Method Man said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

I would think SA would be a large city just maybe on the lower end when ranking them. And that would be whether you are talking about actual city limits or the metro area.

---

I guess it matters what everyone considers "large" or small.

I would consider a city with a metro population of 1.5 to 3 Million to be a medium sized city.

---

What if I told you there was a town in 1977 that had 500 people.

And that in 2024 it has grown to 38,000 people.

And that by 2074 it would have 2,600,000 people (if the growth rate remains the same)

And all of that by natural population growth (zero in migration)

50 years later it would be around 180 million

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiryas_Joel,_New_York

It's hard to reconcile; "I'm not a local. How can I know anything about your city?" with the judgment of "It sucks."

Go to Heritage Hills. Way better than anything Tulsa has.

I see you missed the Convention Center and Scissortail Park, nicer than BankOne in Tulsa. That area around BankOne is a dump. Somehow, you skipped that part.

I agree that Tulsa's trees and hills are nice. I live in East Edmond which is all trees and rolling hills. BearForce, just east and north of me lives in a forest.

I appreciate that you tried. You just don't know what you are talking about.

Happy to take you out sometime.

Method Man said:

---

Edmond,

Thank you for the recommendations. I'm anxious to try something in OKC that is not Country Fried Steak, or Billy Sims BBQ.....even though the CFS is excellent.

---

Still cannot get over you judging my city based on fast food.

But, if we go out, I'm stretching that shi*ty little expense account you have.

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Metropolitan area is not the ONLY way to measure or compare cities..

---

Per Capita income is one.

And then another measure that people get very mad if you mention…but let's just say it has to do with how safe the local parks are and if you can leave your car unlocked while getting groceries

---

There are many socioeconomic ways to measure these things. Income per capital is just one. There are also political and cultural measures. Crime is an important and generally speaking, the larger a city is the more likely crime will be a problem. But this is where politics comes into play: a city that defunded the police, released criminals from jail or refused to prosecute them, encouraged riots, prosecuted people for defending themselves & others, etc is going to be more dangerous because the politicians have incentivized crime.

Method Man said:

---

historian said:

---

Metropolitan area is not the ONLY way to measure or compare cities. In some cases it might be the best but not necessarily always. Even by that standard, though, SA is large. Any metropolitan are of 1 million or more is large.

Internationally, things are different. The developing world has plenty of megacities with 20 million or more. Thankfully, the US does not except maybe the greater NYC area. There are not many cities over 10 million people in the more advanced countries: London, Paris, Tokyo, Seoul, etc.

---

Historian,

San Antonio is not really the 7th largest city in the United States....in actuality its more like 23-25th. .
A city with a metro area of only 1 million people is NOT that big.....not big enough to support multiple pro sports franchises.

The reason you have to compare metro area when comparing cities are for people that say dumb things like San Antonio is larger than Dallas. If you say something like that you are essentially excluding all the people that live in Plano, Irving, Richardson, Frisco, Garland as Dallas residents.

When I was younger I used to think I was really clever when I told people that Jacksonville, Fl was actually bigger than Miami. J-Ville has a larger proper population than Miami.....but Miami is a much larger city when you factor in the residents that live in the suburbs.

If you want to really understand what the largest cities in the United States are please follow this link:
These cities are going to be the largest TV markets, the cities with the highest GDP...the cities with the most people and the most influence.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area#:~:text=Combined%20Statistical%20Area%20(CSA)%20is,demonstrate%20economic%20or%20social%20linkage.

---

Only if you focus on metropolitan area alone. That often is important but sometimes city limits measures are too. Even by the standard of metropolitan area, however, San Antonio is still quite large. A million people is a lot if people and if they are concentrated in a specific area that is significant. Again, it all depends on how one looks at things.

From a socioeconomic perspective, San Antonio is smaller than other cities which is why it doesn't have more professional sports franchises. That was pointed out above.

I cannot believe we are quibbling about such minutiae!

whitetrash said:

---

Pecos 45 said:

---

Stefano DiMera said:

---

SMU is 5 miles from downtown Dallas.

---

And I have looked, but I cannot find that "hilltop" they keep referring to.

---

Go to the top step at the entrance to Dallas Hall and turn around. You have an unobstructed view of the downtown skyline. It's the highest point N of downtown until you get to Hillcrest HS at Walnut Hill.

---

I will do so and squint until I see it.
(Sipping coffee while waiting
on breakfast.)

Method Man said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

BluesBear said:

---

Stop giving them money. Period. Unless you are providing royalty checks each year back to the citizens, enough of this tax payer imposed fees for Billionaires who don't want to use their own money. Another scam...

---

That is freaking crazy talk. Taxpayer funded assets have transformed OKC into something really great. What do I care if a billionaire makes more money? I get the benefit of having a much better place to live.

---

Honestly....just so I know for future trips.......What makes OKC "something really great"?????

I'd like to do something this evening besides go to a bar, or a BBQ restaurant.

---

Just curious as to what you would like to do of an evening that you cannot do in OKC?

Method Man said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Gotta be large. It has more people than Dallas (not talking metro pop.)

---

You can only really judge cities based on their metropolitan populations.

San Antonio is not a larger city than Atlanta, Boston or Dallas.....but if you only look at a cities proper population you might get tricked into saying something foolish like:
"San Antonio is a larger city than Atlanta, Dallas, or Boston because San Antonio has a proper population of 1.4 million while Boston only has 675k and Atlanta has 500k"

If you were to ever go to any of these cities, it would be clear as daylight that they were larger, more robust cities than San Antonio.

San Antonio has a large proper population because it has very few suburbs. While Dallas is the opposite.
Dallas is similar to Los Angeles in that it has a bunch of heavily populated suburbs.

The San Antonio Metro Population is: 2.5 million people
Atlanta: 7.2 Million
Boston: 8.3 million
Dallas: 8.6 million

A large city is really anything over 5 million people.
There are 14 cities in the United States with metro populations of over 5 million people.
Those cities are going to have the largest GDP's, the most corporations, the most $$$....etc

---

I'm assuming your numbers for Dallas include the entire DFW complex. To be fair, you might as well lump all of San Antonio with the entire I-35 complex of SA, New Braunfels, San Marcos, Austin, Round Rock, and Georgetown.

Disclosure: I'm an old guy who grew up in SA whose mother still lives there. I've lived in Dallas since '78. My wife of almost 42 years is an OU alum and OKC native. Used to think I'd love to retire in the Austin area, but that dream died 20+ years ago. Hate what it has become. Could say the same thing about most of everything between SA and Georgetown. Too damn many people. Get off of my lawn (lol)!

I know what you mean. I grew up in New Braunfels and still go there often to visit my Mom. It has grown dramatically over the past 45+ years from around 22k in the late 1970s to over 100k now. Traffic is often an issue because of the growth and the interstate highway. Many other issues as well. But it's still a nice town. I guess home always is!

It has lots of amenities. We used to drive into San Antonio fairly often because it's so close and it wasn't difficult. Now the traffic there is so bad we rarely want to. We rarely need to: almost anything we would want in SA is available in NB comparably.

At least I know my way around and how to get places when there is a traffic jam.

historian said:

---

I know what you mean. I grew up in New Braunfels and still go there often to visit my Mom. It has grown dramatically over the past 45+ years from around 22k in the late 1970s to over 100k now. Traffic is often an issue because of the growth and the interstate highway. Many other issues as well. But it's still a nice town. I guess home always is!

It has lots of amenities. We used to drive into San Antonio fairly often because it's so close and it wasn't difficult. Now the traffic there is so bad...

---

I used to go to camp in the Hill Country in the 90s

It's wild how that area has changed and how crowded it's become.

Yes. At least there are still plenty of nice spots to get some of that feel.

bear2be2 said:

---

montypython said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

The logic of these things is so wrong. These are not investments in the community, they are income transfers from people with less money to people with much more money.

---

That's pretty much all it is.

These deals aren't given a ton of public scrutiny because sports are a very unique business.It's not like 100k people are buying amazon shirts and cheering for amazon in distribution centers. Then when amazon says they need a new distribution center to be competitive, fans and local government pony up.

That and civic leaders tend to push for these ridiculous taxes and so forth because they don't want their legacy to be the person who let xyz team leave the city.

---

But from a city development and tourism perspective, it is disastrous any time these cities lose a team.

---

I disagree. It's rare for college teams to 'move'. I can't think of one that has leveraged the goodwill of the fans against themselves in the way pro teams do.. So the only data we have for comparison is pro sports and it would be difficult to prove that any of those cities lost out on development or tourism. Los Angeles has lost multiple teams over the years, San Diego, San Francisco, Houston and it wasn't disastrous for any of them.

Oakland just lost the Raiders again (permanently this time) which may actually turn out to be an improvement for the city in the the long run.

historian said:

---

I know what you mean. I grew up in New Braunfels and still go there often to visit my Mom. It has grown dramatically over the past 45+ years from around 22k in the late 1970s to over 100k now. Traffic is often an issue because of the growth and the interstate highway. Many other issues as well. But it's still a nice town. I guess home always is!

It has lots of amenities. We used to drive into San Antonio fairly often because it's so close and it wasn't difficult. Now the traffic there is so bad we rarely want to. We rarely need to: almost anything we would want in SA is available in NB comparably.

At least I know my way around and how to get places when there is a traffic jam.

---

Every major city has grown too much over the past 25-30 years. They're just a sprawling sea of endless and largely charmless suburbs. A hellscape IMO. Visiting my parents and in-laws in the Metroplex is an absolute chore these days ... and not because I don't enjoy their company. Fighting with millions of people to get or go anywhere takes most of the joy out of going there in the first place.

After spending parts of the first 22 years of my life in the Fort Worth suburbs, you couldn't pay me enough to move back. The last 17 years in an actual mid-size city has woken me up to the beauty of life in a quieter, more stress-free environment.

montypython said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

montypython said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

The logic of these things is so wrong. These are not investments in the community, they are income transfers from people with less money to people with much more money.

---

That's pretty much all it is.

These deals aren't given a ton of public scrutiny because sports are a very unique business.It's not like 100k people are buying amazon shirts and cheering for amazon in distribution centers. Then when amazon says they need a new distribution center to be competitive, fans and local government pony up.

That and civic leaders tend to push for these ridiculous taxes and so forth because they don't want their legacy to be the person who let xyz team leave the city.

---

But from a city development and tourism perspective, it is disastrous any time these cities lose a team.

---

I disagree. It's rare for college teams to 'move'. I can't think of one that has leveraged the goodwill of the fans against themselves in the way pro teams do.. So the only data we have for comparison is pro sports and it would be difficult to prove that any of those cities lost out on development or tourism. Los Angeles has lost multiple teams over the years, San Diego, San Francisco, Houston and it wasn't disastrous for any of them.

Oakland just lost the Raiders again (permanently this time) which may actually turn out to be an improvement for the city in the the long run.

---

Oakland is about to lose the A's, too. It won't be an advantage for that city. It will just fall farther and farther behind San Francisco and its other Bay Area neighbors.

A mega-city like Los Angeles doesn't need pro sports teams. Other than the Lakers and maybe Dodgers when they're good, those organizations aren't even a significant part of that city's culture.

That's not the case in cities that don't rank in the top-five worldwide by virtually any reasonable measure.

Losing the Rams sure as hell didn't help Saint Louis. And if losing the Oilers didn't hurt Houston, they wouldn't have fought so hard to get an NFL franchise back.

montypython said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

montypython said:

---

CorsicanaBear said:

---

The logic of these things is so wrong. These are not investments in the community, they are income transfers from people with less money to people with much more money.

---

That's pretty much all it is.

These deals aren't given a ton of public scrutiny because sports are a very unique business.It's not like 100k people are buying amazon shirts and cheering for amazon in distribution centers. Then when amazon says they need a new distribution center to be competitive, fans and local government pony up.

That and civic leaders tend to push for these ridiculous taxes and so forth because they don't want their legacy to be the person who let xyz team leave the city.

---

But from a city development and tourism perspective, it is disastrous any time these cities lose a team.

---

I disagree. It's rare for college teams to 'move'. I can't think of one that has leveraged the goodwill of the fans against themselves in the way pro teams do.. So the only data we have for comparison is pro sports and it would be difficult to prove that any of those cities lost out on development or tourism. Los Angeles has lost multiple teams over the years, San Diego, San Francisco, Houston and it wasn't disastrous for any of them.

Oakland just lost the Raiders again (permanently this time) which may actually turn out to be an improvement for the city in the the long run.

---

For a major city like the ones you mentioned losing a team is not a disaster for the whole city but surely does have an impact on the economics of the immediate area where the stadium was.

However, there are plenty of cities that if they lost their sports team it would be a big or major disaster to the entire economy as they are a big draw for many other things.

Who had Oklahoma v Tulsa pillow fight on your topic bingo card?

Edmond Bear said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Edmond,

Thank you for the recommendations. I'm anxious to try something in OKC that is not Country Fried Steak, or Billy Sims BBQ.....even though the CFS is excellent.

---

Still cannot get over you judging my city based on fast food.

But, if we go out, I'm stretching that shi*ty little expense account you have.

---

Edmond,

I'm sorry if I'm offending you. You are acting like I'm talking about a family member, or a close friend of yours.
Your little insults about the Best Western, or my expense account are humorous to me. Best Westerns are for people from Oklahoma.

FYI....I'm Lifetime Platinum with Marriott... What that means is that I could stop staying at Marriott's, and for the rest of my life I'll always have Platinum benefits such as early or late checkout, concierge lounge access, free check in gift.....etc
Marriotts also have to keep a certain number of reserved rooms for their Platinum members. This is how I went to two different Sugar Bowls at the last second.

I'm judging your city because you had the gall to compare it to Dallas.
Dallas is a city known all over the world.....OKC not so much.
There are more people in Dallas than the entire state of Oklahoma.

This is what business travelers do. They judge the different cities they have to work in based on their entertainment options, ease of traffic, food options....etc

Oklahoma City is average. Middle of the road. OK. Not bad.

Its not a particularly attractive city, and its natural landscape (unlike Birmingham, Little Rock or Tulsa) is boring. Those cities are all kinda boring, but they have the advantages of being located in places with a lot of natural beauty.
The OKC landscape is flat and un-attractive.

curtpenn said:

---

Method Man said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Gotta be large. It has more people than Dallas (not talking metro pop.)

---

You can only really judge cities based on their metropolitan populations.

San Antonio is not a larger city than Atlanta, Boston or Dallas.....but if you only look at a cities proper population you might get tricked into saying something foolish like:
"San Antonio is a larger city than Atlanta, Dallas, or Boston because San Antonio has a proper population of 1.4 million while Boston only has 675k and Atlanta has 500k"

If you were to ever go to any of these cities, it would be clear as daylight that they were larger, more robust cities than San Antonio.

San Antonio has a large proper population because it has very few suburbs. While Dallas is the opposite.
Dallas is similar to Los Angeles in that it has a bunch of heavily populated suburbs.

The San Antonio Metro Population is: 2.5 million people
Atlanta: 7.2 Million
Boston: 8.3 million
Dallas: 8.6 million

A large city is really anything over 5 million people.
There are 14 cities in the United States with metro populations of over 5 million people.
Those cities are going to have the largest GDP's, the most corporations, the most $$$....etc

---

I'm assuming your numbers for Dallas include the entire DFW complex. To be fair, you might as well lump all of San Antonio with the entire I-35 complex of SA, New Braunfels, San Marcos, Austin, Round Rock, and Georgetown.

Disclosure: I'm an old guy who grew up in SA whose mother still lives there. I've lived in Dallas since '78. My wife of almost 42 years is an OU alum and OKC native. Used to think I'd love to retire in the Austin area, but that dream died 20+ years ago. Hate what it has become. Could say the same thing about most of everything between SA and Georgetown. Too damn many people. Get off of my lawn (lol)!

---

No I will not.

Austin and San Antonio are 80 miles apart, and are not the same city or metro area.
Ft Worth and Dallas are only 30 miles apart, and its nothing but continuous suburbs in between the two cities.

I've noticed this as a trend among certain people from Austin or San Antonio. They try to combine the Austin and San Antonio metro areas into one large region to try and make their metro area seem bigger than what it really is.

80 miles is too far apart to be the same metro area.
All of these cities are 80 miles apart....and none of them are considered the same metro area.

Austin-San Antonio
NYC-Philadelphia
Chicago- Milwaukee
Tampa-Orlando

Austin and San Antonio are each at roughly 2.5 million residents in the metro area. That is still considerably less than the 8 million people that live in the DFW metro area.

Method Man said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

Method Man said:

---

Edmond,

Thank you for the recommendations. I'm anxious to try something in OKC that is not Country Fried Steak, or Billy Sims BBQ.....even though the CFS is excellent.

---

Still cannot get over you judging my city based on fast food.

But, if we go out, I'm stretching that shi*ty little expense account you have.

---

Edmond,

I'm sorry if I'm offending you. You are acting like I'm talking about a family member, or a close friend of yours.
Your little insults about the Best Western, or my expense account are humorous to me. Best Westerns are from people from Oklahoma.

FYI....I'm Lifetime Platinum with Marriott... What that means is that I could stop staying at Marriott's, and for the rest of my life I'll always have Platinum benefits such as early or late checkout, concierge lounge access., free check in gift.....etc
Marriotts also have to reserve rooms for their Platinum members. This is how I went to two different Sugar Bowls at the last second.

I'm judging your city because you had the gall to compare it to Dallas.
Dallas is a city known all over the world.....OKC not so much.
There are more people in Dallas than the entire state of Oklahoma.

This is what business travelers do. They judge the different cities they have to work in based on their entertainment options, ease of traffic, food options....etc

Oklahoma City is average. Middle of the road. OK. Not bad.

Its not a particularly attractive city, and its natural landscape (unlike Birmingham, Little Rock or Tulsa) is boring. Those cities are all kinda boring, but they have the advantages of being located in places with a lot of natural beauty.
The OKC landscape is flat and un-attractive.

---

Hey Method, I'm just playing with you. But, please go on about your Marriott benefits.

And, Dallas is easy to compare to. It is known across the world. But, just for business. Nobody thinks it has great culture, restaurants, or amenities. Hopefully, The Forge will change that.

When you look at best restaurant lists from Bon Appetit, The New York Times, USAToday, you almost never see a Dallas area restaurant on there. You see Austin. Occasionally, Houston. La Onda in Fort Worth was listed as a best new restaurant a few years ago. But, guess who you see alot of? That's right. Your favorite place, OKC.

Who cares if there are more people in Dallas. It just means interminable 2 hour waits at strip mall restaurants.

You can talk about OKC being flat and unattractive. But, have you seen Dallas? Seriously, you have to mow your river.

Method Man said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Method Man said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Gotta be large. It has more people than Dallas (not talking metro pop.)

---

You can only really judge cities based on their metropolitan populations.

San Antonio is not a larger city than Atlanta, Boston or Dallas.....but if you only look at a cities proper population you might get tricked into saying something foolish like:
"San Antonio is a larger city than Atlanta, Dallas, or Boston because San Antonio has a proper population of 1.4 million while Boston only has 675k and Atlanta has 500k"

If you were to ever go to any of these cities, it would be clear as daylight that they were larger, more robust cities than San Antonio.

San Antonio has a large proper population because it has very few suburbs. While Dallas is the opposite.
Dallas is similar to Los Angeles in that it has a bunch of heavily populated suburbs.

The San Antonio Metro Population is: 2.5 million people
Atlanta: 7.2 Million
Boston: 8.3 million
Dallas: 8.6 million

A large city is really anything over 5 million people.
There are 14 cities in the United States with metro populations of over 5 million people.
Those cities are going to have the largest GDP's, the most corporations, the most $$$....etc

---

I'm assuming your numbers for Dallas include the entire DFW complex. To be fair, you might as well lump all of San Antonio with the entire I-35 complex of SA, New Braunfels, San Marcos, Austin, Round Rock, and Georgetown.

Disclosure: I'm an old guy who grew up in SA whose mother still lives there. I've lived in Dallas since '78. My wife of almost 42 years is an OU alum and OKC native. Used to think I'd love to retire in the Austin area, but that dream died 20+ years ago. Hate what it has become. Could say the same thing about most of everything between SA and Georgetown. Too damn many people. Get off of my lawn (lol)!

---

No I will not.

Austin and San Antonio are 80 miles apart, and are not the same city or metro area.
Ft Worth and Dallas are only 30 miles apart, and its nothing but continuous suburbs in between the two cities.

I've noticed this a trend among certain people in Austin or San Antonio. They try to combine the Austin and San Antonio metro areas into one large region to try and make their metro area seem bigger than what it really is.

80 miles is too far apart to be the same metro area.
All of these cities are 80 miles apart....and none of them are considered the same metro area.

Austin-San Antonio
NYC-Philadelphia
Chicago- Milwaukee
Tampa-Orlando

Austin and San Antonio are each at roughly 2.5 million residents in the metro area. That is still considerably less than the 8 million people that live in the DFW metro area.

---

I commuted from my home in East Dallas to north Ft Worth for about 8 years. Took about an hour more or less each way. It's really not that different from SA to Austin. Just depends on where one starts and ends. Both areas have too many people. At least SA to Austin has some physical beauty and charm can still be found. Not much of either in Dallas and its suburbs.

Depends on how much of that trip is spent on the IH 35 parking lot.

curtpenn said:

---

Method Man said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Method Man said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Gotta be large. It has more people than Dallas (not talking metro pop.)

---

You can only really judge cities based on their metropolitan populations.

San Antonio is not a larger city than Atlanta, Boston or Dallas.....but if you only look at a cities proper population you might get tricked into saying something foolish like:
"San Antonio is a larger city than Atlanta, Dallas, or Boston because San Antonio has a proper population of 1.4 million while Boston only has 675k and Atlanta has 500k"

If you were to ever go to any of these cities, it would be clear as daylight that they were larger, more robust cities than San Antonio.

San Antonio has a large proper population because it has very few suburbs. While Dallas is the opposite.
Dallas is similar to Los Angeles in that it has a bunch of heavily populated suburbs.

The San Antonio Metro Population is: 2.5 million people
Atlanta: 7.2 Million
Boston: 8.3 million
Dallas: 8.6 million

A large city is really anything over 5 million people.
There are 14 cities in the United States with metro populations of over 5 million people.
Those cities are going to have the largest GDP's, the most corporations, the most $$$....etc

---

I'm assuming your numbers for Dallas include the entire DFW complex. To be fair, you might as well lump all of San Antonio with the entire I-35 complex of SA, New Braunfels, San Marcos, Austin, Round Rock, and Georgetown.

Disclosure: I'm an old guy who grew up in SA whose mother still lives there. I've lived in Dallas since '78. My wife of almost 42 years is an OU alum and OKC native. Used to think I'd love to retire in the Austin area, but that dream died 20+ years ago. Hate what it has become. Could say the same thing about most of everything between SA and Georgetown. Too damn many people. Get off of my lawn (lol)!

---

No I will not.

Austin and San Antonio are 80 miles apart, and are not the same city or metro area.
Ft Worth and Dallas are only 30 miles apart, and its nothing but continuous suburbs in between the two cities.

I've noticed this a trend among certain people in Austin or San Antonio. They try to combine the Austin and San Antonio metro areas into one large region to try and make their metro area seem bigger than what it really is.

80 miles is too far apart to be the same metro area.
All of these cities are 80 miles apart....and none of them are considered the same metro area.

Austin-San Antonio
NYC-Philadelphia
Chicago- Milwaukee
Tampa-Orlando

Austin and San Antonio are each at roughly 2.5 million residents in the metro area. That is still considerably less than the 8 million people that live in the DFW metro area.

---

I commuted from my home in East Dallas to north Ft Worth for about 8 years. Took about an hour more or less each way. It's really not that different from SA to Austin. Just depends on where one starts and ends. Both areas have too many people. At least SA to Austin has some physical beauty and charm can still be found. Not much of either in Dallas and its suburbs.

---

It is not commute time but cultural. Dallas and Fort Worth have been linked for 100 years. They share an airport, a public transportation system, sports teams, etc.

We do need to give the Okie an honorary aggy ring. Dude things Oklahoma's Golden Corral's are fine dining like aggy imagines new national championships.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

It is not commute time but cultural. Dallas and Fort Worth have been linked for 100 years. They share an airport, a public transportation system, sports teams, etc.

We do need to give the Okie an honorary aggy ring. Dude things Oklahoma's Golden Corral's are fine dining like aggy imagines new national championships.

---

OKC has multiple James Beard award winners and Michelin starred chefs. If you are from DFW, I can understand why you would not know what that means.

signed - Edmond 'the gall' Bear

Edmond Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

It is not commute time but cultural. Dallas and Fort Worth have been linked for 100 years. They share an airport, a public transportation system, sports teams, etc.

We do need to give the Okie an honorary aggy ring. Dude things Oklahoma's Golden Corral's are fine dining like aggy imagines new national championships.

---

OKC has multiple James Beard award winners and Michelin starred chefs. If you are from DFW, I can understand why you would not know what that means.

signed - Edmond 'the gall' Bear

---

okay aggy.

That's why Method Man said Tulsa was better than Oklahoma.

Edmond Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

It is not commute time but cultural. Dallas and Fort Worth have been linked for 100 years. They share an airport, a public transportation system, sports teams, etc.

We do need to give the Okie an honorary aggy ring. Dude things Oklahoma's Golden Corral's are fine dining like aggy imagines new national championships.

---

OKC has multiple James Beard award winners and Michelin starred chefs. If you are from DFW, I can understand why you would not know what that means.

signed - Edmond 'the gall' Bear

---

That's cool but I don't want to pay $1000 for a plate just because it is decorated pretty, has some gold flakes on it and has a portion that is equal to 2 or 3 bites.

cowboycwr said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

It is not commute time but cultural. Dallas and Fort Worth have been linked for 100 years. They share an airport, a public transportation system, sports teams, etc.

We do need to give the Okie an honorary aggy ring. Dude things Oklahoma's Golden Corral's are fine dining like aggy imagines new national championships.

---

OKC has multiple James Beard award winners and Michelin starred chefs. If you are from DFW, I can understand why you would not know what that means.

signed - Edmond 'the gall' Bear

---

That's cool but I don't want to pay $1000 for a plate just because it is decorated pretty, has some gold flakes on it and has a portion that is equal to 2 or 3 bites.

---

Thanks for proving the point about not understanding James Beard/Michelin.

There are alot of options beyond French. You don't pay $1000 or even $100. It's just awesome food and a great experience.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

It is not commute time but cultural. Dallas and Fort Worth have been linked for 100 years. They share an airport, a public transportation system, sports teams, etc.

We do need to give the Okie an honorary aggy ring. Dude things Oklahoma's Golden Corral's are fine dining like aggy imagines new national championships.

---

OKC has multiple James Beard award winners and Michelin starred chefs. If you are from DFW, I can understand why you would not know what that means.

signed - Edmond 'the gall' Bear

---

okay aggy.

That's why Method Man said Tulsa was better than Oklahoma.

---

Ummm, only an aggie doesn't know that Tulsa is a city in the state of Oklahoma.

Edmond Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

It is not commute time but cultural. Dallas and Fort Worth have been linked for 100 years. They share an airport, a public transportation system, sports teams, etc.

We do need to give the Okie an honorary aggy ring. Dude things Oklahoma's Golden Corral's are fine dining like aggy imagines new national championships.

---

OKC has multiple James Beard award winners and Michelin starred chefs. If you are from DFW, I can understand why you would not know what that means.

signed - Edmond 'the gall' Bear

---

That's cool but I don't want to pay $1000 for a plate just because it is decorated pretty, has some gold flakes on it and has a portion that is equal to 2 or 3 bites.

---

Thanks for proving the point about not understanding James Beard/Michelin.

There are alot of options beyond French. You don't pay $1000 or even $100. It's just awesome food and a great experience.

---

I didn't prove your point about anything.

Look at this article. Look at this picture in it from a James Beard award winner. It is exactly like I described. Two bites and overpriced.

https://okcfox.com/news/local/five-oklahoma-chefs-in-the-running-for-2024s-james-beard-award

Also why is it that every google search I do shows there is only ONE 1. As in a single James beard ward winning chef in OKC?????

https://thefooddoodfeed.substack.com/p/oklahoma-has-its-first-james-beard

The fact that we have a fan on the football board who thinks he's doing "restaurant smack" about Oklahoma should embarrass all of us.

cowboycwr said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

It is not commute time but cultural. Dallas and Fort Worth have been linked for 100 years. They share an airport, a public transportation system, sports teams, etc.

We do need to give the Okie an honorary aggy ring. Dude things Oklahoma's Golden Corral's are fine dining like aggy imagines new national championships.

---

OKC has multiple James Beard award winners and Michelin starred chefs. If you are from DFW, I can understand why you would not know what that means.

signed - Edmond 'the gall' Bear

---

That's cool but I don't want to pay $1000 for a plate just because it is decorated pretty, has some gold flakes on it and has a portion that is equal to 2 or 3 bites.

---

Thanks for proving the point about not understanding James Beard/Michelin.

There are alot of options beyond French. You don't pay $1000 or even $100. It's just awesome food and a great experience.

---

I didn't prove your point about anything.

Look at this article. Look at this picture in it from a James Beard award winner. It is exactly like I described. Two bites and overpriced.

https://okcfox.com/news/local/five-oklahoma-chefs-in-the-running-for-2024s-james-beard-award

Also why is it that every google search I do shows there is only ONE 1. As in a single James beard ward winning chef in OKC?????

https://thefooddoodfeed.substack.com/p/oklahoma-has-its-first-james-beard

---

I've been to that restaurant it's freaking great. It is kind of like asian tapas, you order several things. The dish in that pic is like $11.

OKC has multiple James Beard winners including Andrew Black, the one in your second article, and the chef at Mao Der Lao which is in the first link. There are also 3 Michelin starred chefs including one in my little suburb of Edmond. The Edmond chef is from Cannes, France and his restaurant is exactly like what you fear. You cannot get out for under $500 and portions are tiny. The last time I went, it was amazing but I also wanted to stop at Taco Bueno afterwards. He is the exception.

Edmond Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

It is not commute time but cultural. Dallas and Fort Worth have been linked for 100 years. They share an airport, a public transportation system, sports teams, etc.

We do need to give the Okie an honorary aggy ring. Dude things Oklahoma's Golden Corral's are fine dining like aggy imagines new national championships.

---

OKC has multiple James Beard award winners and Michelin starred chefs. If you are from DFW, I can understand why you would not know what that means.

signed - Edmond 'the gall' Bear

---

That's cool but I don't want to pay $1000 for a plate just because it is decorated pretty, has some gold flakes on it and has a portion that is equal to 2 or 3 bites.

---

Thanks for proving the point about not understanding James Beard/Michelin.

There are alot of options beyond French. You don't pay $1000 or even $100. It's just awesome food and a great experience.

---

I didn't prove your point about anything.

Look at this article. Look at this picture in it from a James Beard award winner. It is exactly like I described. Two bites and overpriced.

https://okcfox.com/news/local/five-oklahoma-chefs-in-the-running-for-2024s-james-beard-award

Also why is it that every google search I do shows there is only ONE 1. As in a single James beard ward winning chef in OKC?????

https://thefooddoodfeed.substack.com/p/oklahoma-has-its-first-james-beard

---

I've been to that restaurant it's freaking great. It is kind of like asian tapas, you order several things. The dish in that pic is like $11.

OKC has multiple James Beard winners including Andrew Black, the one in your second article, and the chef at Mao Der Lao which is in the first link. There are also 3 Michelin starred chefs including one in my little suburb of Edmond. The Edmond chef is from Cannes, France and his restaurant is exactly like what you fear. You cannot get out for under $500 and portions are tiny. The last time I went, it was amazing but I also wanted to stop at Taco Bueno afterwards. He is the exception.

---

So $11 for a bite.

No thanks.

No matter what city I am in.


Just looked up the Grey Sweater and every plate on their site is the same thing.

Fancy looking things that are made to look great (and in honesty) probably taste great for the two or thee bites you get.

But it's pricing is again way high for a few bites.

I would rather pay $30 for a full steak dinner, or for a good BBQ dinner.

So don't brag about chefs and stars. Tell me about good realistic food if you want to sell your city.

cowboycwr said:

---

Edmond Bear said:

---

I've been to that restaurant it's freaking great. It is kind of like asian tapas, you order several things. The dish in that pic is like $11.

OKC has multiple James Beard winners including Andrew Black, the one in your second article, and the chef at Mao Der Lao which is in the first link. There are also 3 Michelin starred chefs including one in my little suburb of Edmond. The Edmond chef is from Cannes, France and his restaurant is exactly like what you fear. You cannot get out for under $500 and portions are tiny. The last time I went, it was amazing but I also wanted to stop at Taco Bueno afterwards. He is the exception.

---

So $11 for a bite.

No thanks.

No matter what city I am in.


Just looked up the Grey Sweater and every plate on their site is the same thing.

Fancy looking things that are made to look great (and in honesty) probably taste great for the two or thee bites you get.

But it's pricing is again way high for a few bites.

I would rather pay $30 for a full steak dinner, or for a good BBQ dinner.

So don't brag about chefs and stars. Tell me about good realistic food if you want to sell your city.

---

I agree, good BBQ is awesome. We have world champion award winners for that too if you want to come up.

$30 for a steak is Outback. It's a chain and you are proving my point about Dallas. Good food and experiences is a significant part of culture and its not something Dallas is known for. Hopefully, Brian changes that.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Method Man said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Method Man said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Gotta be large. It has more people than Dallas (not talking metro pop.)

---

You can only really judge cities based on their metropolitan populations.

San Antonio is not a larger city than Atlanta, Boston or Dallas.....but if you only look at a cities proper population you might get tricked into saying something foolish like:
"San Antonio is a larger city than Atlanta, Dallas, or Boston because San Antonio has a proper population of 1.4 million while Boston only has 675k and Atlanta has 500k"

If you were to ever go to any of these cities, it would be clear as daylight that they were larger, more robust cities than San Antonio.

San Antonio has a large proper population because it has very few suburbs. While Dallas is the opposite.
Dallas is similar to Los Angeles in that it has a bunch of heavily populated suburbs.

The San Antonio Metro Population is: 2.5 million people
Atlanta: 7.2 Million
Boston: 8.3 million
Dallas: 8.6 million

A large city is really anything over 5 million people.
There are 14 cities in the United States with metro populations of over 5 million people.
Those cities are going to have the largest GDP's, the most corporations, the most $$$....etc

---

I'm assuming your numbers for Dallas include the entire DFW complex. To be fair, you might as well lump all of San Antonio with the entire I-35 complex of SA, New Braunfels, San Marcos, Austin, Round Rock, and Georgetown.

Disclosure: I'm an old guy who grew up in SA whose mother still lives there. I've lived in Dallas since '78. My wife of almost 42 years is an OU alum and OKC native. Used to think I'd love to retire in the Austin area, but that dream died 20+ years ago. Hate what it has become. Could say the same thing about most of everything between SA and Georgetown. Too damn many people. Get off of my lawn (lol)!

---

No I will not.

Austin and San Antonio are 80 miles apart, and are not the same city or metro area.
Ft Worth and Dallas are only 30 miles apart, and its nothing but continuous suburbs in between the two cities.

I've noticed this a trend among certain people in Austin or San Antonio. They try to combine the Austin and San Antonio metro areas into one large region to try and make their metro area seem bigger than what it really is.

80 miles is too far apart to be the same metro area.
All of these cities are 80 miles apart....and none of them are considered the same metro area.

Austin-San Antonio
NYC-Philadelphia
Chicago- Milwaukee
Tampa-Orlando

Austin and San Antonio are each at roughly 2.5 million residents in the metro area. That is still considerably less than the 8 million people that live in the DFW metro area.

---

I commuted from my home in East Dallas to north Ft Worth for about 8 years. Took about an hour more or less each way. It's really not that different from SA to Austin. Just depends on where one starts and ends. Both areas have too many people. At least SA to Austin has some physical beauty and charm can still be found. Not much of either in Dallas and its suburbs.

---

It is not commute time but cultural. Dallas and Fort Worth have been linked for 100 years. They share an airport, a public transportation system, sports teams, etc.

We do need to give the Okie an honorary aggy ring. Dude things Oklahoma's Golden Corral's are fine dining like aggy imagines new national championships.

---

I'm old enough to remember paying a toll to drive to Ft Worth. Almost never went there 30+ years until I started working there. Just grateful to be retired and no longer making that trek. Your recency bias is showing. San Antonio was the most populous city in the state until sometime in the 1920s IIRC. Dallas is merely nouveau riche by comparison and not that far removed from being similar to OKC. FWIW, I've never been much of a fine dining sort of guy unless someone else is buying. Waste of money that I don't need to spend to enable myself to feel superior.

Maybe Waco city council can get OU to play their games in McClane stadium, doubtful Aranda Will be needing it

curtpenn said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Method Man said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

Method Man said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Gotta be large. It has more people than Dallas (not talking metro pop.)

---

You can only really judge cities based on their metropolitan populations.

San Antonio is not a larger city than Atlanta, Boston or Dallas.....but if you only look at a cities proper population you might get tricked into saying something foolish like:
"San Antonio is a larger city than Atlanta, Dallas, or Boston because San Antonio has a proper population of 1.4 million while Boston only has 675k and Atlanta has 500k"

If you were to ever go to any of these cities, it would be clear as daylight that they were larger, more robust cities than San Antonio.

San Antonio has a large proper population because it has very few suburbs. While Dallas is the opposite.
Dallas is similar to Los Angeles in that it has a bunch of heavily populated suburbs.

The San Antonio Metro Population is: 2.5 million people
Atlanta: 7.2 Million
Boston: 8.3 million
Dallas: 8.6 million

A large city is really anything over 5 million people.
There are 14 cities in the United States with metro populations of over 5 million people.
Those cities are going to have the largest GDP's, the most corporations, the most $$$....etc

---

I'm assuming your numbers for Dallas include the entire DFW complex. To be fair, you might as well lump all of San Antonio with the entire I-35 complex of SA, New Braunfels, San Marcos, Austin, Round Rock, and Georgetown.

Disclosure: I'm an old guy who grew up in SA whose mother still lives there. I've lived in Dallas since '78. My wife of almost 42 years is an OU alum and OKC native. Used to think I'd love to retire in the Austin area, but that dream died 20+ years ago. Hate what it has become. Could say the same thing about most of everything between SA and Georgetown. Too damn many people. Get off of my lawn (lol)!

---

No I will not.

Austin and San Antonio are 80 miles apart, and are not the same city or metro area.
Ft Worth and Dallas are only 30 miles apart, and its nothing but continuous suburbs in between the two cities.

I've noticed this a trend among certain people in Austin or San Antonio. They try to combine the Austin and San Antonio metro areas into one large region to try and make their metro area seem bigger than what it really is.

80 miles is too far apart to be the same metro area.
All of these cities are 80 miles apart....and none of them are considered the same metro area.

Austin-San Antonio
NYC-Philadelphia
Chicago- Milwaukee
Tampa-Orlando

Austin and San Antonio are each at roughly 2.5 million residents in the metro area. That is still considerably less than the 8 million people that live in the DFW metro area.

---

I commuted from my home in East Dallas to north Ft Worth for about 8 years. Took about an hour more or less each way. It's really not that different from SA to Austin. Just depends on where one starts and ends. Both areas have too many people. At least SA to Austin has some physical beauty and charm can still be found. Not much of either in Dallas and its suburbs.

---

It is not commute time but cultural. Dallas and Fort Worth have been linked for 100 years. They share an airport, a public transportation system, sports teams, etc.

We do need to give the Okie an honorary aggy ring. Dude things Oklahoma's Golden Corral's are fine dining like aggy imagines new national championships.

---

I'm old enough to remember paying a toll to drive to Ft Worth. Almost never went there 30+ years until I started working there. Just grateful to be retired and no longer making that trek. Your recency bias is showing. San Antonio was the most populous city in the state until sometime in the 1920s IIRC. Dallas is merely nouveau riche by comparison and not that far removed from being similar to OKC. FWIW, I've never been much of a fine dining sort of guy unless someone else is buying. Waste of money that I don't need to spend to enable myself to feel superior.

---

okay. congrats?