The puking has, for the most part, already occurred. Bay Area cities are now constrained by urban growth boundaries and required to provide jobs and housing in proportion, not just one or the other.

Unfortunately if you take the entire Bay Area as a whole, proper urban structure with walkable mixed use takes up perhaps 1% or less of the developed area. Everything else is sprawl. Even in the city of SF itself less than 1/3rd of the built area (not counting parks and lakes and whatnot) is decent walk/bike territory with amenities nearby. And you only have to go as far as Concord or Antioch to find the real deal: all-out suburban sprawl with neighborhood streets wider than I-5 and nary a pedestrian in sight.

Now when you compare to Oklahoma City, the Antioch brand of sprawl looks like it might be Hong Kong compared to some of the developments that are within the OKC's limits. For example here is a typical scene where someone took a quarter section of some field or farm and said fuck it, let's put a subdivision here.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Oklahoma+City,+OK/@35.6276...

Now that's just a shame. This article isn't talking about the far-flung farms that happen to be inside OKC's city limits, though. They're talking about areas like Heritage Hills where the original housing stock wasn't bulldozed to build freeways (yet). I remember before I bought my house in Oakland I looked at what I could get for the same price in that neighborhood. As I recall there was a huge-ass mansion with a separate building constituting servants' quarters.