Cover story: Millennials are changing the city forever | Oklahoma Gazette (http://okgazette.com/2015/01/07/cover-story-millennials-are-changing-the-city-forever/)

I have really enjoyed seeing what this growing demographic has been doing for the city the last few years and, as a Gen Xer, it's been doubly nice that I haven't had to do any of the work. :tongue:

Very interesting graphic; this pertains to those in the 20 to 34 age group:

http://okgazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Map1.jpg

I would love to hear more about Anadu's walkable experience in Houston.

Very interesting graphic;

Yeah. Thought about posting that in the Tulsa v. OKC thread, but more level heads prevailed.

Of course, much of this is driven by jobs of all types.

And not just for college grads... With all the distribution / light industrial and service industry jobs, there are lots of well-paying options for young people without a degree.

Bottom line, when it comes to where to live employment is the number one priority for most people. In OKC, it's easier to find employment and climb the ladder than it is in a lot of places, especially the stereotypical millennial hotspots where competition for jobs is extremely tight. OKC also now offers an acceptable palate of amenities that people don't object to it like they once did.

That high teen birth rate is finally paying off. I kid, I kid.

Very interesting graphic; this pertains to those in the 20 to 34 age group:

http://okgazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Map1.jpgThat is extremely weird, yet impressive at the same time. Tulsa went from having a 0% growth rate to 22%. That's strange. Then again, apparently Dallas went from 26% to post negative, but I suppose a city that is bigger than most states population wise will loose some millennials every now and then.

That is extremely weird, yet impressive at the same time. Tulsa went from having a 0% growth rate to 22%. That's strange. Then again, apparently Dallas went from 26% to post negative, but I suppose a city that is bigger than most states population wise will loose some millennials every now and then.

Plupan, you aren't understanding the map. The figure in blue is the percentage of the total population represented by millennials. The figure in red is the growth rate percentage of millennials.

Plupan, you aren't understanding the map. The figure in blue is the percentage of the total population represented by millennials. The figure in red is the growth rate percentage of millennials.Thank you. That makes much more sense!

I wonder why the blue number is still pretty average with such a strong growth rate.. You would think with that kind of a growth rate you would think the total percentage would be higher, but it only barely beats out Kansas City and Tulsa and is behind the rest of the cities listed here. I would be interested to see migration patterns. Things like who is moving to OKC vs who is moving to Denver and Austin. Also what the migration pattern is for educated young professionals vs blue collar.

How is Dallas losing millennials?

How is Dallas losing millennials?

DFW as a whole is still a big draw for millennials (although maybe not as much as in previous years) due to the job market alone.

Dallas, the city itself, is a mess politically, still hanging on to old ideas about development and attracting young professionals.

More than anything, this city has hurt itself by putting regional mobility ahead of its own growth. By endorsing runaway freeway construction, Dallas has allowed a lot of residents and major employers to set up shop way out in the suburbs. The end result is there really isn't a "center" here. Dallas, as the metro's primary city, should play that role and it is not. And given that millennials naturally are setting near the center's, Dallas is really at a disadvantage. Sure there's Uptown, but it is simply too far away from most of DFW's job centers to be doable for anything but a small slice of the population.

D Magazine is one of my favorite magazines and they have covered this issue quite a bit (I've posted links down below in case you are curious), but a lot of mainstream publications like the Dallas Morning News have not really picked it up. IMO a lot of people here don't get the implications of these figures or really don't care, which in itself is a big problem.

Why Young People Like Denver More Than Dallas | FrontBurner | D Magazine (http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2014/12/15/why-young-people-like-denver-more-than-dallas/)

Dallas and The Millennials | Street Smart (http://streetsmart.dmagazine.com/2014/11/11/dallas-and-the-millennials/)

From the first article you posted about young people choosing Denver over Dallas.

" Mountains, sunshine, jobs in tech, and “perception of cultural cool,” stoked by microbreweries, bike-sharing, and liberal attitudes towards marijuana and same sex-marriage."

If this is true, then how is OKC outpacing Dallas and many other cities in growth of 18-34 year-olds when the city's perception is pretty much the complete opposite of this?

In my personal opinion, the answer is not all millennials seek the same thing and different people have different priorities in determining where they live. No city is going to be attractive to everyone. Employment is the dominating factor over everything else for most people. If you live in your dream city but have a job that you hate and/or are barely getting by, there comes a time to make a decision as to whether you will stay in a bad situation simply to stay in the city of your preference, or if you will move somewhere else for better employment. OKC is a city where it is easier to get your foot in the door and work your way up than it is in a lot of places. It's also easier to get involved in the community here. That can be a draw for a lot of young professionals.

People whose top priority is living in a hipster city with a huge "cool" factor should move to Austin, Denver, Portland, Seattle, or San Francisco. It's unlikely they will be truly happy anywhere else.

DFW as a whole is still a big draw for millennials (although maybe not as much as in previous years) due to the job market alone.

Dallas, the city itself, is a mess politically, still hanging on to old ideas about development and attracting young professionals.

More than anything, this city has hurt itself by putting regional mobility ahead of its own growth. By endorsing runaway freeway construction, Dallas has allowed a lot of residents and major employers to set up shop way out in the suburbs. The end result is there really isn't a "center" here. Dallas, as the metro's primary city, should play that role and it is not. And given that millennials naturally are setting near the center's, Dallas is really at a disadvantage. Sure there's Uptown, but it is simply too far away from most of DFW's job centers to be doable for anything but a small slice of the population.

D Magazine is one of my favorite magazines and they have covered this issue quite a bit (I've posted links down below in case you are curious), but a lot of mainstream publications like the Dallas Morning News have not really picked it up. IMO a lot of people here don't get the implications of these figures or really don't care, which in itself is a big problem.

Why Young People Like Denver More Than Dallas | FrontBurner | D Magazine (http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2014/12/15/why-young-people-like-denver-more-than-dallas/)

Dallas and The Millennials | Street Smart (http://streetsmart.dmagazine.com/2014/11/11/dallas-and-the-millennials/)Yeap, freeway construction is sure hurting Dallas. That's why they're one of the fastest growing metros in the US.

BTW, I'm young, and I like Dallas. I know a lot of other young people who do to. This urbanism crap that gets spewed on here and many other forum websites is something I first learned about only because I started becoming more active on online development forums. This really starts to smell of some agenda. Why is going to a city that already urbanized so hard? Do you ever see me saying that London needs to be building tons of new highway and six lane roads? No. Oklahoma City is not an urban city and never will be. Same with Dallas. Dallas has an awesome highway network and I hope they keep it up with the sole of exception of the Trinity River Tollway, but that is starting to look like it is completely dead.

This 'millennial's changing the city forever' thing seems like a huge fad and how funny it will be to watch all of them end up in suburbs in their 30's. I already know a couple Millennial's who are living in the burbs.

Why Young People Like Denver More Than Dallas | FrontBurner | D Magazine (http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/2014/12/15/why-young-people-like-denver-more-than-dallas/)
This very interesting.


Why are people choosing a place like Denver over Dallas? Mountains, sunshine, jobs in tech, and “perception of cultural cool,” stoked by microbreweries, bike-sharing, and liberal attitudes towards marijuana and same sex-marriage. Now, Dallas will never have mountains, but it might be worthwhile to keep some of these factors in mind as we talk about building a highway through the little green space we do have. And, as I’ve mentioned before, Denver is also notable for its aggressive and ambitious investments in public transit.

Dallas did rank well in one category, though. It has been successful at attracting young people to its urban core. In other words, Dallas isn’t doing a great job attracting young people, but when young people do move here, they move to places like Uptown. It doesn’t take a degree in economics to see what this is all implying. If Dallas wants to compete in the future, it needs to figure out how to develop into a city that has a more vibrant, cohesive urban core.So why even mention mountains then? Because they're building a new tollway through a park. . . What the f#ck?

Also, that is one of the little green spaces we have... Seriously? There are parks all over the city and metroplex. Go to any new urban development out in Frisco or Plano and you will see that there are tons of younger people living in them.

The urban core is also very active. Go to downtown Dallas any night and I always see people walking around. I was stuck in a mess of traffic, both cars and pedestrians, in Uptown trying to get on the North Dallas Tollway at 2:30 in the morning when it was like 35 degrees or so.

Another thing I would like to see is whether or not they factored in cost of living in there as well.

What a joke of an article.

If I had to choose between Denver and Dallas it would be no contest. Even without the view, Denver is way cooler. But my millenials (kids) live in Chicago and San Francisco, both of which trump either of those IMO.

Millenials better hurry with their changes. Gen Z's different character and its future impact is already being forecast.

Dallas has multiple centers of urban activity throughout its metro and even downtown Dallas is very impressive. West End is also not dead like many people on this site have said. Another thing that is important to consider is because DFW is so large, they can be attracting several times as many young professionals as places like OKC (in sheer number) and still have a rather unimpressive percentage gain compared to smaller cities. DFW has also been a consistent magnet for young people vs other cities having once experienced brain drain now becoming destinations for young professionals.

I think OKC's numbers are best explained by the slowing of the brain drain. 15 years ago young people pretty much had to leave OKC to find higher-paying, skilled employment. Today they can stay here if they desire. To top all of that off, OKC's major energy companies like Devon and Chesapeake offer very attractive perks in order to attract and retain millennials.

Just for clarification, does the boundaries of Dallas really only consist of 635 on the north and east, 20 on the south and 12 on the west? From then on out is it mostly suburbs? I think this would help with some of the confusion PP is getting on people about.

I've been to West End three times in the past couple of years. Once I was there because it was the only place where I could book the Marriott product I was looking for at the last minute. Twice I was in the district because I transferred from one train to the other and made ill-advised, spur-of-the-moment, curiosity-driven decisions to find a bar and have a drink before hopping the next train. I can tell you from those experiences that it absolutely, unequivocally is...DEAD.

Also, that is one of the little green spaces we have... Seriously? There are parks all over the city and metroplex. Go to any new urban development out in Frisco or Plano and you will see that there are tons of younger people living in them.

The urban core is also very active. Go to downtown Dallas any night and I always see people walking around. I was stuck in a mess of traffic, both cars and pedestrians, in Uptown trying to get on the North Dallas Tollway at 2:30 in the morningwhen it was like 35 degrees or so.

Another thing I would like to see is whether or not they factored in cost of living in there as well.

What a joke of an article.

And that is the point right there that you seem to be missing that adaniel is spot on about. People might be hanging out in Dallas, but most of them are living in the suburbs, not in the urban core. I think THAT is the point of the article.

I'm in my mid-20s. I took a job out of college where I traveled a bit, and lived in Western Oklahoma. It wasn't very enjoyable. After putting my time in, I took a job located in OKC. The other few engineers here also relocated, albeit out of state. OKC is fun, is 'home-y'. But, if I could, I would move to Denver in a heartbeat.

And that is the point right there that you seem to be missing that adaniel is spot on about. People might be hanging out in Dallas, but most of them are living in the suburbs, not in the urban core. I think THAT is the point of the article.

First, Dallas has multiple centers of urban activity. You don't have to live in downtown or uptown to get an urban experience in the Metroplex. Secondly, even the lesser urban centers in DFW arguably offer a superior urban experience to living in downtown OKC. It's just cookie cutter without a lot of character, which a lot of people don't like. Denver is full of character which is one reason its so popular. Lastly, its not like OKC has a lot of bragging rights in the area of urban/suburban population distribution in 2015. Certainly not more than Dallas. Both cities are well behind Austin and Denver in that area, both of which have outstanding, vibrant urban cores.

From the first article you posted about young people choosing Denver over Dallas.

"

If this is true, then how is OKC outpacing Dallas and many other cities in growth of 18-34 year-olds when the city's perception is pretty much the complete opposite of this?


Don't listen to the people on this board's perception of the city. The liberals on this board claim okc is backwards and just a bunch of lemmings for Sally Kern, which is not true at all.
Was traveling the last 10 days, and when I told people I was from OKC, they said they had heard nothing but positive things about the city.

First, Dallas has multiple centers of urban activity. You don't have to live in downtown or uptown to get an urban experience in the Metroplex. Secondly, even the lesser urban centers in DFW arguably offer a superior urban experience to living in downtown OKC. It's just cookie cutter without a lot of character, which a lot of people don't like. Denver is full of character which is one reason its so popular. Lastly, its not like OKC has a lot of bragging rights in the area of urban/suburban population distribution in 2015. Certainly not more than Dallas. Both cities are well behind Austin and Denver in that area, both of which have outstanding, vibrant urban cores.

No one is disputing any of that, The point is that Dallas is losing millenials to the 'burbs while OKC is gaining millenials, especially in the metro area, not as much in Norman, Yukon or Edmond.

Just for clarification, does the boundaries of Dallas really only consist of 635 on the north and east, 20 on the south and 12 on the west? From then on out is it mostly suburbs? I think this would help with some of the confusion PP is getting on people about.

More or less. There is a small portion of the city limits b/w 75 and the tollway that extends north of 635 to Bush turnpike (this is the area I live in). Even still, Dallas County is having similar issues to Dallas city proper.



Yeap, freeway construction is sure hurting Dallas. That's why they're one of the fastest growing metros in the US.

BTW, I'm young, and I like Dallas. I know a lot of other young people who do to. This urbanism crap that gets spewed on here and many other forum websites is something I first learned about only because I started becoming more active on online development forums. This really starts to smell of some agenda.

I expected an overly defensive response from you. Nobody here is forcing an agenda. I don't hate Dallas, but facts are facts. How would you explain the decline in millenial population?

And it is funny that you mention the Trinity Tollway. Do you know why it is dead? Becasue a group of very active citizens, many of them below the age of 35, are fighting to keep it from being built, much like the boulevard situation in OKC. In fact, there are quite a bit of people in Dallas who aren't so different than what you see on here, working hard to bring about change. It may not jive to your reality, but they are there.

These are non sensical comparisons. OKC is not in the league of Houston, Dallas, Seattle, Portland, Denver etc. Is is frankly unfair to compare OKC to these places. OKC is JUST starting to be a diverse City with the amenities offered in these places to attract this demographic. OKC may be able to compare itself to Memphis, Nashville, Louisville, maybe Indianapolis, where truthfully OKC still falls way behind. OKC has made progress BUT much needs to be done to make it a place where large numbers of millennials will go to unless it is for a job. The State laws and lawmakers don't help.

OKC has made progress BUT much needs to be done to make it a place where large numbers of millennials will go to unless it is for a job. The State laws and lawmakers don't help.

OKC is doing very well attracting young people right now because of the lucrative packages being offered by the likes of Devon and Chesapeake to relocate people here. There has been enough progress that the city now offers an acceptable level of amenities that people will no longer turn down a good job offer here simply because its Oklahoma City. I have also known several college grads who wanted to move to DFW or Austin but ended up getting an offer here and they stayed. That is quite a change from 15 years ago.

I am however concerned about what low oil prices are going to do to the progress OKC has seen over the past five or so years. If hiring slows down or worst case scenario there are huge layoffs, will most of these educated millennials stay in OKC or will they move somewhere else?

With regards to the graphic itself I have a question. Looking at Dallas it say 26.3% and a -5.8% growth rate. I think we can all agree that the 26.3% means that 26.3% of the people in Dallas are in the age group identified, but what exactly does the -5.8% represent? Is it saying there are actually fewer millennials in Dallas, or that the percentage of the population that group represents has gone down 5.8% - because there is a huge difference between the two. If it is the latter then the actual number of millenials could have gone up, but not as fast as some other age ranges, so as a percentage of the whole they went down even while increasing in number.

With regards to the graphic itself I have a question. Looking at Dallas it say 26.3% and a -5.8% growth rate. I think we can all agree that the 26.3% means that 26.3% of the people in Dallas are in the age group identified, but what exactly does the -5.8% represent? Is it saying there are actually fewer millennials in Dallas, or that the percentage of the population that group represents has gone down 5.8% - because there is a huge difference between the two. If it is the latter then the actual number of millenials could have gone up, but not as fast as some other age ranges, so as a percentage of the whole they went down even while increasing in number.

I interpreted it as the latter number. That is, 5.8% MORE of the population was in the age group in 2000 than today.

With regards to the graphic itself I have a question. Looking at Dallas it say 26.3% and a -5.8% growth rate. I think we can all agree that the 26.3% means that 26.3% of the people in Dallas are in the age group identified, but what exactly does the -5.8% represent? Is it saying there are actually fewer millennials in Dallas, or that the percentage of the population that group represents has gone down 5.8% - because there is a huge difference between the two. If it is the latter then the actual number of millenials could have gone up, but not as fast as some other age ranges, so as a percentage of the whole they went down even while increasing in number.

Correct. The -5.8% tells us that the percentage of Dallas residents between 18 and 34 is 5.8% lower today than it was in 2000. The actual number likely has gone up.

Dallas has been a young professional hotspot for many years now and a lot of millennials are moving there, but its also a hotspot for families escaping California for a lower cost of living. The numbers really do make sense when you look at them. They do NOT say that Dallas isn't an attractive city for young professionals like some people are trying to spin this as saying.

Correct. The -5.8% tells us that the percentage of Dallas residents between 18 and 34 is 5.8% lower today than it was in 2000. The actual number likely has gone up.

Dallas has been a young professional hotspot for many years now and a lot of millennials are moving there, but its also a hotspot for families escaping California for a lower cost of living. The numbers really do make sense when you look at them. They do NOT say that Dallas isn't an attractive city for young professionals like some people are trying to spin this as saying.

Yes. The gross numbers can go up while percentages go down at the same time, especially if there is significant growth in other age demographics.

What's interesting about Oklahoma City, is that in that time frame the city's population grew by about 25% and the millennial share of the population grew by 21%. So, that amounts to a significant gross increase for the city proper (someone smarter than me can probably do the math and figure it out). And as much as this may have to do with young people migrating or returning from other states, I think a lot of it just has to do with the fact that the city has become much more attractive to young people no matter where they come from. It seems more and more that their first choice is to live within the inner loop if they can, whereas in 2000 many probably would have just as likely chosen to live in Norman as anywhere in the city.

Yes. The gross numbers can go up while percentages go down at the same time, especially if there is significant growth in other age demographics.

What's interesting about Oklahoma City, is that in that time frame the city's population grew by about 25% and the millennial share of the population grew by 21%. So, that amounts to a significant gross increase for the city proper (someone smarter than me can probably do the math and figure it out). And as much as this may have to do with young people migrating or returning from other states, I think a lot of it just has to do with the fact that the city has become much more attractive to young people no matter where they come from. It seems more and more that their first choice is to live within the inner loop if they can, whereas in 2000 many probably would have just as likely chosen to live in Norman as anywhere in the city.

25% seems a bit high...Assuming the 2013 estimate of 610K is correct, OKC has grown about 21-22%. Still not bad of course. And assuming the rate cited in the map is a measure of growth in the millennial share of the population, you'd be correct to assume gross increase is probably much higher than that.

In comparison, Dallas has grown a hair under 6% in the same time frame, so it is likely the number of millenials has still increased by the smallest of margins since the drop in the share of population (-5%) is less than overall growth. Barely treading water with millennials, however, is still worrisome.

Here is a different perspective on the same question. The DFW area is still doing very well at attracting millennials.

Millennial Boomtowns: Where The Generation Is Clustering (It's Not Downtown) | Newgeography.com (http://www.newgeography.com/content/004457-millennial-boomtowns-where-the-generation-is-clustering-its-not-downtown)

I have bolded the cities that are of interest. This includes the total metro area population in the 20-29 age group in 2010 and 2013 in thousands and the percentage of change. OKC comes in at a modest #28. Not bad though when you consider how much it's improved since 2000. Shockingly low on this list is Austin, with DFW beating it by a good margin. It doesn't surprise me though once you look at the entire picture i.e. I doubt all the new high-rise luxury condos in downtown Austin are being purchased by 24-year old artists. The hipster magnets are under-performing across the board with the exception of Denver and Seattle.

Keep in mind this is talking metro areas, not urban cores.

20-29 Population Change: Major Metropolitan Areas: 2010-2013

# MSA 2010 2013 %Change
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 San Antonio, TX 311 340 9.2%
2 Riverside-San Bern, CA 605 655 8.3%
3 Orlando, FL 322 348 8.1%
4 Miami, FL 716 771 7.7%
5 Detroit, MI 506 541 6.8%
6 Houston, TX 856 909 6.2%
7 Denver, CO 357 378 6.0%
8 Charlotte, NC-SC 288 304 5.8%
9 Seattle, WA 499 528 5.7%
10 Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC 274 290 5.6%
11 Buffalo, NY 153 162 5.4%
12 Jacksonville, FL 187 197 5.3%
13 Grand Rapids, MI 141 148 5.2%
14 Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 341 359 5.1%
15 Rochester, NY 146 153 4.8%
16 Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 911 954 4.7%
17 Raleigh, NC 154 161 4.7%
18 Los Angeles, CA 1,941 2,032 4.7%
19 Richmond, VA 167 174 4.6%
20 Nashville, TN 242 253 4.6%
21 Indianapolis. IN 253 264 4.5%
22 Phoenix, AZ 592 618 4.3%
23 Sacramento, CA 307 321 4.3%
24 Cleveland, OH 242 252 4.3%
25 Austin, TX 295 307 4.2%
26 Boston, MA-NH 663 690 4.1%
27 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 182 189 4.1%
28 Oklahoma City, OK 195 203 4.0%
29 Atlanta, GA 719 747 4.0%
30 Hartford, CT 154 160 3.9%

Where are New York and Chicago on this list? I'd expect them to still lead in at least absolute numbers for just about any category or measurement.

Where are New York and Chicago on this list? I'd expect them to still lead in at least absolute numbers for just about any category or measurement.

I only included the top 30. Click the link and you can see the full list.

39 New York, NY-NJ-PA 2,740 2,828 3.2%
48 Chicago, IL-IN-WI 1,326 1,328 0.2%

These are non sensical comparisons. OKC is not in the league of Houston, Dallas, Seattle, Portland, Denver etc. Is is frankly unfair to compare OKC to these places. OKC is JUST starting to be a diverse City with the amenities offered in these places to attract this demographic. OKC may be able to compare itself to Memphis, Nashville, Louisville, maybe Indianapolis, where truthfully OKC still falls way behind. OKC has made progress BUT much needs to be done to make it a place where large numbers of millennials will go to unless it is for a job. The State laws and lawmakers don't help.

Yeah. OKC is not the same type of city as Dallas, Seattle, etc.

I don't WANT OKC to be *anything* like Dallas, Seattle, etc. I chose Oklahoma *because* of the lifestyle that Oklahoma gives, not because I want some hip urban city (Oklahoma isn't that).

OKC is growing and less old now, but "changing the city forever" is a bit of an overstatement. We have a growing economy, a lot of new development, etc.-- and have for decades. The growth rate continues. It's still OKC, and that's what is good about it. Suburbs, cars, kids, hometown family values, safety and low crime rates, new houses, good/decent schools for the suburban midwest, etc.

OKC is doing very well attracting young people right now because of the lucrative packages being offered by the likes of Devon and Chesapeake to relocate people here. There has been enough progress that the city now offers an acceptable level of amenities that people will no longer turn down a good job offer here simply because its Oklahoma City. I have also known several college grads who wanted to move to DFW or Austin but ended up getting an offer here and they stayed. That is quite a change from 15 years ago.

I am however concerned about what low oil prices are going to do to the progress OKC has seen over the past five or so years. If hiring slows down or worst case scenario there are huge layoffs, will most of these educated millennials stay in OKC or will they move somewhere else?

Oil companies here have lured a lot of young people in, definitely. Without the oil industry hiring here, many of those young workers would leave and go to another state.

Millennials statistically move often anyway. OKC might be on the map of regional young millennials now, but in a few years, some other city will be more of a destination for young people from our region. OKC isn't on the map of most young millennials in the USA. I've met only a dozen people who chose to move here from NYC, LA, Seattle, etc. unless they were either lured here by oil companies giving them a huge package or if they were from Oklahoma and moving back. That, and military relocation to Oklahoma.

Oil companies here have lured a lot of young people in, definitely. Without the oil industry hiring here, many of those young workers would leave and go to another state.

Millennials statistically move often anyway. OKC might be on the map of regional young millennials now, but in a few years, some other city will be more of a destination for young people from our region. OKC isn't on the map of most young millennials in the USA. I've met only a dozen people who chose to move here from NYC, LA, Seattle, etc. unless they were either lured here by oil companies giving them a huge package or if they were from Oklahoma and moving back. That, and military relocation to Oklahoma.

My, aren't you a breath of fresh air for a new poster. You're entitled to your opinion but don't expect to get a warm reception here from most regulars. Obviously you are the final arbiter of what's happening based on a few people that you personally have met. My experience has been very different.

OKC might be on the map of regional young millennials now......OKC isn't on the map of most young millennials in the USA.

I'm confused.

I'm confused.

I'm thinking you're not the only one.

Yeah. OKC is not the same type of city as Dallas, Seattle, etc.

I don't WANT OKC to be *anything* like Dallas, Seattle, etc. I chose Oklahoma *because* of the lifestyle that Oklahoma gives, not because I want some hip urban city (Oklahoma isn't that).

OKC is growing and less old now, but "changing the city forever" is a bit of an overstatement. We have a growing economy, a lot of new development, etc.-- and have for decades. The growth rate continues. It's still OKC, and that's what is good about it. Suburbs, cars, kids, hometown family values, safety and low crime rates, new houses, good/decent schools for the suburban midwest, etc.

That's really too bad - because a lot of us here WANT OKC to be everything like Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, etc. Not Dallas or Houston. We also (at least currently) have chosen OKC because of the lifestyle - excellent jobs with great pay and flexible schedule, a thriving, vibrant urban neighborhood to live in with plenty of options for entertainment all within walking distance. We did NOT choose OKC because of the boring suburbs, cars (I regret buying a new one last year - I barely drive half of what I used to). We live in a new neighborhood right in downtown in a safe neighborhood with families, hipsters, graduate students, and oh yeah, millenials. So if you want to keep OKC backward, go for it! Sounds like you're doing a great job. But there are a great many of us who are doing the exact opposite. Sorry, I guess?

Okie405 does make some valid and true points. However, he discounts the mark that young people moving here, even reluctantly, for O&G jobs will make on the city, helping transform it into a place that is actually desirable to this demographic. The city has a ways to go in my opinion but it is leaps and bounds better than it was 15 years ago. His mindset is reminiscent of the old OKC, in which living here meant getting married at 18 to your high school sweetheart and having 5 kids and a mortgage in Edmond by age 23. If you wanted anything else, you had to move to Dallas, Austin, Denver, etc. There is still plenty of that here, too much in my opinion, but at least now there are other options and other lifestyles available here. That trend will only continue as time progresses.

Okie405 does make some valid and true points. However, he discounts the mark that young people moving here, even reluctantly, for O&G jobs will make on the city, helping transform it into a place that is actually desirable to this demographic. The city has a ways to go in my opinion but it is leaps and bounds better than it was 15 years ago. His mindset is reminiscent of the old OKC, in which living here meant getting married at 18 to your high school sweetheart and having 5 kids and a mortgage in Edmond by age 23. If you wanted anything else, you had to move to Dallas, Austin, Denver, etc. There is still plenty of that here, too much in my opinion, but at least now there are other options and other lifestyles available here. That trend will only continue as time progresses.

No doubt. OKC is significantly different even from my med school days, which wasn't too long ago. Met a med school classmate at Slims last week, and after we'd enjoyed our couple of beverages, we were walking back to his car on 2nd street, and he was like "shoot, now I have to drive 25 minutes!", and I was already home. Downtown rocks.

So if you want to keep OKC backward, go for it!

I appreciate your zeal for your current living situation, but you need to step back in a little bit in calling those of us who choose to live in the outer limits of OKC "backwards." I love what the folks who live downtown are doing for the city, as we're only as strong as our core, but different people have different priorities. Sometimes those priorities take precedent over others, and we choose to live where we live. If you continue to do your part (and others) in making the core a fine place to live, then in the future maybe more people like myself won't have such a tough decision on where to live.

No doubt. OKC is significantly different even from my med school days, which wasn't too long ago. Met a med school classmate at Slims last week, and after we'd enjoyed our couple of beverages, we were walking back to his car on 2nd street, and he was like "shoot, now I have to drive 25 minutes!", and I was already home. Downtown rocks.

That sounds like me, living in far north OKC. I would like to move downtown but I won't do it until basic amenities such as a grocery store and drug store no longer require a 10-15 minute drive to suburbia. I had the opportunity to do it about a month ago but this is a deal breaker for me.

Even millenials who choose to live outside the core want mass transit. That is what we are missing. Good mass transit will help keep neighborhoods that are farther out from being abandoned for new housing on the far perimeter of the 'burbs. We need commuter rail, a better bus system and an expanded streetcar system if we want this city to keep progressing. MAPS has done a fantastic job of improving leisure time options and it's now time to make it easy and safe to get to them.

Yesterday I bought everything I needed for dinner at Native Roots and walked home with it. If I forget an ingredient I'm back there in 3 minutes and I don't wait in a checkout line. I don't drive any further to the drug store now than I did living further north. I'd live a closer drug store, but it's no deal breaker and never was for me personally.

Even millenials who choose to live outside the core want mass transit. That is what we are missing. Good mass transit will help keep neighborhoods that are farther out from being abandoned for new housing on the far perimeter of the 'burbs. We need commuter rail, a better bus system and an expanded streetcar system if we want this city to keep progressing. MAPS has done a fantastic job of improving leisure time options and it's now time to make it easy and safe to get to them.

I cannot say I agree with you. Most people, even younger people, would rather have their own car than take the bus. Even in Charlotte a majority of people I knew who took the bus only did so as a last resort. People who want to live a completely car-free lifestyle probably aren't going to consider a city like OKC in the first place.

I do agree that having a streetcar and commuter rail are good investments, but I still wonder if OKC has a high enough population density for those options to be successful.

I find that I stop in to NR almost like a convenience store when I'm walking by. Stop in and get a soda and snack and on my way.

I cannot say I agree with you. Most people, even younger people, would rather have their own car than take the bus. Even in Charlotte a majority of people I knew who took the bus only did so as a last resort. People who want to live a completely car-free lifestyle probably aren't going to consider a city like OKC in the first place.

I do agree that having a streetcar and commuter rail are good investments, but I still wonder if OKC has a high enough population density for those options to be successful.

My husband used to agree with you. Then we moved downtown. He works at Mercy and says he is shocked at the current volume of traffic on the Broadway Extension. He is now decidedly pro-commuter rail.

I ride the bus with my kids all the time when visiting them in Chicago and San Francisco. Between four of them they have 1 car. They say the bus beats driving hands down and I have to agree with them. I didn't have a car when I lived in Denver and rode the bus everywhere. When it's frequent and convenient, attitudes often change.

I ride the bus with my kids all the time when visiting them in Chicago and San Francisco. Between four of them they have 1 car. They say the bus beats driving hands down and I have to agree with them. I didn't have a car when I lived in Denver and rode the bus everywhere. When it's frequent and convenient, attitudes often change.

San Francisco and Chicago have very, very different cultures compared to OKC and mass transit is an integral part of it. Denver is not on the level of SF or Chicago but it is still very different compared to OKC. Much of me is skeptical of mass transit really being compatible with the culture in central Oklahoma, especially the bus. I will be very interested to see how much use the bus system here gets now that they've expanded their hours. The streetcar and commuter rail are different animals serving different purposes than the metro bus system and I think could be successful if done correctly.

I'd love some commuter rail. I'd also love some shuttle bus action for Thunder games too (San Antonio did this for years when they played at the Alamodome, but parking down there was non-existent).

I would never really be able to use commuter rail for my work (field work requires me leaving the office to jobsites) but I think once people realized what they could get out of it, I think some of those attitudes could change bchris.

That sounds like me, living in far north OKC. I would like to move downtown but I won't do it until basic amenities such as a grocery store and drug store no longer require a 10-15 minute drive to suburbia. I had the opportunity to do it about a month ago but this is a deal breaker for me.

As betts mentioned, Native Roots has 95% of what you need on a daily basis, whether it's produce, bread, naan, organic garbanzo beans, fresh made hummus, etc. Their fruit and yogurt parfaits are my new weakness. We probably go 3-4 times a week at least.

The ironic thing is if people keep saying "well I'm not going to move downtown until such-and-such is there" - the formulaic chains will never come in - they want the people there first, then they'll come in. The good part is situations like we have at the moment attract the new, young, local entrepreneurs, or the local groups (324). Who cares if some big box retailer is here or not?

And if you want a drug store, the CVS and Walgreens at 23rd and classen are just a few minutes away. Hardly suburbia. And if native roots doesn't have what you need, whole foods is 7-8 minutes away, and also hardly suburbia.

Amenities aren't the issue for most. It's the "S" word, but that's been discussed to death in many other threads. I applaud those working to make that better, and I have high hopes for it.

It's not a very well kept secret that Buy for Less has an Uptown Grocery planned for Midtown within the next five years - rumor being on the Bleu Garten site once their lease is up. That is an Oklahoma-owned company and will fill a huge hole in OKC's core in so many different ways. It will also drive a lot of people, myself included, who currently won't live downtown due to lack of these conveniences to reconsider it.

Article on the subject:

Young Americans: Yearning for the Suburbs, Stuck in the City - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/01/young-americans-yearning-for-the-suburbs-stuck-in-the-city/384752/)

Even millenials who choose to live outside the core want mass transit. That is what we are missing. Good mass transit will help keep neighborhoods that are farther out from being abandoned for new housing on the far perimeter of the 'burbs. We need commuter rail, a better bus system and an expanded streetcar system if we want this city to keep progressing. MAPS has done a fantastic job of improving leisure time options and it's now time to make it easy and safe to get to them.I don't want mass transit in the suburbs.

I don't want mass transit in the suburbs.

Why? What's the downside of a train running from OKC to Norman daily? Or a fixed wheel line, or even the bussing that we have now? When I was living in Edmond and working in Norman I was dreaming of being able to drive to the farmers market downtown, park, and ride a train.