think nearly as many people are moving to Dallas from Oklahoma for jobs as just 5 years ago and I bet that trend continues to accelerate.

It'd be interesting to see any correlating data on that last point. Absolutely developments like Chisholm Creek are a HUGE step in the right direction in terms of developing a place for graduates to play as they start their careers. Still in looking at my MBA class, half are either from an energy company and thus their company is paying for it or they're expecting to leave after graduation. People I know graduating soon with a Bachelor degree are definitely somewhat indicative of your point in that there's a lot more talk of staying around but that transforms as they want to climb in a corporation. An interesting note made by an MBA friend was that they were not able to find any leadership/development positions upon graduating with their MBA, but those types of positions are quite common in Dallas. So in essence we just need to attract even larger companies, HQs, and leadership presences here and I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't reverse that movement to Dallas. Nice job Boeing on that front!