What Dallas advantages remain?

[Snowman]

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.

[Mike_M]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[bchris02]

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.

[Bullbear]

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.

[no1cub17]

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.

[Urbanized]

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.

[Pete]

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.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^^^
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.

[bchris02]

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.

[Urbanized]

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.

[Rover]

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?

[bchris02]

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.

[Swake]

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.

[bchris02]

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.

[AP]

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?

[bchris02]

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.

[bradh]

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.

[Rover]

No easier in Dallas.

[bchris02]

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.

[Rover]

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.

[hoya]

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

[Teo9969]

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

Post of the Year!!!!

[dankrutka]

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)

[zookeeper]

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.