Recent trip to Dallas

[Patrick]

I was actually away for the weekend. Took a 2 day trip down to Dallas for the Easter holiday. I wanted to comment on my recent trip.

Most of my comments are negative, so I suppose I'll start with th epositive comments. Dallas has an extremely nice commuter rail system. It's grown since last time I was there, thoroughly impressed with the expansion of the DART system. As usual, Dallas offers a great shopping experience, which was one of my main reasons for going. Of course, Dallas has a large airport, one of the largest in the world.

But, as far as everything else is concerned, I would rate Dallas below OKC on all measures.

We complain a lot here about the lack of concern for beautification in our city. After visiting Dallas, I was happy to get back to our city, noticing that our highways were actually cleaner than Dallas' roadways. Dallas is literally a sea of concrete; they haven't spent a lot of time or money on city-wide beautification.
Traffic is always horrible in Dallas....drivers drive like Redneck maniacs.
I honestly like Bricktown better than Dallas' West End. The ballpark and canal add so much to our Bricktown area. Their trolley system downtown is impressive, but overall, I'd say their downtown is no nicer than ours. Strange, but I actually felt there was more life in our downtown area.
Dallas, like OKC, has no landscape, and no trees. It's actually quite ugly in the scenery department.

Dallas obvious seems so much larger than OKC and offers a greater selection of retail stores, but honestly, that's the only positive thing I could find in Dallas.

Will I go back to Dallas? Probably not for another 5 or 6 years!
Other than for sheer size, I don't see Dallas having any advantages over OKC in quality of life!

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

Oh come on! Dallas, while not measuring up to the world's greatest city (OKC Duh!) is a great city.

Houston is better though.

[mranderson]

Oh come on! Dallas, while not measuring up to the world's greatest city (OKC Duh!) is a great city.

Houston is better though.

You can like Dallas and Houston all you want. I lived in that hole called Dallas for eight lousy years, and hated every minute of it.

[Nuclear_2525]

Ok, I am not going to start bashing OKC, but this has to be a joke. Dallas West End may not have been hopping when you are there, but most of the time it is. Downtown Dallas is HUGE compared to OKC and has many many more entertainment districts. If you didn't notice, The HUGE AA arena is near downtown and there is currently over 1 billion dollars being invested in that area, including a 5-star hotel/condominium high-rise. The arts in Dallas are also exploding. An article in an Arch. Record a few months ago had a couple of pages just on the arts in Dallas. The Dallas Opera is building a 400 million venue at the moment along with several other major projects. Also, you forgot the FW to go along with the D. Fort Worth is in the process of a major waterfront overhaul. The Museum of Modern Art in FW is one of the best in the nation. OKC doesn't have a suburb to compete with this. As far as city beautification...sure, some parts of Dallas, the older parts, aren't as beutiful, but the rest of Dallas, is very well taken care of. Dallas doesn't have to do a ton of landscaping because all the standards for all the businesses takes care of it. Also, it may not have been noticeable yet, but Dallas, unlike OKC and Tulsa, weed sprays all of the grass they have to take care of, and keeps it nicely mowed.

Anyway, don't get me wrong, in no way do I think Dallas is a GREAT city, but OKC is not up to par with Dallas either. The two cities are a world apart. The good thing...I think OKC is moving faster toward getting better than Dallas is.

[xrayman]

The days of the West End are over. Lower Greenville and Addison are much better for nightlife. "Dallas" north of LBJ is a city of its own. The growth of Denton and Collin counties is just nothing short of phenomenal. In fact, here's some stats that will blow you away and put the word "growth" in perspective....Collin County alone now has a population right around 500,000 people. Plano has grown from a tiny town of 3,500 or so in 1960 to a city of almost 225,000. Denton County is now around 450,000! Between the two - do the math - a million people without an "urban" center! "Dallas" proper is not the "Dallas" that is so well-loved by many. Though, the Dallas city center is quite impressive, in my opinion.
ON EDIT: In Collin County, Frisco alone has grown by about 450% since 1990. It is estimated that in recent years Frisco's population has been growing at an annual rate of 23.5 percent. That is growth. Then - look at the demographics. That's why "Dallas" is still attracting jobs and everything else that goes along with them. What we don't see in Oklahoma City.

[Patrick]

Concerning the AA center, I have been there for a few games....in fact I went there for a Mav's game just a few months ago. While impressive on the outside, it actually doesn't look any different from the Ford Center on the inside. Many people complain about the seats at the Ford Center, but in my recent trips to the AA center, I really saw no difference in their seats. I will admit though....the Ford Center looks plae on the outside in comparison to the AA Center. AA center looks more massive on the outside.

About the West End in Dallas. Don't get me wrong, it's okay, but I've been there many many times now, and it's becoming more of a joke everytime I go. More chains! Less local attractions. It was busy Saturday night, but no more busy than Bricktown or even Brookside on a Saturday night.

When planning another weekend trip, I'd take Tulsa over Dallas any day of the week.

Actually I didn't visit FW, so my comments were on the Dallas area alone.

I agree that downtown Dallas is bigger, but again that doesn't necessarily make it nicer. I honestly didn't see a difference between downtown Dallas and any other typical downtown area. Same old same old as far as I was concerned.

I don't know what landscaping you're referring to in Dallas. Dallas looked like a sea of concrete to me. It's flat......looks a lot like the west side of OKC. Not pretty IMO. Tulsa's landscape and eastern OKC's landscape is much prettier.

When planning another weekend trip in the near future, I'd much rather visit Tulsa over Dallas any day of the week! Tulsa has way more class than Dallas. And by far, it's much cleaner and GREENER!

I'm sure Dallas is continuing to improve in many ways. I do applaud them for their development and continued expansion of their Arts district. But, creating an artsy feel in Dallas is going to take more than building opera houses. It's a complete attitude that creates that atmosphere. It's something Tulsa is actually quite blessed with.

I will agree with xrayman....I think the excitement in Dallas is in the many suburbs, not the city center itself. I was quite impressed with Frisco and Plano. Edmond or BA don't even begin to hold a candle to those cities.

I guess my point is that bigger doesn't always mean better. Personally, I wouldn't want to live in Dallas. It's too big for me. I don't think we should always frown upon population in OKC and Tulsa. There's something to being a classy smaller city.

Dallas is just your typical run of the mill large city.

[Patrick]

I just thought I'd add....I guess it depends on what you compare Dallas to. I've been to Seattle, San Francisco, Sacramento, etc.....it's just really hard to compare Dallas, or even OKC for that matter to cities like those. I'm sure Hot Rod could elaborate.

[mranderson]

I just thought I'd add....I guess it depends on what you compare Dallas to. I've been to Seattle, San Francisco, Sacramento, etc.....it's just really hard to compare Dallas, or even OKC for that matter to cities like those. I'm sure Hot Rod could elaborate.

Comparing Dallas with those cities is like comparing the Grand Ole Opry with the Metropolitan Opera. (Dallas is the Opry). Or like comparing Mad Dog 20-20 with Dom Parigon. Or like a hamburger patty with Prime Rib. (Dallas is the Mad Dog 20-20 and the hamburger patty)

[HOT ROD]

ha ha ha ha, I have to laugh at those recent posts. But I think you guys are correct.

we are just blessed on the west coast. But, I think OKC compares favourably in many ways - but the biggest way, is its potential.

I just wish the rich people that live in OKC believed in OKC the way our wealthy people here believe in Seattle (and San Fran Bay Area). Here, they INVEST in our cities - so we have a wealth of "all the stuff you guys talk about." Granted we have our problems, It IS pretty tough to beat the West Coast Cities - Vancouver BC, Seattle, San Fran Bay Area, LA.

Portland is very nice as well, but it is not quite the same level. More like OKC in comparison to Dallas or Houston. Great city with great amenities but not quite there yet, but on the verge - so look out.

Like I said, OKC has potential - always has, I ALWAYS KNEW THAT, but it takes strong leadership who will stand up and get jobs, get an airport, get people moving in, and get something(s) for them all to do once they get there - that is what makes a great city; and that's what we have on the west coast!

Nevertheless,,,

Continue the Renaissance Oklahoma City

and

Thanks Patrick for setting the record straight about Dallas. I could not agree with you more!!

[HOT ROD]

One more thing about the west coast, WE DONT FIGHT WITH EACH OTHER!!!

We know that LA is the mecca for everything, San Fran is the business/finance hub, Seattle is the high-tech hub, and Vancouver is the International Paradise! But you know what, instead of putting each other down, what we do is send tourists.

Every day, you see Vancouver ads in Seattle newspapers, and in Vancouver you see Seattle and San Fran ads. In San Fran, EVERYBODY knows about Vancouver - A city JUST LIKE SAN FRAN - often called the San Fran of Canada, that did everything right!

We know that Seattle has more domestic traffic than Vancouver but Vancouver has more International flights and traffic than Seattle. You know what, Seattle sends pax to Vancouver for International flights as there is way more selection up there AND Vancouver sends pax to Seattle for US domestic. Why do you think Seattle had 28 million passengers last year? We are NOT a major hub, and we have few international flights (as Vancouver, San Fran, and LA have them). Seattle gets spin-off traffic, it truly is a regional airport! And like I said, we dont fight with Vancouver, we share with them.

If ONLY OKC AND TULSA could listen to this!!!! boy - Oklahoma could take over the south central US. Maybe one airport focus on International and the other on Domestic and share pax with shuttle flights/bus like we do.

Downtown Vancouver is AMAZING!!! Just like Manhattan, with residential towers all over the place, a true 24 hour downtown. Well, did Seattle and San Fran try to put them down, NO - we do the same. Now, both Seattle and San Fran have a pretty respectable (although not quite Vancouver like yet) hoppin' downtown full of retail and housing - following Vancouver's lead. What is the result, well - tourists like Patrick who came to San Fran or Seattle after 1998 saw downtowns that were pretty hoppin'! And that left an impression on him.

What Im trying to say is, cities should learn from each other. You dont gain anything talking about population or anything. Vancouver used to be smaller than Seattle, but now - Vancouver is the big kid up here. Still, Seattle has more high tech but we say, who cares - we are the WEST COAST! You almost can not visit Seattle, Portland, or Vancouver without visiting EACH city. San Fran would be included but it is too far for most (except international, they OFTEN DO THE VANCOUVER-Seattle-San Fran agendas). Look at that, all three cities get tourist dollars! All three cities have something similar but unique to offer. All three cities benefit and grow!

If only OKC and Tulsa could look (and follow) OUR lead!!!

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

Sorry for the pic width. That is Uptown Dallas. Not so bad I think.

[HOT ROD]

FLAT ----- wow!!!

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

... and this is an OKC forum. Ha! LOL!

[HOT ROD]

... and this is an OKC forum. Ha! LOL!

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

Actually, I revert. The area N. of downtown is actually quite hilly. Up through Midtown, over to OCU.

[xrayman]

Hot Rod,

I love your enthusiasm! But, as much as I love the beauty of San Francisco, it is a city in deep, deep decline. If Oklahoma City were to deteriorate like San Francisco - I'd leave. It is run by a bunch of lefty whack jobs and once they actually gained power - they ruined it. The dot com bust didn't help, but San Francisco has declined into an urban hellhole. Downtown, North Beach, the Wharf area, it's all still beautiful. But, the "homeless" have caused a HUGE black-eye for San Francisco. Not to mention municipal corruption and now the pretty boy mayor who has taken up the causes that the Bay Area loves - but makes even L.A. look like a rightwing stronghold.

Seattle, beautiful but filling up fast with "progressives" that eventually ruin a city with their politics that no city can afford.

OKC, Tulsa, Dallas-Fort Worth... while not as "urban" or "cooly progressive" as San Francisco or Seattle or Vancouver, have people that think more like me -- and that's worth everything.

I'm glad you are enjoying Seattle though and find it surprising you give a flip what's going on back here in Oklahoma. Seattle could use your enthusiasm to help better your new city.

[HOT ROD]

I do agree with you about San Fran, as it is an old big city that - as you say - ran into decline with a few leftish decisions. BUT San Fran is picking itself up, as they realize their decline has dropped them from #2 city in Cali, to #3, and most recent ------ #4 (after San Jose, San FRAN's Suburb is bigger than San Fran!!!). But SF is doing things differently, and they are really trying to Vancouverize their city. There have been articles in newspapers about this and I could tell when I went to visit a year ago that they are picking themselves up.

Nonetheless, no matter how low SF has dropped, SF is STILL the envy of the US. San Fran IS the most liveable city in the US continental system (I think Honolulu beats it in US overall). SF beats Seattle because of the wealth of world class amenities that Seattle just does not have. Seattle has beauty but San Fran is the big city.

Guess which city is always rated the best in NA? ---- Vancouver.

They have done almost everything right. They have a very nice metro system (with a downtown subway) which they are expanding, they have a 24 hour downtown full of all the retail you could imagine, nightclubs and bars, offices and towers, and towering mountains and pacific ocean right downtown!!! everything you could want in a city. In fact - Downtown Vancouver has FOUR 5-Star hotels!!! Name a city that has that.

So, it is easy to see why cities like Vancouver.

Seattle differs in that we have thinkers. Yes, there is more high tech and people in San Fran and YES there is more to do in Vancouver - but Seattle has a great combination of BOTH. That is why I live here. If I had my choice, I would probably live in Vancouver - but the only drawback I have against Van City is IT IS IN CANADA. Its cost of living simply does not make me feel great when I would have to take a pay cut (given the value of the Canadian dollar).

so, Seattle is the place for me. Hey, Vancouver is only 100 miles north of here, so I go up there all the time for my big city fix (and so does everyone else here). But in Seattle, its kind-of like a village mentality in that most people think like me. So I really dont have to post on Seattle forums. I feel I could assist my hometown, Oklahoma City; as certainly your forums are much more interesting from an urban development perspective.

Dont get me wrong, you have seen me enthusiastic about OKC and Vancouver and San Fran, but I am also very happy about Seattle and is why I call it home. We are a nice mid-Big city where you can grow up and learn in a great business environment that does not have life-or-death riding on your decisions (like the case in Chicago and NY). Plus, there is plenty of beauty here and lots to do.

My main complaint about Seattle is - our lack of planning. You guys may not know this (and Im sure you will laugh your -ss off), but Seattle only has two interstate freeways. Our suburbs only have one. You may not realize the impact of this, BUT because Seattle is laid out N-S (Metro wise for about 100 miles or so) and because most of our jobs lie in the centre of the metro area, TRAFFIC on our freeways is a nightmare!!!

Oh, and we have no mass transit system (aside from a great bus network which gets stuck in traffic as well). So, this is the complaint shared by most that live here. Our lack of urban planning is what makes me sick, BUT there really is nothing that can be done about it. We just simply overgrew!! We can only hope that people start leaving, as to fix things right will cost tooo dogon much $$.

We are building a light rail (finally!) but, it really is not going to help anything. Its pretty much going to be in the city of Seattle, which is great for 560k residents of Seattle (but bad for the other 3 million people in the metro). Tacoma has a light rail already but it is only in downtown Tacoma. What about, send it to major suburban population centres into downtown Seattle, downtown Tacoma, and downtown Bellevue (Seattle's Eastside suburb) - thats where people are going every rush hour but no, they are building a 4 billion dollar light rail and a 2 billion dollar monorail expansion for the city of Seattle ONLY.

So needless to say, people here are a bit pissed about this but really theres nothing that can be done. Seattle needs mass transit, plain and simple. Too bad the planners did not think about the sprawl that has occurred N-S. E and W we have mountains and ocean inlet, so no sprawl there. but going from N to S is over 100 miles.

Imagine, going from OKC to Tulsa without leaving urban/suburban landscapes? Now Imagine doing that on one four lane (one HOV lane/Express lanes at spots) freeway! Thats Metro Seattle-Tacoma! And that is my complaint.

[Patrick]

... and this is an OKC forum. Ha! LOL!

Hey Sooner&RiceGrad, why don't you zoom in on that Dallas pic a little more sowe can see all of the trash lining the interstates!

[Sooner&RiceGrad]

Think S. of downtown Dallas. Like Oak Cliff. Methroplex, baby.

[hailmary57yd]

i think that Dallas good place to chill out sometimes and it is bigger than OKC Area. allas has more club, pro sports team and more places to visit.

But I like Chicago more. I like Chicago airport and I think that its pretty big and nice airport.

I don't think that Dallas is better than Chicago. it has high crime rate, lots of strip clubs and porno stores. Compare to Chicago, Dallas' buildings are short and people are not that kind to me.

I've lived near Dallas but I think that OKC is better to live. I think that Dallas does not have a good schools compare to Oklahoma. That was one of reasons why I moved to Oklahoma.

[Nuclear_2525]

That midtown picture of Dallas may be flat, but I saw a BIG difference between midtown Dallas and Midtown OKC. While both OKC and Dallas midtowns are flat as far as landscape, Dallas's skyline is impressive...OKC's midtown skyline??? FLAT.

[okcpulse]

Nulcear2525, you're comparing Dallas, 1.2 million, to Oklahoma City, 534,000. Who's going to have more office development?

Patrick's opinion, I frankly I think I speak for all of us, is that even though Dallas, with it's burgeoning metroplex at over 5 million, has endless amenities to offer, makes us appreciate home a little more. I've gone to Texas many times. It's fun to shop there, eat there (not fun to drive), but Dallas is not home. And Nuclear, drive around Dallas, really, and see what we see. The eyesores don't make the city look great. Expectations will run high for a major metropolitan area.

Some of those buildings in midtown Dallas are beginning to see their age. One particular office building along I-35E has been vacated, and has obviously been vandalized and sprayed with graffiti.

[hailmary57yd]

I think that an opportunity cost is always existed. If you live in Dallas/Fortworth Area, you may have more chance to experience clubs, pro sports and big city life. In the contrast, you also may experience more crimes,high traffic, and expensive living cost.

If you live in OKC Area, there are not many bars, clubs, and pro sports. You can have less crime, and good education.

You need to give up one of what you want to.

I think that living in Chicago, or LA can be satisfy both of them except expensive living cost.
Chicago and LA's apartment rent prices, and living cost are not like OKC and DFW areas'.

[Nuclear_2525]

Nulcear2525, you're comparing Dallas, 1.2 million, to Oklahoma City, 534,000. Who's going to have more office development?

Patrick's opinion, I frankly I think I speak for all of us, is that even though Dallas, with it's burgeoning metroplex at over 5 million, has endless amenities to offer, makes us appreciate home a little more. I've gone to Texas many times. It's fun to shop there, eat there (not fun to drive), but Dallas is not home. And Nuclear, drive around Dallas, really, and see what we see. The eyesores don't make the city look great. Expectations will run high for a major metropolitan area.

Some of those buildings in midtown Dallas are beginning to see their age. One particular office building along I-35E has been vacated, and has obviously been vandalized and sprayed with graffiti.

I think you're missing my point. Take a look at that picture again, comparing it to OKC. From what you said, Dallas city has a little over twice what OKC city has as far as population. Does OKC have anywhere close to have of the number of high-rises as Dallas? in Midtown or Downtown?

And yes I have seen the eyesores of Dallas and the deteriorating buildings with Graffiti. OKC has plenty of that too.

Again, I am not saying I like Dallas, because I don't think it is anything special. But what I am saying, is again, like with Tulsa, instead of bashing Dallas everytime we get the chance, I think we can learn some things from them. There is obviously something very attracting about the Dallas area, or 5 million plus people wouldn't chose to live there, and it wouldn't be constantly booming like it is.

[Karried]

I think what is attracting people to Dallas are jobs and cheaper housing.

Hotrod, if you think Seattle traffic is bad, try sitting in the SF Bay Area traffic. It is horrific- hours of creeping along at 10 miles per hour. The homes there are so crammed together you can't sneeze without waking a neighbor. Hope you like sirens, barking dogs and loud music in the middle of the night, every night. SF is pretty and the ocean is nice (if you like freezing cold water with undertows that people drown in constantly) but it is nice to look at when the fog isn't covering the coast ( which is often - it is on the coast!) Most people think CA is so wonderful - until they try to live there. It's not the carefree beach image that most people think of ... it's not an ideal place to raise children unless you are extremely wealthy. The schools are really bad.

I lived there my entire life and yes I do miss the higher wages and the equity increase of my previous home and the way people are open minded and accepting of diversity, but I don't miss the traffic, horrible schools, conjestion, lines, smog, gangs or earthquakes.

Point being, every city has positives and negatives. I didn't like Dallas at all or Houston - dirty, scary places with tons of freeways, traffic and rude drivers. ( High rises just don't impress me)

But, I liked Galveston and South Padre because I do love the ocean (a warm tropical ocean).

So everyone has their preferences, it makes the world go round.