# OKCpedia > General Real Estate Topics >  General Urban Development

## UnFrSaKn

I've been spending a lot of time on Doug's site and a few others trying to learn about what buildings used to be downtown but have been demolished. I must be the only 29 year old interested in such things. It amazes me that something like the Biltmore was demolished like it was nothing at all. People my age will never get to see it, whether it was boarded up and covered in pigeon crap or not. How long was the Skirvin left abandoned? Now it's one of the last gems downtown. Buildings are like a time machines, and I would bet the people who built them would roll in their graves to see their blood and sweat turned into a parking lot or whatever. Part of what makes a city unique is the wide range of architecture you see. I can't believe buildings like the Baum building, the old courthouse and the downtown library once existed. The old guys I work with like Doug's site and old pictures of downtown how they remember when they were kids. They all talk like it was a bygone era. 

I've been spending a lot of time using Bing street view and Google street view trying to find what's still standing and where the old buildings were. So I'm trying to remember a lot of buildings. I had assumed the tall building across from Sandridge was the India Temple, and wondered what the one on the corner was but that makes sense now. What's the one across from Sandridge then? 

I personally can't see a single reason for ever demolishing a piece of history. A city and a building is only what people choose to make of it. Were people considering tearing down the Skirvin when it was in disrepair? Money and the economy are fleeting things, that go up and down over the years. Once a building is demolished, there goes the cities history and the legacy of those that worked to build it. I guess that's my rant that's formulated in my head lately.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

I'm waiting until the Spring probably, but I want to still focus on Devon construction but also do something related to the historical side of downtown as sort of a hobby. Much like the Devon work I'm doing.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

I'm also planning on visiting friends in Denver in April, and maybe use the two weeks vacation to spend time there again. I haven't been on vacation there since 2004. My friend's brother builds condos in the Italian area of downtown and is renowned for restoring or preserving old buildings. After a 4th of July party at the top of his condo, my friend went riding around downtown Denver around midnight-1am, around the train station and we stopped inside the Brown Palace Hotel. 







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_P...r,_Colorado%29

You talk about fascinating and a long history. This place was amazing. There are other examples of old buildings that only add to how cool Denver is that were never demolished/burnt down etc. I'm looking forward to doing video this year, if it works out.

----------


## Larry OKC

UnFrSaKn:

Doug or Steve can undoubtedly provide more info but from what I recall, the Skirvin wasn't abandoned for too long but the last owner had allowed it to be gutted of fixtures etc (a lot of stuff ended up at Goodwill, believe it or not). Don't know if there were formal plans to demo it, but am sure that is where it was headed if the City (former Mayor Humphreys) hadn't stepped in and saved it.

I agree completely...unless if there is a very good reason (should be a minimum of at 50 very good reasons) to tear down a building that is of historical significance (the India Temple served as the temp home of the Legislature). Every reasonable effort should be taken to restore it but at the bare minimum not destroy it. Have a hard time making people see the obvious. Once a building is gone, it is gone.

----------


## bombermwc

29 year old here too...must be more of us than we thought. I miss the Biltmore too, even though I've never seen it in real life since it was gone before I was born. But that was a different time. It's not all Pei's fault it is gone, remember he planned on keeping it. The plans for the gardens changed, and at that time, the Biltmore had gone down the toilet. I'm not trying to make excuses for them, but you should understand why they did it. Downtown was a dead space and the Biltmore was something that was going fast. It really is a mirror of the Skirvin (which wasn't really closed all that long). The difference is, at that time, they weren't thinking of it as historic, they saw it as an old crappy building. It's much the way we would view something like the old downtown library. Who's to say in 50 years, it won't be "historic", but would we have been sad if it had been dozed? It's all a matter of time and perspective.

Remember the Skirvin took city action to make it happen. How many folks owned it before it finally just turned to the city? There wasn't anyone on the city side interested in the Biltmore like that. It wasn't historic yet, and they saw it as in the way. 

Oh what a difference 25 years makes.

----------


## Kerry

My understanding is that because of the low concrete ceilings even if the Biltmore was still standing it wouldn't be a candidate for saving.  Some buildings were just built to be obsolete - the Biltmore was one of them.

----------


## metro

There are tons of twenty and early thirty somethings interested, you guys aren't even close to "the only ones," myself included. OKC wouldn't be having a renaissance without the youth. I.e. Brain drain debacle

----------


## Steve

> i've been spending a lot of time on doug's site and a few others trying to learn about what buildings used to be downtown but have been demolished. I must be the only 29 year old interested in such things. It amazes me that something like the biltmore was demolished like it was nothing at all. People my age will never get to see it, whether it was boarded up and covered in pigeon crap or not. How long was the skirvin left abandoned? Now it's one of the last gems downtown. Buildings are like a time machines, and i would bet the people who built them would roll in their graves to see their blood and sweat turned into a parking lot or whatever. Part of what makes a city unique is the wide range of architecture you see. I can't believe buildings like the baum building, the old courthouse and the downtown library once existed. The old guys i work with like doug's site and old pictures of downtown how they remember when they were kids. They all talk like it was a bygone era. 
> 
> I've been spending a lot of time using bing street view and google street view trying to find what's still standing and where the old buildings were. So i'm trying to remember a lot of buildings. I had assumed the tall building across from sandridge was the india temple, and wondered what the one on the corner was but that makes sense now. What's the one across from sandridge then? 
> 
> I personally can't see a single reason for ever demolishing a piece of history. A city and a building is only what people choose to make of it. Were people considering tearing down the skirvin when it was in disrepair? Money and the economy are fleeting things, that go up and down over the years. Once a building is demolished, there goes the cities history and the legacy of those that worked to build it. I guess that's my rant that's formulated in my head lately.


i highly recommend visiting www.impeiokc.com

----------


## UnFrSaKn

I ran across this website linked on this forum some time ago, but before my interest really peaked. I had forgotten about it. When things thaw out, the co-workers will probably like to see it. Some of the photos I have seen from Doug's blog, retrometrookc and the OHS site but there are so many new ones.

----------


## CaseyCornett

I'll echo Sid and Metro...UnFrSakn, you are definitely not the only "young" one here.

I'm 28 (today).

----------


## UnFrSaKn

> i highly recommend visiting www.impeiokc.com






Is that cupola (3:09) behind Philip Morris from the Baum building? (1:57) I read that one of them was preserved. What building is that being demolished? (4:47)

EDIT: Should Google first.







Here's another related article.

http://newsok.com/will-project-180-m...rticle/3494725

Doug's
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/05...ry-center.html

----------


## Patrick

Yup, that's from the Baum building. See what we are missing out on. Look at the ornate detail.  And now in place of it we have the ugly Century Center.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Here's the OHS Flickr page
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oklahomahistory/page2/

I rarely visit Tulsa, but wow.

http://www.holyfamilycathedral.blogspot.com/

Street View

----------


## euphjay

> I'll echo Sid and Metro...UnFrSakn, you are definitely not the only "young" one here.
> 
> I'm 28 (today).


25 years old here. Don't post often but I visit the site every day.

----------


## earlywinegareth

Yeah, it's really hard to believe people actually decided to tear down the Baum for the Century Center.  Just shows how drastically different ideas about "progress" were.  "Tear it down and build something new" was all people knew.  The idea of saving something old b/c it was historically or architectually significant hadn't yet taken hold.

----------


## Kerry

> Yeah, it's really hard to believe people actually decided to tear down the Baum for the Century Center. Just shows how drastically different ideas about "progress" were. "Tear it down and build something new" was all people knew. The idea of saving something old b/c it was historically or architectually significant hadn't yet taken hold.


Be nice.

http://www.newsok.com/a-look-back-at...lick=columnist




> My sister and I had the run of the hotel that first week of January 1977. We were just kids — our father, Robert, was a partner in the development group that built the hotel and attached retail plaza.

----------


## Steve

Don't be nice. I think the Century Center is an abomination.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Doug referenced this book on his blog and it's actually available on Google Books.

Oklahoma City: Statehood to 1930 By Terry L. Griffith

----------


## ljbab728

> Here's the OHS Flickr page
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/oklahomahistory/page2/
> 
> I rarely visit Tulsa, but wow.
> 
> http://www.holyfamilycathedral.blogspot.com/
> 
> Street View


Very similar to this:

http://stjosepholdcathedral.org/StJo...dCathedral.asp

It looks like it could have even been the same architect.

----------


## CaseyCornett

> Don't be nice. I think the Century Center is an abomination.


HAHAHA. Meeeeee too.

----------


## mburlison

> HAHAHA. Meeeeee too.



No more so than whatever they call the "Mummer's Theater" these days.  I thought it was ugly then and it looks ridiculous now.  IMHO of course.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

> No more so than whatever they call the "Mummer's Theater" these days.  I thought it was ugly then and it looks ridiculous now.  IMHO of course.


http://www.artscouncilokc.com/history

http://www.seasonsofsoulfilm.com/Mummers_Theater.html

----------


## ljbab728

> No more so than whatever they call the "Mummer's Theater" these days.  I thought it was ugly then and it looks ridiculous now.  IMHO of course.


I'm glad that's just your opinion.  The Stage Center building is just as important in it's own way as the Baum Building was.  It is an OKC icon.  I hope they succeed in getting it restored after the flood damage.  I started attending events there when it first opened and I was always fascinated by the building.

----------


## mburlison

> I'm glad that's just your opinion.  The Stage Center building is just as important in it's own way as the Baum Building was.  It is an OKC icon.  I hope they succeed in getting it restored after the flood damage.  I started attending events there when it first opened and I was always fascinated by the building.


I doubt I'm the 'only' one w/ that opinion, but that why they say opinions are like.... elbows... everyone has one.   :Wink: .

----------


## Patrick

I don't like Century Center, but it would make a perfect space for a downtown department store like Macy's or Saks, or something similar.  

And, if they've started removing the facade on the India Temple Building, has anyone noticed what's underneath? so are they going to remove the facade before they demolish the building?  I sure hope so.  Maybe we can see what's really under there.  If the ornate detail is all "sawed off" then demolish it, but otherwise, if it's still present, let's change course and preserve it.

----------


## earlywinegareth

Methinks losing the Baum was OKC's greatest urban renewal abomination.  Makes me sad to think this wonderful building sat across the street from the Colcord and just a short walk down the street from FNC.  I need to go find some tissue.

http://okhistory.org/research/hiller...&action=Search 

I like Patrick's idea...yes, please tear down century center and put something venetian back in that location.

----------


## betts

I can't even look at the picture of the Baum, or the old city hall.  It makes me want to punch someone or throw up to think that we lost those needlessly.

----------


## earlywinegareth

I can picture me & betts in the same room listening to Barbra Streisand singing "The Way We Were"...betts is throwing dishes against the wall and yelling over and over, "the BASTARDS!!" and I'm in the corner curled up in fetal position bawling my eyes out and crying out over and over, "why? why? why?".

Didn't say it was a pretty picture.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

> Methinks losing the Baum was OKC's greatest urban renewal abomination.  Makes me sad to think this wonderful building sat across the street from the Colcord and just a short walk down the street from FNC.  I need to go find some tissue.
> 
> http://okhistory.org/research/hiller...&action=Search 
> 
> I like Patrick's idea...yes, please tear down century center and put something venetian back in that location.


Ever since I first saw old postcards on Doug's blog of the buildings that used to be downtown, I've been intrigued. Especially the Baum Building, I've been fascinated by it. I couldn't believe that something like that was once downtown. That was a few years ago, but it hasn't been until the past month I've really been studying all the old buildings downtown. I guess it's a new hobby. I naturally am very nostalgic, and I can't say why. Even things I'm far too young to remember. Maybe it's just the desire to see things that make me feel like I've gone back in time. It's the only way really, to travel in time. 

I didn't know until the other day that other than the Clarence Ford Park, the finials that decorated the building are located at two parks around the city.

I also love the old courthouse. So much character is gone forever.



I only have found one photo on Doug's of what the interior of the Baum looked like, but it was low quality. I know things have gotten a little off topic, but it's still basically the same discussion.

----------


## betts

Actually, new buildings at the University of Oklahoma clearly show an effort to remain true to the traditional style of the university, while incorporating some modern touches.  I wonder about how expensive it is to build the more traditional buildings, but they are clearly doing it in Norman.

----------


## Kerry

I was looking around at some of the areas just outside the immediate downtown area that would be ideal for large scale urban redevelopment. I think the area just south of the Medical Campus (bounded by NE8th, Lincoln, Stonewall, and the railroad tracks) would be really cool as row houses, and mid-rise apartments/condos. The terrain is pretty cool and the views from the top of the hill would be very good (OU Medical/Capitol to the north, river to the south, and downtown to the west)

----------


## betts

I'd like to see somebody do something with the school there.  It's a great old school and is sitting empty.

----------


## ljbab728

> Actually, new buildings at the University of Oklahoma clearly show an effort to remain true to the traditional style of the university, while incorporating some modern touches.  I wonder about how expensive it is to build the more traditional buildings, but they are clearly doing it in Norman.


You're right Betts.  Some of the newer buildings on campus look like they could have been constructed 100 years ago.  It's just a matter of what the priorities are when designing buildings.

----------


## ljbab728

Kerry, several areas on the south side of the river would be ideal also.  Just imagine the views they would have.

----------


## Jettmiester

> i highly recommend visiting www.impeiokc.com


Is the Pei model still on dsiplay to be seen?

----------


## G.Walker

> Kerry, several areas on the south side of the river would be ideal also.  Just imagine the views they would have.


I agree, south of Oklahoma River would be ideal place for urban development. Also, I wouldn't rule out SW of downtown, around Reno & Westen/Classen, would be ideal for residential development to compliment new boulevard.

----------


## betts

Maybe the area south of 8th St. would be a good place for one of the new senior centers.  It would be on or close to mass transit, the land would be inexpensive if the city doesn't already own some of it and it is close to the Health Sciences Center.  Any new development in that area would help with its revitalization.

----------


## rcjunkie

I think the are bounded by Reno on the S.,  NW 10th on the N., Classen on the E.,  and Penn on the W., would be a great area to target for future development. Primarily residential, both single and multi-family housing.

----------


## MIKELS129

> Maybe the area south of 8th St. would be a good place for one of the new senior centers.  It would be on or close to mass transit, the land would be inexpensive if the city doesn't already own some of it and it is close to the Health Sciences Center.  Any new development in that area would help with its revitalization.


I have heard that OU President Boren and OCU President Henry wanted one of the Senior centers and others hospitals,etc. I do not think these senior centers should be considered some honey pot for the powers that be. I think a demographic age study should be made and these should be located as close as possible to where the target population exists. They should not have to drive far and public transportation is not a good option for them at present.

----------


## Kerry

> Maybe the area south of 8th St. would be a good place for one of the new senior centers. It would be on or close to mass transit, the land would be inexpensive if the city doesn't already own some of it and it is close to the Health Sciences Center. Any new development in that area would help with its revitalization.


Betts, I was talking about the area south of 8th St and it is on the proposed downtown to Adventure District rail line. The area has 3,900 feet of track frontage. Parts of it would also be within walking distance of streetcars that serve the Health Sciences Center.  Here is a picture of the area.  The red and black lines are street car routes and the purpole line is the Adventure District Rail-link.  The While line is commuter rail between Tinker and Yukon.

----------


## gen70

I know that I'll probably never see it in my lifetime but, I would like to see the Top-O-Town area re-invented. The northside of that area would have some nice views of downtown and the river.

----------


## rcjunkie

I also think the immediate area around the Farmers market would be a great place to build housing, I could just pictue going to Starbucks inside the Farmers Market as I prepare to walk to the new central park and/or bricktown.

----------


## jbrown84

I think it's already in the cards, but the area Chesapeake is buying up to the east of their main campus is one of the highest elevations in the city and would be a great spot for midrise residential with views of downtown.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> I was looking around at some of the areas just outside the immediate downtown area that would be ideal for large scale urban redevelopment. I think the area just south of the Medical Campus (bounded by NE8th, Lincoln, Stonewall, and the railroad tracks) would be really cool as row houses, and mid-rise apartments/condos. The terrain is pretty cool and the views from the top of the hill would be very good (OU Medical/Capitol to the north, river to the south, and downtown to the west)


some of the early land speculators have already bought a bunch of land in this area

----------


## betts

> Betts, I was talking about the area south of 8th St and it is on the proposed downtown to Adventure District rail line. The area has 3,900 feet of track frontage. Parts of it would also be within walking distance of streetcars that serve the Health Sciences Center.  Here is a picture of the area.  The red and black lines are street car routes and the purpole line is the Adventure District Rail-link.  The While line is commuter rail between Tinker and Yukon.


I know the area well, Kerry, since I live just west of there and my post office is there.  I drive through all the time and agree, there is a lot of potential there.  There is a beautiful old school there that's abandoned as well, which is what I was talking about wishing someone would do something with.  I don't know how much of the area OUHSC owns but I believe the Dental School may be going on 8th.

----------


## Kerry

> I know that I'll probably never see it in my lifetime but, I would like to see the Top-O-Town area re-invented. The northside of that area would have some nice views of downtown and the river.


Where is Top-O-Town?

The area I am talking about is larger than all of downtown so there is plenty of room to re-urbanize and almost all of it is vacant land. I checked the property appraiser web site and most of the lots are in the $1000 range with only a few being more than $10,000. You could probably buy most of the area for $250,000 to $300,000. It could be OKC's Back Bay area.

----------


## gen70

@ Kerry- Top-O-Town is just west of 35 and south of the river. Many older homes with no historical value.

----------


## OKCRT

That top of the town area actually has a few newer houses in there north of 15th and west of 1-35. But for the most part those are some old raggedy match box houses that should have been torn down years ago. That area has some of the best views of downtown OKC though. I was in that area about a month ago for some reason or another and said to myself, What a view!

But,before someone would commit big money in that area they would have to clean up/out the area between 15-29th / Central to Byers. That is a very rough hood.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

> I know that I'll probably never see it in my lifetime but, I would like to see the Top-O-Town area re-invented. The northside of that area would have some nice views of downtown and the river.


Old stomping grounds. I grew up and lived there for nine years. Grandparents still live there.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

> That top of the town area actually has a few new houses in there north of 15th and west of 1-35. But for the most part those are some old raggedy houses that should have been torn down years ago. That area has some of the best views of downtown OKC though.


My grandparents live there, plus my old house. So I would have an issue with people tearing anything down. They tore down all the houses along Kate when they rebuilt I-35. I grew up there and I know about how good the views are.

----------


## Platemaker

gen70...

I wonder if you really mean the Shidler-Wheeler neighborhood.

In Top of the Town the homes are older and plain but are still in good  shape and very very few vacant lots... Shidler-Wheeler has a bunch of  vacant lots and also has Central Ave. (which used to have a streetcar)  as the main artery and a large park (Schilling Park)... interestingly  there is also a synagogue with a Spanish-speaking congregation. 

Shidler-Wheeler boundaries Oklahoma River/Shields/SE 29th/High
Top of the Towns boundaries are High/I-35/SE 15th/SE 25th

----------


## shane453

Large-scale developments are great, and I agree the area between 8th and the tracks would be awesome for something really big.

However, I don't really think OKC has a shortage of "large scale" developments and developers. A lot of our developments are on a large scale. What we really need are some more small scale infill developers to come into near-downtown areas and build simple 3-4 story apartment buildings with 4-10 units, or individual buildings with commercial/residential mixes. If we had more small-scale developments, the pace and extent of development would really seem increased, and developers could work with areas that already have some built structure to them. For me, completing urban areas is more important than opening new areas of development.

----------


## Platemaker

If it were up to me... I'd develop NW 10th and Metro Park/Rock Island warehouse area.  Some of the older homes and apartments are great... plus it has some hills so most homes (especially on the north side of streets) are elevated from the street and have steps up to the front doors.

----------


## BG918

> Where is Top-O-Town?
> 
> The area I am talking about is larger than all of downtown so there is plenty of room to re-urbanize and almost all of it is vacant land. I checked the property appraiser web site and most of the lots are in the $1000 range with only a few being more than $10,000. You could probably buy most of the area for $250,000 to $300,000. It could be OKC's Back Bay area.


If there was ever an area that _could_ resemble Back Bay it would be Deep Deuce with more infill in between Walnut and the RR tracks from NE 1 to NE 5.

----------


## Kerry

> If there was ever an area that _could_ resemble Back Bay it would be Deep Deuce with more infill in between Walnut and the RR tracks from NE 1 to NE 5.


The thing is though, even if Deep Deuce was built out (and it will be soon) it is still a small area. The area I am takling about is the size of Deep Duece, Bricktown, and downtown combined.

Imagine this type of development on the space I am talking about (minus all the surface parking).

----------


## OKCRT

> My grandparents live there, plus my old house. So I would have an issue with people tearing anything down. They tore down all the houses along Kate when they rebuilt I-35. I grew up there and I know about how good the views are.


I am talking about the area like 12th,13th,14th east of Central Ave.but west of I-35. 
South of 15th has some decent housing for the most part. But,I would pack heat if I were going to spend a lot of time there.

----------


## betts

Lose the faux Italian, Kerry, and I'd be more for it.  I'm hoping that anything we do will be a bit more contemporary and less suburban.  Edmond is faux Italian paradise.

----------


## Kerry

Sid - I just used those as an example for a single entity doing one mass project vs waiting for 200 different property owners to do something on each of their own little plots. That is the problem with Bricktown and is why after 20 years and several hundred million dollars there is just a small handful of retailers.  It is hard to market to national retailers if there is not a single managment company in charge.

----------


## Rover

> Lose the faux Italian, Kerry, and I'd be more for it.  I'm hoping that anything we do will be a bit more contemporary and less suburban.  Edmond is faux Italian paradise.


Yeah.  I agree.  Let's not do any faux.  Let's keep it strictly original to Oklahoma because everything else is faux.  So, what is that anyway then....tepee or mud brick dirt houses?  

I love that a lot of what people want to save are actually gothic or euro design and were faux then, but were built earlier in our statehood so everyone thinks those are great. Now we want old looking but not faux. If the old train station and its Spanish mission style was being proposed today, I guess we wouldn't want it because it is faux.  Or the old Baum I'm seeing posted on here...seems like it would be a stretch today as it certainly is faux.  LOL

----------


## betts

The thing is, Rover, it's nice to have a mixture and trends come and go.  I've seen all the EIFS Italianate "architecture" I can stand right now.  I am certainly not interested in a square mile of it.  If you look at the old Italianate, Spanish and Tudor buildings in places like Nichols Hills and Heritage Hills, they have much nicer details than anything currently being built, were built with real stucco and brick, had tile and slate roofs and they're intermixed with Colonial revival and a variety of other architectural styles. The Baum building almost assuredly had carved stone, which is almost prohibitively expensive now.  A few Italianate buildings are fine, although EIFS makes me want to choke and it's hard to say that knowing we probably wouldn't get real stucco.  But let's mix it up a bit and make it look less like a preplanned villlage.  That's all.

----------


## Kerry

Rover, I think their complaint is more about fake building materials and not fake architecture.

----------


## Snowman

> Betts, I was talking about the area south of 8th St and it is on the proposed downtown to Adventure District rail line. The area has 3,900 feet of track frontage. Parts of it would also be within walking distance of streetcars that serve the Health Sciences Center.  Here is a picture of the area.  The red and black lines are street car routes and the purpole line is the Adventure District Rail-link.  The While line is commuter rail between Tinker and Yukon.


Is the proposed line between Yukon and Tinker stops posted somewhere? That route seems to go out of the way on purpose to/from Tinker, either continuing east over the river or going south from the station then crossing their are both more direct routes.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Finally managed to track down interior photos of the Baum Building. From the early 50s.







Probably some of the last photos.





I noticed from looking at old photos that the smaller finials/spires used to have ornaments on the top, but they were taken off or fell off in the 40s.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

> Don't be nice. I think the Century Center is an abomination.


Here's a photo of buildings that once stood East of Sheridan and Robinson where Century Center is now.



http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2006/07....html#Majestic

----------


## UnFrSaKn

This is an appropriate flashback for the next few days.

----------


## Spartan

> Where is Top-O-Town?
> 
> The area I am talking about is larger than all of downtown so there is plenty of room to re-urbanize and almost all of it is vacant land. I checked the property appraiser web site and most of the lots are in the $1000 range with only a few being more than $10,000. You could probably buy most of the area for $250,000 to $300,000. It could be OKC's Back Bay area.


We have Deep Deuce. Not the Back Bay. This area is not a priority development zone and won't be for a few decades. That's just the way it is, because of the sheer volume of empty land in the current priority areas as it is. I don't even know if 20 years from now we will have completed Bricktown, Deep Deuce, Midtown, et al. And then we have Core to Shore south of downtown...we don't need another Core to Shore east of downtown. You know I'm not against development obviously, but it just has to be done strategically. There's not a lot of demand in OKC, comparatively, and even less gets turned into development. I'm certain OKC will pick up, but that's still too much of a stretch really.We have a lot of different burners turned on right now. I just want the soup to come out alright.

The area around downtown between Shartel and Penn has even more potential IMO. The only way we ever get this much development is if we implement an urban growth boundary and find a way to kill the addition of even more suburbs that don't yet exist. That will never happen.

----------


## Kerry

> Is the proposed line between Yukon and Tinker stops posted somewhere? That route seems to go out of the way on purpose to/from Tinker, either continuing east over the river or going south from the station then crossing their are both more direct routes.


The lines on tha map are my vision - nothing official.  The Yukon/Tinker Line I have drawn makes a loop around bricktown so the train can pull into Santa Fe Station without having to back up.  I started working on a web site with all of my rail ideas including ride-along videos but I just got a new EVO 4G so my attention has shifted for awhile.  Here are my inital stops on the Yukon/Tinker Line.

Main Street - Yukon
Kilpatrick Turnpike - Park and Ride lot
Fairgrounds
Santa Fe Station
Indian Cultural Center
S. Air Depot - Midwest City
Tinker AFB (includes I-40 Park and Ride lot)

----------


## Kerry

> We have Deep Deuce. Not the Back Bay.


Deep Duces is too small and has too many property owners (and is almost built out) to be part of any large scale development. Deep Duece is a collection of small developments that happen to be next to each other. If you look at some of the recent mega-developments taking place around OKC like Tuscana (232 acres) or the Village Verde (480 acres) then you have to ask yourself, why are they recreating urban developments in suburbia when there is plenty of room by the Heath Scinece Center (188 acres in the area I shaded) to create urban development in an urban area? Probably the biggest draw back is the vast number of property owners in the area and that is something that would have to be over-come but that is the same problem Bricktown and Deep Deuce have - too many people all wanting to do their own thing with different motivations. I would like to see someone buy these vacant lots for a mega development.

Maybe making the comparison to Back Bay was a bad idea - Country Club Plaza would have been a better example.

----------


## Kerry

One thing is for sure UnFrSaKn - I was born 40 years too late.

----------


## Spartan

> If you look at some of the recent mega-developments taking place around OKC like Tuscana (232 acres) or the Village Verde (480 acres) then you have to ask yourself, why are they recreating urban developments in suburbia when there is plenty of room by the Heath Scinece Center (188 acres in the area I shaded) to create urban development in an urban area?


Although I'm not holding my breath on those two specific examples, you're spot-on. That's probably the million-dollar question with new-urbanism. And by the way, sometimes you phrase things kind of weird, and you overlook sort of "sexy" or glamorous locales for very...un-glamorous locales. It's kind of weird, but here I'll show you an example, with the way I'd put it in red..




> Main Street - Yukon
> Kilpatrick Turnpike - Park and Ride lot
> Downtown Edmond/UCO area
> Fairgrounds
> Santa Fe Station
> Downtown transit hub
> Indian Cultural Center
> AICC/Riverfront/Core2Shore
> S. Air Depot - Midwest City
> ...


Not really sure I agree with those lines, like the Fairgrounds for example, but those might be different phraseologies that could help some of us on here quarrel less with your ideas!

----------


## Kerry

I hear what you are saying Spartan. I don't want to hijack my own thread (ah what the heck - I started it) but here I go anyhow. The Yukon/Tinker line doesn't go to Edmond/UCO Area. I also have a Norman/Edmond route.

Here is an explination of the stops.

Main Street - Yukon. Station will serve downtown Yukon area and surrounding neighborhoods. It is the western terminus.

Kilpatrick Turnpike. this is park and ride station serving Kilpatrick Turnpike and I-40. There is very good potential for high density TOD around the station.

Fairgrounds - In addition to the state fair there are numerous other events that take place there that are of interest to people from all across the metro area. The area can also serve as over-flow parking for downtown events like Red Earth and Festival of the Arts. South of tracks could be used for TOD.

Santa Fe Station/Central Hub - self explanatory


Indian Cultural Center - this is the only way that facility would served by rail

S. Air Depot - TOD potential and close to what ever becomes of Heritage Park Mall.

Tinker/Town Center - the station is actually located right next to the town center and across I-40 from Tinker. I don;t think there is any way the Air Force would all ow the train directly on to Tinker. The station would actually be located in the area of abonded house north of the run way. Transfer bus service to Tinker would be available via a secure loading area. The station would also serve as park and ride for I-40. Due to the runway there would be little TOD potential.

Since this line is heavy rail it can't stop every mile which is why I did not have it stopping in Core to Shore or Meridian.

----------


## Snowman

> Although I'm not holding my breath on those two specific examples, you're spot-on. That's probably the million-dollar question with new-urbanism. And by the way, sometimes you phrase things kind of weird, and you overlook sort of "sexy" or glamorous locales for very...un-glamorous locales. It's kind of weird, but here I'll show you an example, with the way I'd put it in red..
> 
> 
> 
> Not really sure I agree with those lines, like the Fairgrounds for example, but those might be different phraseologies that could help some of us on here quarrel less with your ideas!


Main Street - Yukon
Kilpatrick Turnpike - Park and Ride lot
Downtown Edmond/UCO area  <-- their is no way to get their from the two stops around it, wrong end of the turnpike
Fairgrounds
Santa Fe Station
Downtown transit hub
Indian Cultural Center
AICC/Riverfront/Core2Shore <-- a stop like this was the reason I thought that it might have taken that route
S. Air Depot - Midwest City
Midwest City Town Center
Tinker AFB (includes I-40 Park and Ride lot)

----------


## Kerry

> AICC/Riverfront/Core2Shore <-- a stop like this was the reason I thought that it might have taken that route


That area is served by my streetcar. Riders can transfer from commuter rail to streetcar at the downtown hub. There is not any point serving the same stop with two different rail systems. That would be duplication of service and a waste of resources which are going to be in short supply as it is.

----------


## Snowman

> That area is served by my streetcar. Riders can transfer from commuter rail to streetcar at the downtown hub. There is not any point serving the same stop with two different rail systems. That would be duplication of service and a waste of resources which are going to be in short supply as it is.


then the train should just go south from santa fe, their is no point switching three tracks to end up having to end then take the same switch south of the new i40 to the track to tinker.

----------


## Kerry

No doubt that there will need to be a major re-work of the tracks on the south side of downtown to create an east-west alignment out of Santa Fe station. Removing the Co-op and lumberyard will go a long way towards solving this problem. It doesn't help that there is a pretty good elevation change to get up to the elevated tracks.

----------


## Snowman

> No doubt that there will need to be a major re-work of the tracks on the south side of downtown to create an east-west alignment out of Santa Fe station. Removing the Co-op and lumberyard will go a long way towards solving this problem. It doesn't help that there is a pretty good elevation change to get up to the elevated tracks.


Tthe remaining connections on the south of the new i40 are only a slight shift from the current line, and it looks like they did the grating so they can run a line between shields and the existing line just north of the new i40 to tie it in their.

----------


## Spartan

> I hear what you are saying Spartan. I don't want to hijack my own thread (ah what the heck - I started it) but here I go anyhow. The Yukon/Tinker line doesn't go to Edmond/UCO Area. I also have a Norman/Edmond route.
> 
> Here is an explination of the stops.
> 
> Main Street - Yukon. Station will serve downtown Yukon area and surrounding neighborhoods. It is the western terminus.
> 
> Kilpatrick Turnpike. this is park and ride station serving Kilpatrick Turnpike and I-40. There is very good potential for high density TOD around the station.
> 
> Fairgrounds - In addition to the state fair there are numerous other events that take place there that are of interest to people from all across the metro area. The area can also serve as over-flow parking for downtown events like Red Earth and Festival of the Arts. South of tracks could be used for TOD.
> ...


Normally I'd stop here and not go much further, but this does say "General Urban Development Thread" so not sure what exactly on-topic would be lol..

As for the Kilpatrick Tpk, yeah there's infill potential, but there's infill potential virtually everywhere in the entire metro. There's also TOD potential everywhere along a rail line. I think too often you tend to suggest things that are randomly starting from scratch, often when very nearby there are better cases where a fledgling district is doing just what you want to recreate a mile over. In downtown Edmond, where the train also goes, there is some awesome TOD potential. Farmer's Market, Jazz Lab, tons of stuff on Broadway in downtown Edmond, good neighborhoods, etc. 

As for the Fairgrounds, it's just really far out and separated by a whole lot of nothing at this point, being the main problem with that. Plus the people that go there are very far from the target train demographic, and that's not the end all be all, but that is important. Furthermore, Red Earth is a joke, the State Fair now is, and the day that the Festival of the Arts is out there at there will be an extremely sad day.

The AICC alone doesn't justify a rail line. Rail is expensive. The AICC is also very expensive and not even open yet, who knows what kind of an attraction it will prove to be.

As for MWC, I agree with your assessment that the station couldn't possibly directly serve the base. So what's the difference in putting it in a field on one side of I-40 or in a big development on the other side? The Town Center is actually a decent project, I want say really good, but it's pretty decent and it's also being expanded now. It opens up to a neighborhood in the back, where the expansion is also taking place. As for Heritage Park, sometimes you have to just be willing to let buildings go. That's going to be a huge abandoned building and unless someone turns it into a factory or an office building, which still wouldn't justify a station all its own, maybe the best we can hope for it is that it gets leveled or it burns down on its own. Same for Crossroads...

----------


## Kerry

> Tthe remaining connections on the south of the new i40 are only a slight shift from the current line, and it looks like they did the grating so they can run a line between shields and the existing line just north of the new i40 to tie it in their.


Perfect.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Looks like I managed to get enough off topic to split the thread into another discussion.

----------


## Kerry

Spartan - I think you missed every point I was trying to make. Not every site along the rail is good for TOD. TOD doesn't only have to make sense for rail, it has to make sense for other modes of transit around the site.

Let's start with the Kilpatrick Turnpike stop. The site I picked is the first place I-40 is close enough to the tracks to make it a viable park and ride for I-40 commuters. It is also at an exit ramp for the Kilpatrick Turnpike. It is the last place that is not industrial in nature until you get to downtown and it has direct access to Mustang. Finally, it has existing vacant land.

Fairgrounds - if you think activites at the fairgrounds don't match the demographics of the average person in OKC you're crazy. Frankly, I am more than a little put-off by the elitist position you seem to be taking with rail travel. People from every walk of life will be riding the rails, not just the upper-crust and those of us from the middle class that the upper-crust will tolerate. I am more than sure people from Edmond, Norman, and Midwest City attend events at the fairgrounds. If there is a reliable mass transit system they can use it will even increase attendance. Also, I never said Festival of the Arts would be at the fairgrounds. I said over-flow parking could be at the fairgrounds. In fact, over-flow parking from any downtown event could be done at the fairgrounds.

The stop at the AICC is only because the train is going right by it anyhow. If there isn't demand then the train doesn't stop there.

Now, having said all of that, I suggest you start laying some lines on Google Earth and see what you come up with.  I think most of us would be interested to see what you come with.

----------


## Spartan

> Spartan - I think you missed every point I was trying to make. Not every site along the rail is good for TOD. TOD doesn't only have to make sense for rail, it has to make sense for other modes of transit around the site.
> 
> Let's start with the Kilpatrick Turnpike stop. The site I picked is the first place I-40 is close enough to the tracks to make it a viable park and ride for I-40 commuters. It is also at an exit ramp for the Kilpatrick Turnpike. It is the last place that is not industrial in nature until you get to downtown and it has direct access to Mustang. Finally, it has existing vacant land.
> 
> Fairgrounds - if you think activites at the fairgrounds don't match the demographics of the average person in OKC you're crazy. Frankly, I am more than a little put-off by the elitist position you seem to be taking with rail travel. People from every walk of life will be riding the rails, not just the upper-crust and those of us from the middle class that the upper-crust will tolerate. I am more than sure people from Edmond, Norman, and Midwest City attend events at the fairgrounds. If there is a reliable mass transit system they can use it will even increase attendance. Also, I never said Festival of the Arts would be at the fairgrounds. I said over-flow parking could be at the fairgrounds. In fact, over-flow parking from any downtown event could be done at the fairgrounds.


I didn't say that the Fairgrounds wasn't an average OKC demographic. I don't really want to go there, or get into the nuances of defining on OKC demographic..probably not possible to do, probably not a worthwhile endeavor. But I do think there is value in determining who will ride the rails. It has nothing to do with elitism, populism, or any ism that politically-charged people like to think in terms of. I don't think it's unfair to say that the fairgrounds attract a large ag-oriented demographic, and I don't think it's elitist (but rather reasonable) to conclude those guys aren't going to ride the rails. Who will? Commuters who live in suburbs and work downtown. People looking to go to a shopping hub. People going to Thunder games. People going clubbing/drinking downtown. College students at OU/UCO. I see all of those as much more solid bets for ridership than the Fairgrounds, I mean, why ride the rails, when you can overcompensate for all your shortcomings with a big Hemi pick-up truck? Lol..I don't mean to be offensive, I'm just offering pragmatic, possibly blunt, opinions on how this could go. Consider it my way of contributing to the discussion..I don't do it to be an arse, I mostly just mean for most of these remarks I make like this to come off with a few laughs, but there is a lot of truth buried under some of these juvenile wise-cracks I make. Let's not deny that or get too bent out of shape with the way I often phrase things in jokes and sarcasm.




> The stop at the AICC is only because the train is going right by it anyhow. If there isn't demand then the train doesn't stop there.


OK, fair enough--the way you phrased it suggested that it was its own line in your vision, and I was a little puzzled by that.




> Now, having said all of that, I suggest you start laying some lines on Google Earth and see what you come up with.  I think most of us would be interested to see what you come with.


Oh, I'm definitely more than happy to do that. I've been toying around with a few maps that I've kept to myself for the past few months, since Jeff invited me to a streetcar subcommittee meeting. My personal outlook on it is that the service area needs to be broken up into a streetcar zone, where street does not leave, and a LRT/commuter zone. LRT/commuter rail doesn't serve the streetcar zone, and vice versa. So to that end, I'm not sure there should be a MetroRail or whatever stop in the inner city unless it is heavily interfaced with the streetcar and other modes of transit.

I can post a few of the things I've been working on. I've been thinking in a few of my own directions on this, and it's mostly streetcar-based just because of how comparatively cheap that is, whereas other modes might be more prohibitively expensive, and would involve cross-governmental jurisdictions. For instance, there is no point in constructing a commuter line that ends at the Kilpatrick (and I don't know if you intended this, but it is fairly cunning at first glance) that is obviously intended to serve the Edmond area. It could be construed at first as a way of getting Edmond ridership without having to seek involvement from the City of Edmond. But then that's serving them without them paying for any of it, because we know the ridership won't support it, unless tickets are considerably more expensive for Edmond residents. You might as well get funds from Edmond and go all the way to downtown Edmond.

If Edmond is not interested in paying up, then no commuter rail for the north metro. That simple. Same goes for Moore/Norman. I think it's 100% certain that Norman is interested in paying up, at least as long as Rosenthal is mayor. Moore probably wouldn't care because they're so flush with what used to be everyone else's sales tax revenue right now.

----------


## Kerry

Thanks for the reply Spartan.  In retrospect the stop at the fairground probably is not a good idea.  Maybe that stop should be reserved for events only and not part of the regular scheduled service.  As for service to Edmond, I agree it should go right into downtown Edmond.  The goal of rail should be to increase TOD at every station and it only make sense that if you are going to increase density, it be done in the downtown areas.  Stations in Norman, Yukon, Edmond, and Moore would be downtown (yes - Moore has a downtown).  Eventually I would like to see places like Norman and Edmond introduce their own local streetcars.

For the record, I am not a big fan of Park and Ride lots because they only contribute to sprawl but hopefully those stations would develop high density TOD.  Of course, this is not possible with Tinker/Town Center station becasue of the runway issues but that station also serves the largest employer in the state so I guess in that case it is okay.

----------


## Snowman

A report on identifying potential future development of metro transit had one near the fairgrounds for a special event station.

A map is on page 31 of this document.
http://www.gometro.org/Websites/gome...hapter%205.pdf

Document TOC
http://www.gometro.org/fgp

----------


## Spartan

Kerry: 

Well I must agree with your overall suggestion that these lifestyle centers proposed around the metro (yet to see a good one actually get built though) be a little more than a pig with lipstick in terms of functional urbanism. I agree that TOD is the way to go, the way of the future for OKC. I also agree that in the area around Kilpatrick and Broadway is great TOD potential, with potential synergy with what's going on at other stops. One of the things about TOD though is that we are going to discover opportunities that we didn't realize existed, like with Tyson's Corner, or the Panorama Village thing in Denver that Blair Humphreys worked on. I can see something like that happening around 63rd and Broadway, also along the BNSF tracks--right between Chesapeake and Broadway.

When you think hard about it, there will be a lot of these potential nodes. You have to just design the system and the TOD will happen where it happens, for the most part--though there is nothing wrong with making sure the main stations develop as planned. I think Norman and Edmond downtowns just have so much TOD potential, especially how the area along the tracks in Norman between Boyd and Main is so ripe for infill, on the edge of both Chautauqua, Campus Corner, and Downtown Norman.

Snowman:

The FGS is already severely outdated and the timeline has already ran out for it to have any bearing in my opinion. Plus, what it proposed was pretty conservative (and proposed phases that took forever, and for instance, a commuter line between downtown and Crossroads Mall is going to have ZERO riders, not now or ever, so that's a big FAIL). We've taken our time with the goal of building a more comprehensive system as soon as we can get ready, in terms of funding. I think we all understood though that streetcar would be first, and we're going to knock that one out of the ballpark. OKC will be a streetcar city once again.

----------


## Kerry

> Kerry: 
> 
> Well I must agree with your overall suggestion that these lifestyle centers proposed around the metro (yet to see a good one actually get built though) be a little more than a pig with lipstick in terms of functional urbanism.


I still laugh to myself everytime I see the site plan for Village Verde. It is classic segreagtion zoning; residential over there, commerical over here, retail in that spot, etc. The only thing that makes it 'urban' is it's size but it isn't sustainable.

This is more urban than Village Verde and it is in the Yemen desert. It is also sustainable as it has been there for 500 years in its current form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibam

----------


## Spartan

That would be Village No-Verde.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Some might find this interesting, architecturally. 

Brick and Mortar: Tallest buildings of each U.S. city, 1950

----------


## Kerry

> Some might find this interesting, architecturally. 
> 
> Brick and Mortar: Tallest buildings of each U.S. city, 1950


They don't make them like they used to, and the world is worse off for it.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Per request of Doug, this image is for those that think we are becoming more "urban". 

New York in 1905

----------


## Kerry

Look Ma!  No corporate plazas

----------


## Lafferty Daniel

Look Ma! No incredibly ugly buildings like the ones SandRidge tore down

----------


## Kerry

> Look Ma! No incredibly ugly buildings like the ones SandRidge tore down


Tru dat - but those building they tore down were not always ugly.

----------


## USG'60

Is that Wall Street?  Or, at least, the financial district?

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Broad Street.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Most of those buildings as far as I can tell, are replace with more modern ones or they changed the face of them.

----------


## Kerry

> Most of those buildings as far as I can tell, are replace with more modern ones or they changed the face of them.


Yep - they screwed up there as well.

----------


## Thunder

I only see two trees in the last posted picture.  Not environmentally friendly.  I hope Devon paved the way for change in how downtown will be built/changed in the future by spacing out the skyscrapers and allowing more grass, trees, and landscaping.  We don't want to just limit it to a central park nearby.  We want it everywhere.

----------


## therondo

I would rather Downtown be urban with the buildings pushed out to the street than have skyscrapers in the middle of a block with trees and grass surrounding them. There's plenty of grass and trees outside of the CBD. Not to mention Myriad Gardens and hopefully the new park.

----------


## metro

> I only see two trees in the last posted picture.  Not environmentally friendly.  I hope Devon paved the way for change in how downtown will be built/changed in the future by spacing out the skyscrapers and allowing more grass, trees, and landscaping.  We don't want to just limit it to a central park nearby.  We want it everywhere.


 You need to read a book on urban design. Your ideas are suburban and what this city needs less of in the inner core.

----------


## therondo

Can I get an AMEN! LOL!

----------


## Kerry

> can i get an amen! Lol!


amen!

----------


## Thunder

> I would rather Downtown be urban with the buildings pushed out to the street than have skyscrapers in the middle of a block with trees and grass surrounding them. There's plenty of grass and trees outside of the CBD. Not to mention Myriad Gardens and hopefully the new park.





> You need to read a book on urban design. Your ideas are suburban and what this city needs less of in the inner core.


Both are incorrect.  Not once did I mention a huge block of beautification surrounding each skyscrapers.  Urban...Suburban...whatever.  Those two terms are just plain stupid.  There is nothing wrong with having grass, trees, shrubs, flowers, and decorations in between the sidewalks and streets.

----------


## therondo

> I only see two trees in the last posted picture.  Not environmentally friendly.  I hope Devon paved the way for change in how downtown will be built/changed in the future by spacing out the skyscrapers and allowing more grass, trees, and landscaping.  We don't want to just limit it to a central park nearby.  We want it everywhere.


Then please, by all means, enlighten me as to what you truly mean. Spacing out skyscrapers?

----------


## Soonerinfiniti

It's a shame that developer's in Oklahoma can't build something like this (from Philadelphia):

http://www.dwell.com/articles/See-What-Develops.html

----------


## ljbab728

> It's a shame that developer's in Oklahoma can't build something like this (from Philadelphia):
> 
> http://www.dwell.com/articles/See-What-Develops.html


The interior looks nice but the exterior appears to be an absolute eyesore.

----------


## Larry OKC

Not a fan of the exterior or interior (just not my style) but if others want it and are willing to buy it, go for it.

----------


## Thunder

Yeah, those are total backward style.  Plain awful. I would say its fitting for the country side.

----------


## BG918

> The interior looks nice but the exterior appears to be an absolute eyesore.


Not if you're a fan of contemporary design.  I love it.

----------


## Rover

> Yeah, those are total backward style.  Plain awful. I would say its fitting for the country side.


Looks fitting for rural Mississippi

----------


## metro

I love it as well, looks like some of the houses in SoSA. Weni build in about 2 years its very similar to the style I want, just add solar panels and a wind turbine.

----------


## dankrutka

I like it, but I understand that some people don't... Definitely not for everyone.

----------


## ljbab728

> Not if you're a fan of contemporary design.  I love it.


I'm not opposed to contemporary, just that depiction which looks shoddy at best.  It reminds of the time when developers thought it was cool to put metal siding over the facades of historical business district buildings.

----------


## ZYX2

> It's a shame that developer's in Oklahoma can't build something like this (from Philadelphia):
> 
> http://www.dwell.com/articles/See-What-Develops.html


Those are just hideous. I would hate to have a house near it. JMO But I guess that is some people's style...

----------


## mcca7596

"Urban planner predicts renewal"

http://newsok.com/urban-planner-pred...rticle/3554047

It would be great to see Reno east of 235 have some urban development!

----------


## Soonerinfiniti

> Those are just hideous. I would hate to have a house near it. JMO But I guess that is some people's style...


I guess my point was not the aesthetics of the building, but the low cost, high density look.  I can't think of too many residential buildings in downtown that look that much different from the suburbs. Brownstones at Maywood Park and The Hill.  

Can a developer build a front-entrance single family home (even attached) in downtown for less than $250,000?  Or will the only sub-$250,000 units be condo units?

----------


## ZYX2

> I guess my point was not the aesthetics of the building, but the low cost, high density look.  I can't think of too many residential buildings in downtown that look that much different from the suburbs. Brownstones at Maywood Park and The Hill.  
> 
> Can a developer build a front-entrance single family home (even attached) in downtown for less than $250,000?  Or will the only sub-$250,000 units be condo units?


I don't think that the Brownstones really look suburban, so I disagree with you there. The Hill is much more suburban looking, so I do see where you're coming from. Really though, to me, urban and suburban are not dependent on what the building looks like, but more so the amount of setback, and whether or not it encourages walkability.

----------


## Chicken In The Rough

I've always thought that this area makes sense for the ever-dreamed of downtown stadium. It has plenty of open space. It's within walking distance to Bricktown. And, a streetcar line could be extended along Sheridan. I have always seen massive development potential here.

----------


## Doug Loudenback

> Most of those buildings as far as I can tell, are replace with more modern ones or they changed the face of them.


 UnFrSaKn, don't you think this thread would be a good one to show what urban is REALLY like, per your earlier Nyc PM?

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Anyone else wish there were more traditional architecture designs in new buildings?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...176535&page=16

----------


## Larry OKC

think it is what gives buildings their character. AM all for it.

----------


## Kerry

> Anyone else wish there were more traditional architecture designs in new buildings?


Gothic is my all time favorite.  I would build a gothic style home complete with suits of armor if the wife would let me.  When I look at something like Devon Tower, I appreciate what Devon has done but I would have rather had 10 or 12 three to five story buildings like the one pictured above or in your link.  Tall buildings are cool from a distance, but up close most of the building is visually wasted since you can't see it.  Low-rise building are up close and personal.

Give me this over NYC, Chicago, or Hong Kong any day:

http://www.360cities.net/london-photo-en.html

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Zoom in on the old church with the green roof near the bottom... Can't spend too much time on this or I won't get anything done.

----------


## ZYX2

Hong Kong definitely. But I think there is something to be said for the density of the skyscrapers in NYC and Chicago. 

I really like that building in the above picture. You can tell it's new but it has a timeless look to it. This is definitely not a building that will be torn down in several years to make way for Walmart's parking lot. Or at least, I hope not...

----------


## dmoor82

> UnFrSaKn, don't you think this thread would be a good one to show what urban is REALLY like, per your earlier Nyc PM?


Agreed,some people have never truly been to an URBAN city!Here's a true URBAN city-Boston!

----------


## UnFrSaKn

I'm by no means a world traveler, much less a States traveler. I'm going to Denver for a visit and anniversary a week from Monday. I've only been downtown once, and for not very long and in the middle of the night. I ran across this and holy cow.... I love this.

Link

----------


## betts

The building I loved the most in Denver, when I used to walk downtown for school, was the Art Museum.  I'd post a picture, but I'm not sure what my photobucket password is.  So here's a link.  I don't think the photo does it justice.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CCIQ9QEwAA

----------


## UnFrSaKn

I was going to mention this, but next week I'll be in Denver again. Other than 1999 Broadway and the Brown Hotel, anyone got suggestions on what to stop by downtown? I only went down there once and it was around midnight. I won't be in town long.

----------


## Spartan

> Anyone else wish there were more traditional architecture designs in new buildings?
> 
> http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...176535&page=16


I had to click off of that thread when I saw a picture of a real fire station that was recently built...

But definitely check out 16th Street! For an idea of what C2S could possibly be, check out the Central Platte Valley.

----------


## ljbab728

> The building I loved the most in Denver, when I used to walk downtown for school, was the Art Museum.  I'd post a picture, but I'm not sure what my photobucket password is.  So here's a link.  I don't think the photo does it justice.
> 
> http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ed=0CCIQ9QEwAA


Betts, I hope that photo doesn't do it justice.  It looks like a jail.  LOL

----------


## ljbab728

> I had to click off of that thread when I saw a picture of a real fire station that was recently built...
> 
> But definitely check out 16th Street! For an idea of what C2S could possibly be, check out the Central Platte Valley.


Spartan, I'm not disagreeing but don't forget this recent quote:

"I'm growing weary of posts that follow the mold of...

THIS is what OKC needs to do!
[insert out of state development here] "

----------


## CaseyCornett

I think this is the first time I've agreed with ljbab728...

----------


## UnFrSaKn

We've still got a long ways to go.







I only had an hour to walk ten blocks up Broadway, then back down. I parked on a meter that actually took cards! How is it, the home of the parking meter, and we don't have these? 
I also kept looking for the button on the lights to get a cross signal, then realized they're all automated... totally felt like a country bumpkin.
As I mentioned, I got the Brown Palace Hotel and 1999 Broadway and the church next to it. There's a much more beautiful church off Pennsylvania and Colfax but didn't have time.

The "Sports Authority" building blew my mind when I walked down the street and saw it for the first time.

----------


## Doug Loudenback

The "stop" frame makes me cry out, "Baum Building ... where art thou?" It's a beautiful video but one full of sadness of Oklahoma Citians when we see so vividly what COULD have been done here instead of what was. Very very sad. I'm glad that Denver got it right.

Did you attend a Thunder game during your trip? Was it great?

----------


## UnFrSaKn

No, I was only in town for a few days. Will be back in August for a wedding.

----------


## SkyWestOKC

I've seen a few parking meters that take cards in downtown.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dplwesternhistory/page18/

----------


## metro

> I think this is the first time I've agreed with ljbab728...


LOL, me too...

----------


## Kerry

You are right Larry, height has nothing to do with urban/suburban.  It has to do with how the space around the building.  Urban buildings define the empty space and suburban building are in the middle of empty space.  Sandridge has made all the space around them empty - ergo - suburban.  99% of London is under 5 stories and nearly every square inch of it is urban.

----------


## Rover

> Rover, what I meant in saying it was more appropriate in a suburban setting had nothing to do with the height of the building but the plazas, surface parking lots etc surrounding it (much like the other tower office buildings along NW Expressway. Sandridge is tearing down the urban buildings around it. All I am saying, if that is the look they want, build it where it is more appropriate rather than destroying what little urban fabric we have left.


They are putting surface parking there?  I guess I missed that. 

I think height is more associated with urban core and less with suburban.  It adds to the density, of course.  Urban is not just one criteria.  A downtown of one story buildings built to the sidewalk wouldn't necessarily be a hallmark of "urban".

----------


## Larry OKC

Rover: you missed the "plazas" I mentioned right before the surface parking part...

----------


## Kerry

> Urban is not just one criteria. A downtown of one story buildings built to the sidewalk wouldn't necessarily be a hallmark of "urban".


It just about would yes. For some reason you keep trying to associate 'urban' with 'height'. The two have nothing to do with each other. Burj Khalifa is the tallest building world (in a city with dozens of building exceeding 1,000 feet in height) but it isn't urban. You aren't going to walk from Burj Khalifa to anywhere else, it is too far. Downtown Norman is more urban than Dubai.

This is not urban - it is suburban. None of those building define the empty space between them. The buildings are all sitting in open space. In fact, people think Dubai is urban for the very reason it is actully suburban - because the buildings look out of place.



If the picture on the left was all one story building, and the one on the right were all 500' buildings, which would be more urban?

----------


## Rover

> It just about would yes. For some reason you keep trying to associate 'urban' with 'height'. The two have nothing to do with each other. Burj Khalifa is the tallest building world (in a city with dozens of building exceeding 1,000 feet in height) but it isn't urban. You aren't going to walk from Burj Khalifa to anywhere else, it is too far. Downtown Norman is more urban than Dubai.


I doubt you've spent time in Dubai then, as I have.  To say Norman is more urban is inane and injures credibility.  Dubai is much more urban than OKC and many cities in the US.  In fact, I worked on that project a little with SOM (the designer) in Chicago.  You probably don't know the master plan for it.  There are almost 200 mid and high-rises planned for the immediate surrounding area with density that rivals Chicago or NYC.  You can't look at a still and think you've seen the movie.




As for the Medieval illustration, it is a over simplistic representation of more complex issues.  I doubt we want to hold up Medieval cities as the ideal for modern urban requirements.  They also had horrible transportation systems for today's use, overcrowding led to quickly spreading epidemics, etc., etc.  Today's urban areas have much different requirements and expectations from its citizens.

----------


## Kerry

When you look at that picture you just posted, which part is more urban, the houses or the tall buildings?

This is what the tall buildings look like when you view it from above. Does all that open space around the buildings define the buildings, or do the buildings define the open space?  Both pcitures are taken from the same place, just at different altitudes.

----------


## Rover

> Honestly, I don't know why you aren't understanding. When you look at that picture you just posted, which part is more urban, the houses or the tall buildings? (Both pcitures are taken from the same place, just at different altitudes)
> 
> This is what the tall buildings look like when you view it from above. Does all that open space around the buildings define the buildings, or do the buildings define the open space?


You should actually go see and experience it.  By your definition of urban even, most Middle Eastern cities are way more urban than OKC anyway.  Anyone can take a micro view and anyone can be a Google expert.  But that is like reading Wine Spectator and thinking yourself a wine expert vs actually drinking and finding the fine wines you enjoy.  Sometimes to appreciate what you are reading about you have to actually TASTE to put it in context and to give it reality.

----------


## Kerry

When you were in Dubai did you drive from place to place or walk?

----------


## Architect2010

It is true, yes, most middle-eastern cities are more urban than OKC, and have an abundance of history and culture to top it off. But I don't need to visit when I have access to a plethora of opinion, fact, reference material, and everything else I need to know about Dubai. You do not walk in that city, even aside from summers that are much more intense than ours. Their streets are boulevards, their boulevards are highways, and their highways are some double-digit lane nightmares. Dubai, outside from its historic core, is incredibly auto-centric and unless a particular super development has been planned to embrace urban design, is also very unsustainable. The city that the world knows today as Dubai was [mostly] designed for the automobile and not pedestrian. 

There's a clear disconnect from Dubai's flashy architecture and its short-sighted planning practices.

----------


## Rover

> When you were in Dubai did you drive from place to place or walk?


Within the last few years.  In many neighborhoods we walk, and I usually have a driver.  But, sometimes I'm lazy or don't know where I am going.  LOL.

----------


## Rover

> It is true, yes, most middle-eastern cities are more urban than OKC, and have an abundance of history and culture to top it off. But I don't need to visit when I have access to a plethora of opinion, fact, reference material, and everything else I need to know about Dubai. You do not walk in that city, even aside from summers that are much more intense than ours. Their streets are boulevards, their boulevards are highways, and their highways are some double-digit lane nightmares. Dubai, outside from its historic core, is incredibly auto-centric and unless a particular super development has been planned to embrace urban design, is also very unsustainable. The city that the world knows today as Dubai was [mostly] designed for the automobile and not pedestrian. 
> 
> There's a clear disconnect from Dubai's flashy architecture and its short-sighted planning practices.


Actually, there is a lot of opportunity to walk.  Most of the year is not oppressively hot and I don't suggest going about 3 months of the year.  However, your point is well taken about the modern streets, boulevards and highways.  Much money is spent on the signature buildings and they like for them to be shown off.  I do disagree about the "short sighted"ness.  If fact, I think it is the fact they are planning WAY too far out and much more grandiose that makes it hard for them to achieve the real potential for world class urbanization.  In China they often think too near in and create transportation systems, etc. that are overtaxed by the time they open.  The Khalifa's have great vision, but sometimes lack reality in how quickly or how much will happen.  Therefore, like OKC, they wind up with undeveloped gaps...ours from tearing down for ambitious plans and they for making space for big plans that take a long time to fill.

And, as for visiting vs. research, I do not condemn research.  But to truly know about something I think you must ultimately experience it and observe for yourself.  Archaeologists go on digs.  Wine connoisseurs visit wineries and go on tasting tours.

----------


## Kerry

Wasn't walking so much better than having to drive?

----------


## Rover

> Wasn't walking so much better than having to drive?


Not necessarily.  I like having a driver.  LOL

----------


## USG'60

Dubai will be in ruins in 25 years.  That is just my opinion, of course.  Kitsch Moderne.  Carnival.  Beyond the pale.

----------


## Rover

> Dubai will be in ruins in 25 years.  That is just my opinion, of course.  Kitsch Moderne.  Carnival.  Beyond the pale.


Not sure why you say that.  Most of the projects are designed by leading world design and engineering firms and built by some of the leading international contractors in the world.

----------


## USG'60

Mainly because I don't believe it is a good place to try to sustain life.  If half the money spent on glitz had been spent on finding ways to desalinate MASSIVE amounts of water I think their long range future would a little brighter.  Dubai exists because there was money to waste but when the oil in the region there will be no reason for anyone to live there.  Again, all this is just my opinion.

----------


## Rover

> Mainly because I don't believe it is a good place to try to sustain life.  If half the money spent on glitz had been spent on finding ways to desalinate MASSIVE amounts of water I think their long range future would a little brighter.  Dubai exists because there was money to waste but when the oil in the region there will be no reason for anyone to live there.  Again, all this is just my opinion.


With all due respect, I don't think you know Dubai or the Emirates, at all.  Dubai is a TRADING center, not an oil center.  The Khalifas were of the belief that if you build the transportation, banking, and tax infrastructure that it would attract capital and population.  It is "build it and they will come" philosophy.  They have attracted companies and wealthy individuals from around the world.

----------


## USG'60

I am aware of that, Rover, and that is why I included the whole region when considering Dubai's future.  I believe there is a glut of "boom" cities in the near and far easts and that only so many of them can be sustained for the long haul.  I fear they will have "spent their wads", so to speak, before the problem of water is solved.  I imagine you know far more than I about the region so I can't really argue with you but I fear that cities like Dubai will have the same fate as McMansion neighborhooods, eventual "wastelands."

----------


## Rover

As long as Dubai provides favorable tax structures, is safe, and is a trading capital while being easy to get into and out of it will do just fine.  There is already massive desalinization.  The trick with desalinization and current technology is the high amount of energy used.  While there is still plenty of oil in the area and they have access then desal is not going to be the problem.  And, I am aware of some newer technology that may make it less expensive.  After all, water is the future oil and lots of smart people are working on desal.

Dubai has world class shopping, some of the world's finest hotels, great food and is an incredibly interesting part of the world.  I love going back.

----------


## USG'60

I'll quit worrying about them so much, then.

----------


## Just the facts

> Comment on another fourum regarding the Devon Energy Center:
> [LEFT][COLOR=#000000]im sure it looks nice from far away.  but big deal.  that site plan and building orientation leaves little to be desired.  might as well be in the 'burbs.  seems we never learn how to make a quality urban environment. you certainly dont get there by buildings things that only look good a mile away.


As a new urbanist myself, let me second that complaint.  On a scale of 1 to 5, I give the tower a 4.  It isn't a 5 because from an urban design perspective it accomplishes nothing at the street level.  It doesn't have curb appeal - it has 10 miles away appeal.  To bad most people who will interact with it will be more interested in the curb appeal.

----------


## okcpulse

> As a new urbanist myself, let me second that complaint.  On a scale of 1 to 5, I give the tower a 4.  It isn't a 5 because from an urban design perspective it accomplishes nothing at the street level.  It doesn't have curb appeal - it has 10 miles away appeal.  To bad most people who will interact with it will be more interested in the curb appeal.


Since your new at being an urbanist, let me school you a little.  This tower's functionality was not to satisfy curb appeal.  It was built to meet the needs of an energy company.  If you want curb appeal, Devon offers just that on the west end of their super block.  A quality urban environment doesn't necessitate 100% curb appeal.  Devon wanted to make sure the tower appealed to both the public as well as its own employees.  That's why the rotunda and garden wing even exists.  They set the garden wing back from the street to make way for the auditorium.  

Before the Devon Tower existed it was a giant parking lot.  How is that for curb appeal?

----------


## Thunder

I think it looks just fantastic.  No need to be "urban" or "suburban" cuz those terms are just stupid.  Just wait until its all finished and you'll be totally amazed.  Heck, we should be having a massive influx of downtown buyers/renters for home living.

----------


## dmoor82

> Since your new at being an urbanist, let me school you a little. This tower's functionality was not to satisfy curb appeal. It was built to meet the needs of an energy company. If you want curb appeal, Devon offers just that on the west end of their super block. A quality urban environment doesn't necessitate 100% curb appeal. Devon wanted to make sure the tower appealed to both the public as well as its own employees. That's why the rotunda and garden wing even exists. They set the garden wing back from the street to make way for the auditorium. 
> 
> Before the Devon Tower existed it was a giant parking lot. How is that for curb appeal?


^^I agree with this post!People also tend to forget that without this tower being built there would be no Project 180,which makes dt OKC more pedestrian friendly and more urban imo!

----------


## Just the facts

> Since your new at being an urbanist, let me school you a little.  This tower's functionality was not to satisfy curb appeal.  It was built to meet the needs of an energy company.  If you want curb appeal, Devon offers just that on the west end of their super block.  A quality urban environment doesn't necessitate 100% curb appeal.  Devon wanted to make sure the tower appealed to both the public as well as its own employees.  That's why the rotunda and garden wing even exists.  They set the garden wing back from the street to make way for the auditorium.  
> 
> Before the Devon Tower existed it was a giant parking lot.  How is that for curb appeal?


I am a 'new urbanist' not a new 'urbanist'.  New Urbanism is the movement.  I have been an urbanist for 40 years.  All those items you just listed is why it got a 4 out 5 and not a 0 out 5.  It would have gotten the 5th point it if it didn't have a lot of negative open space between the building and the sidewalk.

----------


## Thunder

> Now let me school you.  I am a 'new urbanist' not a new 'urbanist'.  New Urbanism is the movement.  I have been an urbanist for 40 years.  All those items you just listed is why it got a 4 out 5 and not a 0 out 5.  It would have gotten the 5th point it if it didn't have a lot of negative open space between the building and the sidewalk.


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dude, there is nothing wrong with having space between the building and the sidewalk.  Its to handle human (and animal) traffic, landscaping, and water.  Yes, I said that right, there are water/pond among some areas of the tower as shown in the renderings.  Now, why would you want a building to be right up to the tower...street?  That is just an insane joke.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## dmoor82

> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Dude, there is nothing wrong with having space between the building and the sidewalk. Its to handle human (and animal) traffic, landscaping, and water. Yes, I said that right, there are water/pond among some areas of the tower as shown in the renderings. Now, why would you want a building to be right up to the tower...street? That is just an insane joke.
> 
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Animal?JTF was just stating that a tower fronting a street would be MORE urban!Thunder have you ever been to a truly urban city?

----------


## dmoor82

Having been to cities like Boston,NYC,Vancouver and San Fran,I know what Just the Facts is trying to say but this is OKC and we should be happy with whats going on in this city!

----------


## Just the facts

> Having been to cities like Boston,NYC,Vancouver and San Fran,I know what Just the Facts is trying to say but this is OKC and we should be happy with whats going on in this city!


Thanks dmoor82.  To expound on your "should be happy with" comment.  I understand that something is better than nothing and I am not saying I am not happy - I could just be happier.  That's all.  Devon set the new standard in OKC and I just hope whomever is next exceeds that standard - not in height but in urban design.

----------


## mcca7596

Regarding the streetwall with the Devon tower, it seems no one is thinking of the whole west side along Hudson and the potential for retail in the bottom of the parking garage. There was no street interaction before on any side.

----------


## metro

> Regarding the streetwall with the Devon tower, it seems no one is thinking of the whole west side along Hudson and the potential for retail in the bottom of the parking garage. There was no street interaction before on any side.


Many have thought about it, but it was not built with that in capability, but I'm sure it could be remodeled easily. On one of these pages, I posted pics from the front and back of those faux retail spots.

----------


## Just the facts

You are right Metro - what appears to be a retail spot has a concrete block wall a few feet behind the glass.  I assume those could be easily removed when the time comes.  Of course mcca7596 brings up a good point and it true that the site on 3 sides has good urban design - hince my 4 star rating.  The big front yard - not so urban.

----------


## mburlison

some people would complain if they were hung w/ a new rope...   "too scratchy..."

----------


## Just the facts

If you see it as complaining then so be it.  I like to look it at as continous improvement.

----------


## ljbab728

> Having been to cities like Boston,NYC,Vancouver and San Fran,I know what Just the Facts is trying to say but this is OKC and we should be happy with whats going on in this city!


I have also been to all of those great cities and they have some comparable great developments that Just the Facts might also criticize that I find wonderful.

----------


## Thunder

Exactly, ljbab728.  Having buildings up to the sidewalk/street is just a complete joke and not people-friendly.  It also make it horrible on the landscaping and other designs.

----------


## mcca7596

It has it's place Thunder, you don't want every building to have a plaza. It can be people friendly in that you step right off the sidewalk and go in... easy. It also can be just as aesthetically pleasing to have a streetwall.

The amount of open space should be proportional to building density; buildings should define the space around them in my opinion.

----------


## ljbab728

> It has it's place Thunder, you don't want every building to have a plaza. It can be people friendly in that you step right off the sidewalk and go in... easy. It also can be just as aesthetically pleasing to have a streetwall.
> 
> The amount of open space should be proportional to building density; buildings should define the space around them in my opinion.


I agree and I think Devon has accomplished that.  For Sandridge, the jury is out.

----------


## dmoor82

> Exactly, ljbab728. Having buildings up to the sidewalk/street is just a complete joke and not people-friendly. It also make it horrible on the landscaping and other designs.


Some truly Urban cities dont have the luxury of having plaza's and such,there just isnt the space,How is it a joke to have towers that butt up against streets?Seems more logical and urban too me!I Love what Devon has done here and it works for OKC but might not be feasible in other cities!

----------


## Just the facts

You guys need to look at that photo again.  Those building are built out to the street.

----------


## Rover

Some people sure are dogmatic and take ONE principle of urban design and think regurgitating it makes them an expert.  OKC is not New York City, Tokyo or Singapore.  And they might be surprised how much diversity their is in those cities anyway.  People need to see the world and get a dose of reality.

----------


## Just the facts

> Some people sure are dogmatic and take ONE principle of urban design and think regurgitating it makes them an expert.  OKC is not New York City, Tokyo or Singapore.  And they might be surprised how much diversity their is in those cities anyway.  People need to see the world and get a dose of reality.


A picture was posted showing what the person considered good urban design and then stated I would criticize it.  If you look at the picture, the buildings are pushed out to the sidewalk.  The picture validates what I said.  I'm not sure what makes that hard to understand.

----------


## ljbab728

> You guys need to look at that photo again.  Those building are built out to the street.


I have been to and in those buildings.  They aren't and have some plaza type areas. No more or less than Devon has.

----------


## Just the facts

I've been to them also - more than once, so I don't know what that proves.  All I can say is look at the photo, those building start where the sidewalk ends.  On the other side of those buildings the towers are right next to the street.  All I am saying is Devon Tower is a great project and that it could have been a little better.  I gave it 4 out of 5 stars.  By comparison, I give Bass Pro 0 out of 5 stars.  If you want to see 5 out of 5 check out NE 2nd.  In fact, the just start calling that area NE2, as in , where do you live?  Answer, NE2.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> I've been to them also - more than once, so I don't know what that proves.  All I can say is look at the photo, those building start where the sidewalk ends.  On the other side of *those buildings the towers are right next to the street*.  All I am saying is Devon Tower is a great project and that it could have been a little better.  I gave it 4 out of 5 stars.  By comparison, I give Bass Pro 0 out of 5 stars.  If you want to see 5 out of 5 check out NE 2nd.  In fact, the just start calling that area NE2, as in , where do you live?  Answer, NE2.


In this city, and elsewhere since it has happened, I think developers and architects, if given the proper space, will allow for buildings to be built away from the edge of the street due to domestic or foreign terrorism.  That's just my take.  I don't know if that's really true, but the safety of employees would be a concern.

----------


## Rover

> I have been to and in those buildings.  They aren't and have some plaza type areas. No more or less than Devon has.




A different perspective showing the open areas around the buildings.

----------


## metro

Where is that at?

----------


## poe

> Where is that at?


San Francisco

----------


## metro

Anks. Don't think I noticed it last time in S.F.

----------


## bluedogok

> In this city, and elsewhere since it has happened, I think developers and architects, if given the proper space, will allow for buildings to be built away from the edge of the street due to domestic or foreign terrorism.  That's just my take.  I don't know if that's really true, but the safety of employees would be a concern.


It is only a concern for government buildings, I have never had a commercial client address anything about the issue, they almost always want maximum yield from any piece of property. I worked on the new Federal building which was one of the first non-DOD buildings constructed under the Force Protection Guidelines and those have evolved since that building was designed and built.

----------


## Just the facts

> A different perspective showing the open areas around the buildings.


Rover - you are going to lose 9 ways from Sunday on this.  That space between the buildings is called the street.  Do yourself a favor and go to Google Street view around these buildings.  You will find the street, sidewalk, and building - all as close together as they could get it on every side.  As for terrorism protection - I don't know how much the lawn in front of Devon Tower would keep a van from crashing into the lobby.  However, a one or two story retail plaza would be guaranteed to stop it.

BTW - that last photo is over 20 years old because the Embarcadaro Freeway is still there and it was torn down in 1989.

----------


## Just the facts

> Anks. Don't think I noticed it last time in S.F.


Here is the web site for it.  Lots of shopping and dining.

http://www.embarcaderocenter.com/ec/

----------


## ljbab728

> Rover - you are going to lose 9 ways from Sunday on this.  That space between the buildings is called the street.  Do yourself a favor and go to Google Street view around these buildings.  You will find the street, sidewalk, and building - all as close together as they could get it on every side.  As for terrorism protection - I don't know how much the lawn in front of Devon Tower would keep a van from crashing into the lobby.  However, a one or two story retail plaza would be guaranteed to stop it.
> 
> BTW - that last photo is over 20 years old because the Embarcadaro Freeway is still there and it was torn down in 1989.


Kerry, I won't lose on that.  I have stayed at the Hyatt shown in the pic besides visiting that area numerous times when my brother lived there.  Please note the second pic I posted in post number 6834.  That is a large plaza area between the Hyatt and the office buildings.  The low rise area is mostly shops and restaurants.  The Embarcadero is a great urban development but Devon does not suffer in comparison as being not urban enough.

----------


## Just the facts

Okay - I think we talked about the Embarcadaro Center long enough.  We are just going to have to agree to disagree (unless someone wants to create an Embaracadro thread).  I still give Devon 4 out 5 stars because of the large grassy area built across the street from another large grassy area. 4 of 5 on the JTF scale isn't bad.

----------


## ZYX2

I know we're supposed to be done with the Embarcadero Center, but looking at google maps, all of these buildings are built up to the sidewalks, with a plaza across the street.

----------


## Just the facts

Give it up ZYX2.

BTW - Originally the plaza was across the street but the street was closed when the freeway was taken down.  Google Maps still shows the street.  I think it is now a firelane and bike path.  The plaza at the east end of EC was in the shadows of the old Embarcadaro Freeway off-ramps.  EC was completed in 1976 and the freeway was removed in 1989.  I'm not even sure if the plaza is part of the EC complex.  It might be owned by the City of San Francisco (on edit - I just check the SF property assesor website and the plaza is not part of the EC complex - it is owned by the City of San Fransico and is zoned for public use.  So not only was EC pushed to sidewalk, it is pushed to the very edge of a park.

----------


## Just the facts

Metro took a pretty cool picture of downtown today so I was looking to see where he took it from.  He took it from the building in the picture below.  This kind of landuse non-sense has got to stop.

----------


## mcca7596

What is this building called?

----------


## Pete

It's called the Physicians and Surgeons Building.

11 stories, 95,700 square feet.

----------


## Just the facts

> It's called the Physicians and Surgeons Building.
> 
> 11 stories, 95,700 square feet.


How many square feet of parking?

----------


## mcca7596

Thanks Pete, I couldn't find it on any of the standard lists I knew of to check, I guess it's not tall enough. Convert that surface parking to additional floors however... lol

----------


## Pete

That building sits on a total of 10 (!) acres.

Hopefully, they will build more offices in the future.

----------


## Just the facts

> That building sits on a total of 10 (!) acres.
> 
> Hopefully, they will build more offices in the future.


LOL - so one acre of parking for every 9,000 sq feet of floor space.

----------


## Pete

On closer analysis, I thought it was (3) 3.3 acre parcels but it seems to just be one.  

Still, lots of room to add buildings and still be able to park.

----------


## metro

> It's called the Physicians and Surgeons Building.
> 
> 11 stories, 95,700 square feet.


12 if you found mechanical

----------


## metro

> On closer analysis, I thought it was (3) 3.3 acre parcels but it seems to just be one.  
> 
> Still, lots of room to add buildings and still be able to park.


Doubt it will happen, the owners are cheap Russians from Norman, they own several properties around the metro, but I don't see them modernizing their existing property, let alone building new. They are too cheap to put a bike rack out front after lots of hounding about installing one for about $150

----------


## Just the facts

> Doubt it will happen, the owners are cheap Russians from Norman, they own several properties around the metro, but I don't see them modernizing their existing property, let alone building new. They are too cheap to put a bike rack out front after lots of hounding about installing one for about $150


I don't know about, they spent what appears to be about $35 on landscaping.

----------


## mcca7596

> I don't know about, they spent what appears to be about $35 on landscaping.


lol

Metro, Would they allow the workers to get together and just buy a bike rack? Or do they not even want one on the property period?

----------


## Thunder

I was in that building earlier this year....with mom....I took her there....with my time and gas.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/01/civic-center.html

Doug takes care of all the work. Scroll down for the fate of the old courthouse. I actually spent some time yesterday looking at a bunch of old photos trying to orient myself to what direction it faced. All I should have done was re-read Doug's blog... Some day I'll learn.




1929

----------


## UnFrSaKn

> Oh how I weep for the OKC of old...


That's why you have to treat what historical buildings that are left like your 100 year old grandfather. Some consider "historical" only as "historical things happened there". Anything that's in a black and white photo and before my time is considered historical to me. A lot of people probably just don't know where to go to find out about the history of the city. Like me, all it took was seeing images of what used to be here to get me interested. Doug's blog in particular. I found his blog via OKCTalk by searching for "new skyscrapers okc" and found this forum. RetroMetroOKC is about the only group I know of that has a modern looking website and meets regularly and has a movement going. Imagine if they got one single local ad on television, what that would do. If junk like Fowler Honda and your local family-owned business can get on tv, I don't see why RetroMetro couldn't. There's enough talent at NewOK for Steve to perhaps make that happen in the future some day.

I didn't post the new and old photos I have of the courthouse because I didn't want this to go way off topic. But... you have to picture yourself on this forum as if you're on a brightly lit stage. Everything that's posted here is public and there's an untold amount of unique new visitors and "lurking members" that only view but never post. I was one of those members for a long time myself. It's like when you're on stage you can see a multitude of people out there but you can't make out who they are because of the lights. Most people don't feel like scrolling through pages of text so it doesn't hurt to bring up things or link to websites most regular visitors here all know.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

...or I could have looked at this too.

----------


## Steve

The courthouse was actually replaced by the old Holiday Inn, which is now the character institute place.

----------


## Doug Loudenback

Well, kind of. As is shown by the photos that Will posted above, also shown below, the courthouse was located as shown, which is south of where the old Holiday Inn mainly sits, with perhaps a little overlap around the alley.





Compare ...

----------


## Urbanized

> This comment goes against the grain of what I usually say, but seeing that photo makes me wonder what was at the Bus Station's location before it was built, and also if there was an uproar about the modern structure being built at the time...


Hey, they tore down the old Waldorf-Astoria to make way for the Empire State Building. Sometimes it's OK to be bummed about losing the old place and still enthusiastic about what replaces it.

----------


## BDP

> Sometimes it's OK to be bummed about losing the old place and still enthusiastic about what replaces it.


Except in our case where, with all the empty space and surface parking, you could have both the old and new with little attrition.

----------


## Urbanized

Completely agree, though in regard to the discussion that comment pertained to, the bus station was built long before OKC's urban renewal period.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

I didn't want to post the new photos I found but I guess I will now...it's getting off topic.





The courthouse would have fit directly in front of the Holiday Inn and alongside the west side of the parking garage.

----------


## Just the facts

> Except in our case where, with all the empty space and surface parking, you could have both the old and new with little attrition.


This is why I am not bothered by the canal corner development.  Step 1 is getting rid of all the available land.  Step 2 will be replacing low density structures with high density developments.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Would anyone even know how to build something like this in today's age?


Construction


1905








1905






North entrance


1918

----------


## Just the facts

> Would anyone even know how to build something like this in today's age?


Nope.  Have you seen the crap they tried to pass off as the new courthouse and police headquarters?

----------


## Doug Loudenback

Building it to be fireproof would be a good start:

----------


## ljbab728

> Would anyone even know how to build something like this in today's age?


Walt Disney?

----------


## Spartan

> Hey, they tore down the old Waldorf-Astoria to make way for the Empire State Building. Sometimes it's OK to be bummed about losing the old place and still enthusiastic about what replaces it.


Unfortunately, we don't even have a building like that left to be torn down... going back to Will's point about our emotional attachment to what little we have left of the great, urban city OKC once was. Not to chide you or anything urbanized, I know you care about old buildings as much as all of us..if not more, with your background in AA and BT...

----------


## kevinpate

> Nope.  Have you seen the crap they tried to pass off as the new courthouse and police headquarters?


Well, in fairness to them, it is a _municipal_ court building, and those generally don't end up on the magnificent end of the spectrum.
(of course, most state court bldgs. erected in the past 30 years haven't been much to look at either.)

----------


## BDP

> Step 1 is getting rid of all the available land. Step 2 will be replacing low density structures with high density developments.


I was referring to when we actually tear down structures to build next to empty land, which is where the Preftakes block seems to be heading. The canal corner is simply taking empty space on a prime lot and paving over most of it. That just makes it so that if density happens, it will happen elsewhere, which is a shame, because bricktown is closer to density than most of the city. Bricktown shouldn't have to struggle for density, developers should WANT to add density at this point.

If we are really willing to wait for all the empty space to be paved over before the city even has the potential for density, then we will be waiting for a VERY long time, especially when noone seems interested in developing the empty space we have and instead chooses to tear down buildings next to empty space for developments, or even tear down buildings to create MORE empty space.

----------


## Just the facts

> I was referring to when we actually tear down structures to build next to empty land, which is where the Preftakes block seems to be heading.


High density growth doesn't occur in a uniform patter though.  It radiates from a single point/line and that point/line can be MBG, the canal, Automobile Alley, etc.  In the Preftakes case the point of focus is MBG.  If he is planning on high density development (one or more high rises) then it would make sense that he would convert a middle density development to superhigh density before he leap frogged to replacing a no-density open space.  Only if he was planning to duplicate what is already on his block would it then make sense to develop near by vacant land instead.  In other words, the Preftakes block (and other land around MBG - i.e. Stage Center and Cox site) are ready for step 2.

----------


## Urbanized

> Unfortunately, we don't even have a building like that left to be torn down... going back to Will's point about our emotional attachment to what little we have left of the great, urban city OKC once was. Not to chide you or anything urbanized, I know you care about old buildings as much as all of us..if not more, with your background in AA and BT...


Again, my comment was specifically addressing the bus station and David Pollard's comment that showed conflicting feelings regarding the cool old bus station and whatever it must have replaced at some point. Although the station probably required the demo of some quality building(s), it was done during a time when downtown was much more dense and there may have been few choices but to tear something down to build it, much as the construction of the ESB required demolitions in the very dense Midtown Manhattan. A higher and better use makes some demos more palatable.

But we've moved so far away from that kind of density that - as others have pointed out - there are RARELY overwhelmingly good reasons for teardown in OKC vs. building on empty lots.

----------


## Just the facts

> But we've moved so far away from that kind of density that - as others have pointed out - there are RARELY overwhelmingly good reasons for teardown in OKC vs. building on empty lots.


There are plenty of good reason to tear down existing structures and replace them in OKC.  What is unfortunate is when the "new replacement" is more suburban then what was razed.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

Why is the title of this thread General Urban Development all of a sudden?

----------


## Urbanized

> There are plenty of good reason to tear down existing structures and replace them in OKC.  What is unfortunate is when the "new replacement" is more suburban then what was razed.


Should've been more specific. There are not too many compelling reasons to tear down most of the buildings left in downtown, when there is generally an available empty lot right next door. Again, I'm almost always willing to accept the legitimate "higher and better use" argument (see Aloft/Finley Building, or Bricktown Ballpark), but would strongly prefer infill where possible. And in downtown OKC, it is nearly ALWAYS possible.

You can tear down almost everything north of 50th and south of Capitol Hill and get no argument from me. In fact, please do.

----------


## Pete

Because I moved a ton of threads from the Preftakes thread, as this is completely off that topic.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> Because I moved a ton of threads from the Preftakes thread, as this is completely off that topic.


Ahhhh so!  Thanks Pete!  You tha man ;-)

----------


## Just the facts

> Should've been more specific. There are not too many compelling reasons to tear down most of the buildings left in downtown, when there is generally an available empty lot right next door. Again, I'm almost always willing to accept the legitimate "higher and better use" argument (see Aloft/Finley Building, or Bricktown Ballpark), but would strongly prefer infill where possible. And in downtown OKC, it is nearly ALWAYS possible.
> 
> You can tear down almost everything north of 50th and south of Capitol Hill and get no argument from me. In fact, please do.


I think you re-wording is the general agreement amongst us fellow travelers.

----------


## BDP

> In other words, the Preftakes block (and other land around MBG - i.e. Stage Center and Cox site) are ready for step 2.


Yeah, but only by skipping your first step. The reality is that the Preftakes block IS a high density block by Oklahoma City standards and it sits caddy corner from a entirely empty lot that right now, along with the parking garage across the street, only serve to disconnect the CBD from film row. If the empty lot was developed and the Preftakes lot improved, but not demolished, there would be a much greater net gain in development density.

I know it's not going to happen that way, if for nothing else it's just not done that way here. I'm just saying there is still plenty of room to increase the density of development in OKC without tearing down a single building, which is how you increase density exponentially instead of incrementally.

----------


## Urbanized

The empty block on the south side of Sheridan cater corner to the bus station is the selected site of the (funded) downtown school.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

And Now for Something Completely Different …
http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/20...ely-different/

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> And Now for Something Completely Different …
> http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/20...ely-different/


I must be a real man, cause I didn't cry...

----------


## Just the facts

Penn Station and the theater in OKC were not only archetectural gems, theyalso contributed positivly to the community they were in.  Their placement on the ground help define the urban enviornment that they were a part of.  Stage Center does the exact opposite - it reduces the density and walkability of the surrounding area by creating negative space and not defining the open space.  It is a suburban layout (a structure in a sea of open space) in what should be the most urban part of Oklahoma.  Is it better than a vacant lot?  Yes, but bearly.

----------


## dankrutka

What book are those illustrations from again? I know it's been recommended on here before..

----------


## Just the facts

> What book are those illustrations from again? I know it's been recommended on here before..


101 Things I Learned in Architecture School by Matthew Frederick.  You can find it on the shelf at Barnes and Noble.  While you are there check out Anatomy of a Skyscraper.  It is also full of urban design principles.

on edit - LOL, leave one letter out of skyscraper and it totally changes the meaning.

----------


## dankrutka

> While you are there check out Anatomy of a Skyscraper.  It is also full of urban design principles.


Are you talking about The Heights: Anatomy of a Skyscraper by Kate Ascher? Just want to make sure...

----------


## Just the facts

That is it.

----------


## bombermwc

Well I hate to say "I told you so" on the lack of market for upscale apartments, but i have to. I got thrown mud at for weeks when i said we had too many already and needed mid-level rather than upscale. Guess I wasn't as wrong as the blind optomists thought. You can't blame the market here in OKC for the failure...we didn't have the fall that you saw elsewhere....note the dozens of articles and surveys that we actually grew.

But in reference to the place being a concrete box, yeah it's an ugly crap of a building. But that's how we view it today. We don't call it historic today because of it's lack of creativity. However, that concrete look was a style for a period and does represent a microcasm of architecture. When the horrible bland unpainted Myriad and Gardens were first built, that spelled "modern" and "cutting edge". It's the age old story of how old does something have to be to call it historic. Yes there are rules that govern when something is officially called historic, but the official stance doesn't always win. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing historic funds being used on this pile of crap. All I'm saying is, historic today, isn't neccessarily historic for tomorrow. In the 20's art-deco was new. Then in the 50's, it was a symbol of old. That's why so many facades were removed in favor of their new international style replacements. What we see as a travesty today, made perfect sense and made a building MORE marketable at that time. Context makes a huge difference.

----------


## adaniel

> Well I hate to say "I told you so" on the lack of market for upscale apartments, but i have to. I got thrown mud at for weeks when i said we had too many already and needed mid-level rather than upscale. Guess I wasn't as wrong as the blind optomists thought. You can't blame the market here in OKC for the failure...we didn't have the fall that you saw elsewhere....note the dozens of articles and surveys that we actually grew.


I'm confused by this blurb. Are you referring to for-purchase condos?

If that is a yes, then you are correct. But there are plenty of upscale rentals going in and I don't see the demand abating anytime soon, given so long the local economy keeps going (always a wildcard) and the rentals are of high quality and actually worth the money.  

Keep in mind that there are waiting lists for the Sieber and Deep Deuce, and the Cline Hotel is not even finished and already completely leased. 

Even with the rather controversial aesthetics, I have no doubt the Carnegie will be successful.

----------


## Spartan

That would require a dead-halt on leasing in the future.




> Well I hate to say "I told you so" on the lack of market for upscale apartments, but i have to. I got thrown mud at for weeks when i said we had too many already and needed mid-level rather than upscale. Guess I wasn't as wrong as the blind optomists thought. You can't blame the market here in OKC for the failure...we didn't have the fall that you saw elsewhere....note the dozens of articles and surveys that we actually grew.


What are you talking about? That just came out of nowhere. If anything, it is proof that the upscale housing market is so strong that even a ghastly project like this can move forward.

----------


## bombermwc

Spartan, did you even read the comments from the developer where they said there wasn't a market for upscale at the price they wanted? Right out of the horses mouth there buddy. As adaniel said, rental is strong on the east side of downtown and continuing to grow. But this high price lease crap people keep trying to push isn't flying. This project has failed numerous times and they're clawing to stay alive with this historic money. It is counter to everything they had planned in the original design. 

You find me someone that will want to move in there now and then (should they decide to go with the changes after the 5 year requirement for the cash expires) would want to be around while construction tears off the outside and then cuts holes in walls, converts a floor or two to parking, etc. That would make the sale that much more difficult. What you are more likely to see is:
1 - the project will totally collapse and we'll still have an empty crappy building
2 - they somehow find people to lease, but it won't be as high of a price and there will be no massive renovations

What i'd like to see is the original design come to fruition. Is it going to happen...doubt it...a lot.

----------


## Spartan

> Spartan, did you even read the comments from the developer where they said there wasn't a market for upscale at the price they wanted? Right out of the horses mouth there buddy. As adaniel said, rental is strong on the east side of downtown and continuing to grow. But this high price lease crap people keep trying to push isn't flying.


I think you're somewhat confused. The market that has struggled and been hit hard by the recession is for upscale for-sale condos. Those have stayed on the market for a long time even in downtown OKC. In general though, the for-rent market is wide-open. Almost all of the downtown apartments being built are pretty high-end, at least for this market. This project is certainly no more high-end than some more major projects with hundreds of living units.

I agree that the original design was alright, because I do think that there are ways to make this building look attractive.

----------


## PhiAlpha

> Spartan, did you even read the comments from the developer where they said there wasn't a market for upscale at the price they wanted? Right out of the horses mouth there buddy. As adaniel said, rental is strong on the east side of downtown and continuing to grow. But this high price lease crap people keep trying to push isn't flying. This project has failed numerous times and they're clawing to stay alive with this historic money. It is counter to everything they had planned in the original design.


Bombermwc,

Your assessment of high lease prices not flying is flat out wrong. I've been looking downtown for an apartment and it has been difficult to pick and choose because of high occupancy. Yes, that is high occupancy in upscale, expensive, high rent housing. Most apartment complexes are fully leased or hovering around 98% occupancy. The only exception I could find was park harvey which is still at 89% occupancy despite being surrounded by construction and not having a parking structure attached. There are plenty of people between 20 and 35 that work downtown or nearby that are willing to pay the rent and live there. No one likes the prices but just like every other large city, people are paying them. And prices downtown aren't much different than what the nicer apartments charge in Norman, which many of the people moving downtown have been paying through out attending college. 

The report you are referring to stated that there isn't enough of a market for high end CONDOS AND TOWNHOMES at the price they are trying to get, it further stated more apartment development would need to occur downtown to satisfy demand. I've looked through the downtown condo selection, and even though high priced, many have been sold.

----------


## bombermwc

Good God people...do you even read posts? What i said was right from the developers mouth. It's even posted on previous pages in this thread. The person pushing the development themselves has said the market for what they were pushing just isn't there. "For the price" means a lot. They could have been way overshooting what it's worth. But at least read before you try and argue with what the developer is saying. You're trying to make this into an attack on me (big surprise since heaven forbid anyone ever disagree with the great Spartan), but next time why don't you try reading all the posts before you comment. 

And PhiAlpha, no i'm not referencing a report. As I said, i'm referencing the words right out of the developers mouth, which explained why they did a change in courseon the entire project. It's like you guys just read the last couple of posts before you comment.

----------


## betts

The market is always behind or ahead of reality, regardless.  At some point, the last person or persons to create rental properties in downtown, Midtown and Deep Deuce will discover that the rental market is tapped out.  And there will be people who've loved renting downtown and are now financially able to buy who won't be able to find for sale properties at any price.  Then the developers will go gaga over for sale properties and if we're lucky, at some point we'll have enough, or likely too much, of both.  It's never good to be that last developer, but it always seems to happen.  I think they respond in very reflexive fashion to perceived markets.  Let the Carnegie developers do whatever they think is right.  They may be right, or they may be wrong.  There is clearly no crystal ball.

----------


## Spartan

> Good God people...do you even read posts? What i said was right from the developers mouth. It's even posted on previous pages in this thread. The person pushing the development themselves has said the market for what they were pushing just isn't there. "For the price" means a lot. They could have been way overshooting what it's worth. But at least read before you try and argue with what the developer is saying. You're trying to make this into an attack on me (big surprise since heaven forbid anyone ever disagree with the great Spartan), but next time why don't you try reading all the posts before you comment. 
> 
> And PhiAlpha, no i'm not referencing a report. As I said, i'm referencing the words right out of the developers mouth, which explained why they did a change in courseon the entire project. It's like you guys just read the last couple of posts before you comment.


It sounds like I am just going to have to teach you a lesson with my giant Poseidon trident.

You're right, it is straight from the horse's mouth. There was no market for the upscale condos that she was initially proposing. She then changed her project over to high-end apartments. Could you please elaborate further as to how that is an indictment, rather than a confirmation, of the high-end rental market?

We agree that this Carnegie development is now less than ideal. I also agree with your assessment that she appears to be fishing for desperate options to keep her project alive. I just think this crusade of yours against high-end rentals is unnecessary and it misses the point about rentals vs. condos.

The high-end rental market is where we've found the demand which has ignited the current wave of private development.

----------


## Pete

> The market is always behind or ahead of reality, regardless.  At some point, the last person or persons to create rental properties in downtown, Midtown and Deep Deuce will discover that the rental market is tapped out.  And there will be people who've loved renting downtown and are now financially able to buy who won't be able to find for sale properties at any price.  Then the developers will go gaga over for sale properties and if we're lucky, at some point we'll have enough, or likely too much, of both.  It's never good to be that last developer, but it always seems to happen.  I think they respond in very reflexive fashion to perceived markets.  Let the Carnegie developers do whatever they think is right.  They may be right, or they may be wrong.  There is clearly no crystal ball.


Yes, it's the nature of commercial development:  Everyone goes chasing the current hot segment instead of actually thinking on their own.  The developers are certainly to blame but even more so are the lenders who will only look at recent past history before splashing out the cash.

You'd think both these groups would learn but that never seems to happen.

----------


## bombermwc

But that's a HUUUUUGE difference Spartan.....Lease vs. Rental. Rental is somethingi do feel there is a market for, but not lease. We've seen SOOOO much upscale lease lately, that's where the market is saturated. Rental is a whole other ballgame. That's exactlly why Deep Deuce is still moving at a steady pace.

For some reason developers in downtown feel like the only option for an old building is to turn it into an upscale lease structure. THAT market has been tapped (for now). I still stand by my statement that lowering the cost (and amenities) could open a new market. 

On a side note to Carnegie, that very thing is about to be done in Bricktown with the old steel company land. Although I feel like it's going too far in the cheap direction. They're talking about $500 a month there because it will fall under Federal "Affordable Housing" plans. Which to me means, Section 8.....bleh.

----------


## betts

I'm not sure I understand the difference between lease and rental.  Do you mean week to week rentals?  Or month to month?  If you mean cheaper leases, well, as I've said quite a few times, is it a God-given right for everyone who wants to to live downtown?  If developers can make money on cheap rentals, do we want the cheap construction that by definition has to go with that downtown?  If people want cheap rentals, someone should start buying the buildings all along the rail line from 4th to 12th and put bare bones lofts with a toilet, sink and shower in them.  That's the kind of place you get in most cities for inexpensive prices.  Then, as the area becomes more desirable, people take the bare bones lofts and upgrade them.  But do we seriously want some throw it up and skimp on materials buildings built downtown?  Not me, even if I didn't live downtown. That's not how you draw people downtown.  Try and find affordable housing in downtown San Francisco, Chicago or Manhattan.  You have to put four people in a two bedroom apartment, or find some piece of a building no one wants.

I don't consider any for rent downtown upscale except maybe the Montgomery, and I've never checked out prices there. Even LEVEL doesn't look upscale to me. Nice, yes.  Upscale is a highrise with a doorman, to me.  I think we will tap out the rental market downtown, but I don't see any evidence it's happened yet.

----------


## Spartan

Oy vey..



> But that's a HUUUUUGE difference Spartan.....Lease vs. Rental. Rental is somethingi do feel there is a market for, but not lease. We've seen SOOOO much upscale lease lately, that's where the market is saturated. Rental is a whole other ballgame. That's exactlly why Deep Deuce is still moving at a steady pace.
> 
> For some reason developers in downtown feel like the only option for an old building is to turn it into an upscale lease structure. THAT market has been tapped (for now). I still stand by my statement that lowering the cost (and amenities) could open a new market. 
> 
> On a side note to Carnegie, that very thing is about to be done in Bricktown with the old steel company land. Although I feel like it's going too far in the cheap direction. They're talking about $500 a month there because it will fall under Federal "Affordable Housing" plans. Which to me means, Section 8.....bleh.




"Lease" is the name of the document which one must sign in order to get a rental unit. Keep in mind, the only implied difference between lease and rent is that rent sort of means week-to-week/month-to-month, and the only downtown apartment complex like that is on the edge of SoSA, and you _don't_ wanna live there. Maybe a few I'm not aware of in C2S or east of 235... and I assure you in this instance, Deep Deuce would be LEASE. They are not letting people live there on a weekly/monthly basis. You sign an agreement for a year or so many months, whatever.

I also think you're even more off-base on the East Bricktown development. Which is saying something...

----------


## lasomeday

LOL!  I was going to rent in bricktown, but I will lease in downtown!

----------


## bombermwc

Well i'm so glad that i have you, Spartan, to help me out. Except, oh there's that thing where you aren't always just right because you say so.

And you're a bit confused on the lease issue as well. The type of lease agreement makes a huge difference in how you define what is lease/rental. Any apartment complex signs a lease. 6months / 1 year / whatever. The rights the person has to the apartment make a huge difference though. I don't really feel like playing educator all day on how these diffrence play out though. You can do some google searches if you feel, because i'm sure all you're going to do it come back and tell me I'm wrong anyway. Keep in mind, everything I've said here came from the developer...but i'm sure you know better than the developer on their own project as well.

----------


## Spartan

Bomber, what are you talking about? You were last seen lambasting them gosh darned upscale lease developments, because the market wants rental units after all. Now watching you cover your tracks is becoming painful.

I have signed a few leases in my life. You're just not going to get away with parlaying your ignorance of downtown development into me being in my 20's and not understanding a lease, which appears to be the plan you're going with.

I'll also remind you that were "text screaming" this as well, with capitalized words, exclamation marks, and all. You seemed very passionate that the market wanted rental units, gosh darnit, not them new fangled upscale lease units that they keep cranking out.

----------


## Spartan

> But that's a HUUUUUGE difference Spartan.....*Lease vs. Rental. Rental is somethingi do feel there is a market for, but not lease. We've seen SOOOO much upscale lease lately, that's where the market is saturated.* Rental is a whole other ballgame. That's exactlly why Deep Deuce is still moving at a steady pace.
> 
> For some reason developers in downtown feel like the only option for an old building is to turn it into an upscale lease structure. THAT market has been tapped (for now). I still stand by my statement that lowering the cost (and amenities) could open a new market. 
> 
> On a side note to Carnegie, that very thing is about to be done in Bricktown with the old steel company land. *Although I feel like it's going too far in the cheap direction. They're talking about $500 a month there because it will fall under Federal "Affordable Housing" plans. Which to me means, Section 8.....bleh.*


Quoted for truth...or ignorance, I'll let the reader decide.

I'll also remind people that the downtown lease market is 95% occupied. Good luck finding a unit, you'll need it.

----------


## bombermwc

You didn't make an arguement against me there buddy. I still stand by what i said. The least market is getting to the point where there isn't room for more. Just because it's 95% full, does NOT automatically equate to the need for more. The new space has to meet the requirements for those coming in, and this project did not do that. Those requirements could have simply been price...but last time I checked, a high price means upscale.

I'm not back-tracking. I'm still standing by what I previously said. And you still seem to be more interseted in making it a personal attack rather than listening to what the developer said.

I also stand by my comment on the affordable housing project. I don't believe section 8 housing is a good fit there. You go outside of downtown and tell me what $500 gets you...it's not even in the middle ground. What SHOULD be built it something under the $1K a month, but more in the $700 a month range. There are nice apartments all over town in that range...and it puts a totally different market base in the place than 500. To be honest, with it being section 8, perhaps you don't understand that it's government subsidized housing....ie projects without the projects. Does it have to be a Legacy project? No. Could a Case and Associates or McSha level project fit better? Probably.

----------


## Just the facts

> I also stand by my comment on the affordable housing project. I don't believe section 8 housing is a good fit there.


You are correct - section 8 housing would be bad.  The East Bricktown Apartments are not Section 8.  You are confusing a government backed loan/grant to the builder vs direct cash payment subsidy to the renter.  By reducing the cost to the builder he can charge a lower rent for a set amount of units vs a unit being at market price and the government giving the renter money to cover the expense.

Also: rent is what you pay the landord each month.  A lease tells you how many months you have to do that.

----------


## Spartan

> You didn't make an arguement against me there buddy. I still stand by what i said. The least market is getting to the point where there isn't room for more. Just because it's 95% full, does NOT automatically equate to the need for more. The new space has to meet the requirements for those coming in, and this project did not do that. Those requirements could have simply been price...but last time I checked, a high price means upscale.
> 
> I'm not back-tracking. I'm still standing by what I previously said. And you still seem to be more interseted in making it a personal attack rather than listening to what the developer said.
> 
> I also stand by my comment on the affordable housing project. I don't believe section 8 housing is a good fit there. You go outside of downtown and tell me what $500 gets you...it's not even in the middle ground. What SHOULD be built it something under the $1K a month, but more in the $700 a month range. There are nice apartments all over town in that range...and it puts a totally different market base in the place than 500. To be honest, with it being section 8, perhaps you don't understand that it's government subsidized housing....ie projects without the projects. Does it have to be a Legacy project? No. Could a Case and Associates or McSha level project fit better? Probably.


I think those are suburban developers who might be more interested in a plot of land on Memorial Road, if you know of any. We have lots of capable developers downtown, although we could always use more. But I think you're missing the point on the FHA "affordable housing" loans which is not Section 8. Similar loans were used on a number of upscale downtown projects. Only a certain number, a minority at that, have to be "affordable," which also does not mean $500 or Section 8.

The East Bricktown project will be just as high-quality as the Edge or countless other successful downtown projects. And if the Edge is not a good deal, you don't have to worry about us raising a stink, because we will.

But, since you're so enraged about the "this high price lease crap people keep trying to push isn't flying," I thought I'd offer you some inspiration:


You can just pretend he's saying the LEASE is too damn high, if you're still confused.

----------


## Just the facts

> You can just pretend he's saying the LEASE is too damn high, if you're still confused.


Once again, the rent can be too high and the lease too long, but the lease can't be too high just like the rent can't be too long.

----------


## Spartan

> Once again, the rent can be too high and the lease too long, but the lease can't be too high just like the rent can't be too long.


So what, you're saying that lease and for-rent aren't separate concepts, separate markets? Now that just crazy talk.

----------


## Just the facts

No, I am saying the rent is the amount of money you pay each month, the lease specifies how much the rent is and how many months you have to pay it.

----------


## Rover

Here is a short explanation I found if there is any confusion still.  (sometimes I am amazed at what becomes contentious conversation on this site...lots of silly preening)

What's the difference between a rental agreement and a lease?

The biggest difference is the period of occupancy. A written rental agreement provides for a tenancy of a short period (often 30 days). The tenancy is automatically renewed at the end of this period unless the tenant or landlord ends it by giving written notice, typically 60 days. For these month-to-month rentals, the landlord can change the terms of the agreement with proper written notice, subject to any rent control laws. This notice is usually 60 days, but can be shorter in some states if the rent is paid weekly or bi-weekly, or if the landlord and tenant agree.

A written lease, on the other hand, gives a tenant the right to occupy a rental unit for a set term -- most often for six months or a year but sometimes longer -- if the tenant pays the rent and complies with other lease provisions. Unlike a rental agreement, when a lease expires it does not usually automatically renew itself. A tenant who stays on with the landlord's consent will generally be considered a month-to-month tenant, subject to the rental terms (such as a no pets clause) that were in the lease.

In addition, with a fixed-term lease, the landlord cannot raise the rent or change other terms of the tenancy during the lease, unless the changes are specifically provided for in the lease, or the tenant agrees.

----------


## Spartan

This is sad that we are going through these terms.

----------


## Rover

> this is sad that we are going through these terms.


amen

----------


## Just the facts

The problem seems to derive from the belief that a 'lease' is a purchase, which 99.9% know it is not.

----------


## Spartan

> The problem seems to derive from the belief that a 'lease' is a purchase, which 99.9% know it is not.


Now hold on for just a cotton picking minute Kerry! A _purchase_, as we all know, is a financial transaction upon receipt of goods. Now I knooow you don't mean to imply that a lease is not a purchase of occupancy inside a living unit for however long, because that would be...

----------


## Just the facts

you are going to confuse bomber.

----------


## bombermwc

OMFG - i never said it was going to be section 8, it was speculation and a desire for it to NOT be. But the price range is the issue. I also didn't say there weren't $700 units downtown. What I said was, that i think that price range would be better for these units. 

Anyway.....

----------


## betts

Yup. Just as I predicted. It will start as LEVEL finishes, maximizing noise and mess.  Oh well.  I just hope the tenants don't litter like those at Deep Deuce. Our walks are basically litter removal.

----------


## Spartan

> Yup. Just as I predicted. It will start as LEVEL finishes, maximizing noise and mess.  Oh well.  I just hope the tenants don't litter like those at Deep Deuce. Our walks are basically litter removal.


I have an idea. Let's just put a ban on all new housing projects and keep the riff raff making under $200,000/year out of downtown. And put up an electronic gate at the highway exits into downtown that lock up after 8 and require a high-tech electronic access card to get in. That will keep the riff raff out.

And getting the area expunged of filthy middle income inhabitants and traffic will surely cut down on litter. Ghost towns are normally renown for being immaculate.

----------


## swilki

> Yup. Just as I predicted. It will start as LEVEL finishes, maximizing noise and mess.  Oh well.  I just hope the tenants don't litter like those at Deep Deuce. Our walks are basically litter removal.


Betts - I hadn't really thought about this or noticed this when I am down there (which is funny because I deal with this stuff all day long), but are there trash cans in Deep Deuce? If the area was smart, they would put some in if they aren't already there.

----------


## betts

> Betts - I hadn't really thought about this or noticed this when I am down there (which is funny because I deal with this stuff all day long), but are there trash cans in Deep Deuce? If the area was smart, they would put some in if they aren't already there.


No, but that would be great.  What we do is carry the trash until we come to one of the apartment dumpsters and get rid of it there.  Trouble is, some of the apartment dwellers don't bother to do the same.  It might be neater if there were a simple way to get rid of trash, although clearly some people just drop trash as they're walking in from their cars.  We've got a fair amount around our house now, but it's primarily because of construction traffic.  I've noticed that people who own their own homes are less likely to drop trash on the ground outside their dwelling.

----------


## betts

> I have an idea. Let's just put a ban on all new housing projects and keep the riff raff making under $200,000/year out of downtown. And put up an electronic gate at the highway exits into downtown that lock up after 8 and require a high-tech electronic access card to get in. That will keep the riff raff out.
> 
> And getting the area expunged of filthy middle income inhabitants and traffic will surely cut down on litter. Ghost towns are normally renown for being immaculate.


A little histrionic aren't we?  I have a better idea.  Let's somehow figure out how to raise the consciousness of more people who are renting so that they take care of their own trash.  It does take work to carry trash in from one's car to one's home, but if you care about your surroundings, you'll do it.  Obviously a lot of people don't litter regardless of whether they rent or own, but the litter increases by about a power of ten when people don't take ownership of their surroundings, renters or owners.  I could care less what the average income of my neighbors is, but I do like my neighborhood to be free of litter.  Which is why, if you see me walking around my neighborhood, you'll probably see my arms full of other people's trash.  It would be nice to take a simple walk and not have to look at garbage, dropped socks, etc.

----------


## Rover

> I have an idea. Let's just put a ban on all new housing projects and keep the riff raff making under $200,000/year out of downtown. And put up an electronic gate at the highway exits into downtown that lock up after 8 and require a high-tech electronic access card to get in. That will keep the riff raff out.
> 
> And getting the area expunged of filthy middle income inhabitants and traffic will surely cut down on litter. Ghost towns are normally renown for being immaculate.


Why do you so easily excuse boorish behavior.  Bad behavior is not a class issue.  It doesn't take money to act like responsible adult citizens.  Courtesy is free.

----------


## Soho

What an uncalled for cheap shot! Don't let facts stand in the way of your rant - what Betts says is true and has been magnified by the workers at Level Urban. I come home every night to piles of constrction materials, lunch leftovers etc..  


> I have an idea. Let's just put a ban on all new housing projects and keep the riff raff making under $200,000/year out of downtown. And put up an electronic gate at the highway exits into downtown that lock up after 8 and require a high-tech electronic access card to get in. That will keep the riff raff out.
> 
> And getting the area expunged of filthy middle income inhabitants and traffic will surely cut down on litter. Ghost towns are normally renown for being immaculate.

----------


## Spartan

AAARGGH!!!

I just wrote a long, well thought-out, reasoned response..and my computer froze up. And then OKC Talk logged me out on my studio computer, so this is the 3rd time I've tried making this post.

Basically...

You're right it's the construction workers. I admit I personally know some airhead former sorority girls in the Deep Deuce Apartments who definitely view proper garbage disposal as beneath their glamorous selves, but I don't doubt for a second that the real culprit is the construction workers, not other nearby residents. I see this with construction in nice nice neighborhoods everywhere. The contractors and construction workers who drive these big ghastly pickup trucks and feel entitled to park them with carte blanche, throw their cig butts and McD's wrappers everywhere, smoke up and down the sidewalk, and I could go on... 

My apartment in Calgary is next to this apartment highrise project that just broke ground and I have been going through many of these same headaches, and I remember this is exactly how it always was with construction workers on the OU campus also. Not to stereotype, and I know many of them are wonderful, great people who aren't this way, but it seems like a lot of them (when they're working on projects where they are not exactly the uh intended target demographic) have absolute and utter disdain for their surroundings and see matters of simply being sensitive to people LIVING nearby as "bending over backwards" for people they have little in common, to put it nicely (this was a response I once got after confronting a group of 4 that were all smoking outside my neighborhood deli).

That's just the way of the world. And it's only getting worse, as we're becoming more culturally and socially divisive, and especially as contractors are in the drivers seat when it comes to project bidding. I'm sure Mr. McKown is none too pleased about this situation himself, and even more so Mr. Bradshaw whom already has homeowners living in the neighborhood and just a few more units remaining for-sale.

----------


## Spartan

> Why do you so easily excuse boorish behavior.  Bad behavior is not a class issue.  It doesn't take money to act like responsible adult citizens.  Courtesy is free.


I don't excuse boorish behavior. Most on here even say that I go too far in villifying it. The problem is I'm exasperated and at my wit's end, as you guys know, on the activism side of things we've had some pretty demoralizing defeats in the last 5 years. At the very least, my friends always know that when they go to a Thunder game or elsewhere downtown with me that they won't be getting away with littering or anything other than being model citizens and stewards of the environment. I think you guys know that of me.

It's a shame that our community absolutely does not value cleanliness, sustainability, environmental friendliness, community appearance, etc. At this point, what can we do? (This is me throwing my arms up about to give up.) I admire the tenacity on this effort of betts and others, and I already sent her an email saying that I was wrong to jump onto her, but I just sensed an attack on the "affordable" housing developments (key: $700-1200/mo), which I still maintain is the key to growing the downtown economy. That was just an issue based on context of other debates that have been popping up in lots of threads lately. To be honest, it IS an absolute godsend to have homeowners that look after this neighborhood, and it's just unfortunate that there aren't yet enough community residents or an organized effort to combat this very negative, insidious construction impact.

----------


## Just the facts

I attended a local sustainability conference in Fernandina Beach last night and one of the big issues was litter.  I guess it is a problem everywhere.  There were a couple of possible solutions.  1) More trash cans, 2) install plastic bag dispenser where people can recycle plastic bags at one end and obtain a handy trash bag at the other end.

Like this, but on a pole.

----------


## betts

Construction workers are part of the problem, but actually most of them put their trash in the bins around our house.  I know, because the bins are always full of fast food bags.  More trash cans is the best solution.  Urban Neighbors would seem like a likely place to start raising consciousness, but I suspect the people who bother to join Urban Neighbors aren't the ones littering.  I'm not sure how one would go about getting more trash cans in the Deep Deuce area, because I believe the owners of the development are not local.  Perhaps I will stop in the rental office and chat with them, but I really don't expect to get very far.  Maywood has lots of trash receptables - your TIF dollars at work!

----------


## metro

> Construction workers are part of the problem, but actually most of them put their trash in the bins around our house.  I know, because the bins are always full of fast food bags.  More trash cans is the best solution.  Urban Neighbors would seem like a likely place to start raising consciousness, but I suspect the people who bother to join Urban Neighbors aren't the ones littering.  I'm not sure how one would go about getting more trash cans in the Deep Deuce area, because I believe the owners of the development are not local.  Perhaps I will stop in the rental office and chat with them, but I really don't expect to get very far.  Maywood has lots of trash receptables - your TIF dollars at work!


Yeah, but Urban Neighbors seems to be much more interested in socials and putting things on their resume rather than doing regular community works projects, even though the money is there. That's why I left the organization a year or so ago. I'd rather see a new DT group focused on actually doing civic projects. The only reason the bike racks got done is because it was a pet project of a former board member who dedicated countless hours to it.

----------


## ljbab728

Isn't there the possibility of some downtown group or organization (Kiwanis, Lions, church group) taking on Deep Deuce as a project for trash pick up?  I'm thinking about something similar to the signs you see along some roads or highways touting an organization doing a similar project in that area.

----------


## Spartan

I'll be honest, I just haven't noticed the level of litter in DD that I guess must exist. But I'm also one who's very easily mesmerized by specific things like architecture and viewsheds, skyline vantage points, etc. (It also probably makes me an annoying driver to be behind in downtown)

----------


## bluedogok

It's an issue in every setting, not just restricted to urban areas although the more density, the more trash. We have some sort of trash every morning on the "porch" of our office building in LoDo, it was real bad during the St. Patrick's Day parties but the bars to either side of us tried to keep up with it as best they could. The parking lot always has trash in it every morning, it amazes me that people just can't make the effort to throw something away, even when an available (semi-empty) trash can is nearby, sometimes mere feet away from the litter.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Yeah, but Urban Neighbors seems to be much more interested in socials and putting things on their resume rather than doing regular community works projects, even though the money is there. That's why I left the organization a year or so ago. I'd rather see a new DT group focused on actually doing civic projects. The only reason the bike racks got done is because it was a pet project of a former board member who dedicated countless hours to it.


or because you moved out of downtown ...

----------


## Pete

> Yeah, but Urban Neighbors seems to be much more interested in socials and putting things on their resume rather than doing regular community works projects, even though the money is there. That's why I left the organization a year or so ago. I'd rather see a new DT group focused on actually doing civic projects. The only reason the bike racks got done is because it was a pet project of a former board member who dedicated countless hours to it.


The Better Block initiative is the definition of pro-active:

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=28844

----------


## catch22

My suburban neighborhood is free of trash. It's because no one is on the street walking. The trash is in their garage or their car.

It's one of the side effects of having people walking, they drop stuff, accidental or not. Maybe it was windy and that Hershey's bar wrapper blew out of their hands. Maybe they were lazy, we'll never know. I'll take some trash on the ground if it meant I could walk more than I drive.

----------


## Just the facts

> My suburban neighborhood is free of trash. It's because no one is on the street walking. The trash is in their garage or their car.
> 
> It's one of the side effects of having people walking, they drop stuff, accidental or not. Maybe it was windy and that Hershey's bar wrapper blew out of their hands. Maybe they were lazy, we'll never know. I'll take some trash on the ground if it meant I could walk more than I drive.


While my subdivision is relatively free from trash, the road right outside my subdivision is covered in trash.  The suburban freeway near my subdivision is a litter mecca.

Here is the difference though - downtown people are walking so you can see every individual item of trash.  In a car you are doing 30mph to 75mph and are looking 100' down the road.  Get out and walk around your neighborhood and I'll bet there is more trash than you expect.  Go to the entrance of your subdivision and see how much trash is there (usually cigarette butts by the thousands).

----------


## betts

Most of the trash around here is clearly dropped between car and house.  Most people in the neighborhood park on the street, and from the location you can see that the trash is likely dropped as they get out of their car.  Or, they're getting into their car and decide to do a little housekeeping.  I'm trying to decide if it's because they never had to pick up after themselves as kids - things dropped in the house magically disappeared - or what.  And of course, by making my walks trash pickup events, I'm probably making the same thing happen - trash magically disappears when you drop it.

----------


## catch22

Pile it up on their front porch?

----------


## Just the facts

What is the average wind speed in Deep Deuce?  While riding my bike today I notice several piece of trash just 'blowing' down the road.  They keep going until they hit something or the wind stops carrying it.

----------


## Just the facts

> I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I suspect a lot of the litter in Deep Deuce never originated in DD.  I suspect a lot of it is coming over the interstate nearby.


It seems some low obsticles could be used to catch blowing trash.  These obsticles could be be a low chain-link fence or hedge rows.  They don't need to be continuous so as to prevent pedestrian movement but a staggered set of them could trap a lot of trash and make clean-up a lot easier.

----------


## Spartan

> My point is that we could build the most beautiful building in the world, and someone would still complain about it.
> And that someone is usually Spartan!


"Most beautiful building in the world" is subjective. I have a feeling you probably think that is anything along Memorial Road, anyway.

----------


## Dubya61

Spartan, your tag line is all wrong.  You are ALWAYS enthusiastic ... about sniping and criticising!

----------


## Just the facts

> "Most beautiful building in the world" is subjective. I have a feeling you probably think that is anything along Memorial Road, anyway.


My father-in-law one time made the statement "They built a beautiful new Target" when describing a new suburban shopping center in his hometown.  I guess having a sign where all the letters were lit up qualified as 'beautiful'.

----------


## Dubya61

I'm sure you immediately derided him into submission stating all the facts about how suburban living is the DEVIL and will kill us all.

----------


## Just the facts

> I'm sure you immediately derided him into submission stating all the facts about how suburban living is the DEVIL and will kill us all.


No - I just chalked it up to him not knowing anything about what makes good urban design.

----------


## Dubya61

> No - I just chalked it up to him not knowing anything about what makes good urban design.


Thank the Lord we have you elite sophists to save us poor slobs from ourselves.

----------


## Just the facts

> Thank the Lord we have you elite sophists to save us poor slobs from ourselves.


Me too.  I wish we had come along sooner before we had to create improvement districts for I-240 and Meridian and spend billion fixing downtown which was working just fine before urban sprawl happened.  Surely you aren't trying to argue that suburban design and sprawl is the best model for growth.  Don't you find it sad and stupid that we have to spend so much money rebuilding stuff that was already built once?

As for elitist - I'll leave that to the people who support segregated zoning.

----------


## Spartan

> Spartan, your tag line is all wrong.  You are ALWAYS enthusiastic ... about sniping and criticising!


Why do you take it personally that we would like to see some minor tweaks to what would then be an incredible project for the entire community?

----------


## mcca7596

> As for elitist - I'll leave that to the people who support segregated zoning.


Nice one.

----------


## Skyline

> Why do you take it personally that we would like to see some minor tweaks to what would then be an incredible project for the entire community?


I'm curious,,as to when the "JTF-Spartan" development company will be staring up?

----------


## Just the facts

Maybe some people just support plutocracy and don't even realize it.  TK is paying for it so it must be right and is beyond question.

----------


## Spartan

> I'm curious,,as to when the "JTF-Spartan" development company will be staring up?


Probably never, we would rarely agree on much. But if you're asking why people don't put their money where their mouth is, they do. There are a lot of people who practice what they preach when it comes to urban design standards, and they profit by making friends rather than enemies out of the many developers who routinely shirk design standards.

This is why design review is the name of the game. The sooner we get developer buy-in to design principles and have a clear understanding amongst developers of how the design review process is supposed to work, the more successful it will be in the long run. If you're supportive of the current design review system (or at least how it's supposed to work), then you should be supportive of it being applied fairly.

----------


## Skyline

> Probably never, we would rarely agree on much.


Lol, true as I wasn't sure if you two would agree on whose name I should put first for the title either.

----------


## Spartan

I am actually very insulted that you went with his. I think I've been here longer, or we both came around the same year (2002?ish)

YIKES.

----------


## Just the facts

A man can accomplish a lot if he doesn't care who gets the credit.  I have no problem working behind the scenes without any public recognition.

----------


## ljbab728

> Me too.  I wish we had come along sooner before we had to create improvement districts for I-240 and Meridian and spend billion fixing downtown which was working just fine before urban sprawl happened.  Surely you aren't trying to argue that suburban design and sprawl is the best model for growth.  Don't you find it sad and stupid that we have to spend so much money rebuilding stuff that was already built once?
> 
> As for elitist - I'll leave that to the people who support segregated zoning.


Kerry, the improvements being planned for I240 and Meridian are hardly going to create anything close to your idea of an urban paradise.  There isn't an area in any city in the world that, at some point, doesn't need some upgrades, refurbishing, or replanning.  Especially for Meridian, it evolved peacemeal because of it's proximity to the airport.  You couldn't have moved the airport closer to the city to change that.  Not everything can be in an urban area and the airport and it's environ's have nothing to do with urban sprawl.  You occasionally make some good points but that isn't one of them.

----------


## Just the facts

The point I was trying to make is that the maintenance cost of sustaining suburbia is higher than it was to build it in the first place.  No one would ever put up with that in their personal life.  Would you spend more money maintaining your TV than you spent to buy it new?  How about a house or car?  But when it comes to a City, the sky is the limit on maintenance.

Things are built as cheaply as possible and when the owners get tired of maintenance cost they move to a new part of town and build everything new again, leaving the area they built 20 years ago to fall into ruin.  Then this process repeats every 20 years.  It becomes nothing but rolling ghetto.

The problem is the City (funded 100% by taxpayers) still has to maintain the roads, sewer lines, provide police and fire protection, code enforcement, etc. no matter how little tax revenue an area generates.  It is a losing battle but for some reason people still want to 'grow' that way.  To quote the W.O.P.R. computer, the only way to win is not to play.

----------


## Just the facts

Explain density pricing again.

----------


## edcrunk

> I'm going to take the uncomfortable position and defend our ideal development standards. Compliance with good form in a highly-dense urban district as the OUHSC undeniably is isn't something that would devastate this project. It would make it better. 
> 
> Nobody is saying that Toby Keith ever claimed to assert this design as the most pro-urban, so the issue isn't a matter of confrontation. It's a matter of applying a fair standard to all projects that fall within an urban district. For example, the OBI project should have also been held to a better standard. 
> 
> I'm not complaining about how UGLY and bland the OBI building was (and this hotel actually has a kinda cool aesthetic), but instead pointing out the negative site layout. Parking can be just as functional in the back of a building. Fixing that should be cost neutral, and possibly even cheaper for moving automobile egress/ingress away from the main vantage point.


Spartan, I love you brother, but I think you're wrong on this one. I am the drive coordinator and Valet attendant at the Integris Cancer Center and ProCure building (Memorial & McArthur) and believe me that the parking and the the drop off are placed for the ease of the patient to be dropped off and picked up. I am confident the design is intentional in that regard.

----------


## Dubya61

I absolutely think that Spartan and JTF should start up a business together, or at least team up from their respective Starbucks in Canada and Florida to provide free design review for all OKC construction projects.  There could be a Factual Spartan thread where developers (the good ones, you know, who really get it) could submit their proposed construction projects and Spartan and JTF could rip 'em to shreds with their little urban design halos shining brightly, lighting the way ahead for we few misguided slobs who choose to not live in an urban environment. or don't know the sidewalk setback target zone (no pun intended, of course, JTF -- I would never choose to liken your Father-in-law's Target store to something good -- even I know to spit and clear out my mouth every time I mention that American retailer).

This is a development forum, zrfdude?  That must explain why it seems to be dominated by urbanism-man1 and architect2 (en masse and under multiple pseudonyms, I'm sure) who weigh in ad nauseum on every brick and EIFS construct yelling "Urban Design" from the rooftops, so that we will all see that OKC is a true urban mecca, or could be if we would only listen to them.

Spartan, I don't take it personally that you would propose a few "minor tweaks to what would then be an incredible project for the entire community."  I'll bet, however, that the more productive way to focus energy to fixing what you see as a problem would be to get the medical district to establish a design requirement for new buildings in a certain area.  Someone alludes to an OHC Master Plan (2007-2022).  Does this building meet those design criteria?  Good.  No?  It should be amended.  Sure, in post 12, your stated that the parking should be moved (possibly even at no cost while in the design stage), and then you start taking it personally, defending urban design and slamming OKC (post 16) .  Your diatribe in post 46 seemed to liken the design standard laid down by this project as poisoning the district around the HSC as well as making all of us obese.  I basically agree with your points, Spartan.  Its just that I strongly dislike your condescension and vitriol from on high.  I don't take it personally, I just think that your tag line about lacking enthusiasm IS all wrong, as I stated in my comment.  I don't think anybody on this board would say you don't know your facts (with the possible exception of defining OUHSC as a highly dense urban environment) and theory.  I just don't know why you're never content to speak your mind and let it be.  Instead you follow it up with venom and spite when anybody dares question your dictates of urban design.

No, JTF, I don't find it sad and stupid that we have to spend so much money rebuilding stuff that was already built once?  As I've stated before, I'm a huge fan of free market capitalism.  The glory of capitalism, is that failure doesn't mean the end of the road.  Rebuilding is ALWAYS an option, and sometimes a better thing than the original.  The ideal city was built several times, and just didn't catch on (see Brasilia, Brazil).  History is good.  A checkered history is sometimes better.  Oh, and to save you the time of  your knee-jerk reaction to my love of capitalism, I'll go ahead and make it here:  "That's not capitalism when you let the money dictate the design, that's plutocracy."  My knee-jerk reaction to that?  Plutocracy?  Just because someone chooses to build a building of their own design in an area void of design restrictions doesn't mean that the rich are going to run the world someday.  Tuck that class-warfare word back in your pocket and bring it out when Montgomery Burns creates his super PAC to fund his election.

If it makes you feel any better, JTF, I also agree with you in my dislike of suburban sprawl.  I was horrified to find out recently that I'm living within OKC city limits, now.  I don't think it was like that when I moved there.  I probably should have questioned my realtor a lot more, but there's a whole 'nother story there.  Sid, I agree with you there, too, but did you ever consider that some of us out there don't want city services?  Is there some reason why OKC has to spread out?  Maybe there's something wrong with the municipal government, and not those of us who keep having to move farther and farther out to escape the dictates of the city.

----------


## Just the facts

You live in the outer fringe and hate urban sprawl, do you live on a farm?

----------


## Dubya61

SUBurban sprawl, and yes, I do.

----------


## Just the facts

> SUBurban sprawl, and yes, I do.


Sorry, I missed the "sub" portion.  It seems we are mostly in agreement.  As long as the urban core of OKC is scaled to the automobile then sprawl (urban, suburban, ex-urban) is going to continue.  Personally, I think the rural countryside should be saved for open space, farms, and nature.  But in order for that to happen urban land-use has to be maximized.  You can't maximize urban space and scale it to the car at the same time.

----------


## Larry OKC

> I just went throught this very discussion with my wife.  We finally found a place we can agree to move to  and started looking at housing size.  She was concerned there wouldn't be enough cabinet space to hold thing like the bread maker.  I told we aren't supposed to have a bread maker.  *If we want fresh bread we are supposed to go down to the corner bakery and buy it.  Likewise with a cake.  We go buy a cake from the bakery, not make it out of a box.*


Doesn't that play against the whole sustainability/self-sufficient mantra?
 :Sofa:  :Sofa:  :Sofa:

----------


## Just the facts

> Doesn't that play against the whole sustainability/self-sufficient mantra?


As long as the local bakery isn't owned by the government then where is the inconsistancy?  Society, in all forms, is a blessing.




> let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labor out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.

----------


## Larry OKC

Shouldn't you be making your bread & cake at home instead of buying something pre-made? LOL

----------


## Just the facts

> Shouldn't you be making your bread & cake at home instead of buying something pre-made? LOL


Why bake for 2 hours when I can work at job for 30 minutes and earn enough money to buy the cake already made by a professional?  I think maybe you are confusing the concept of individualism.  Man was not meant to be an island in perpetual isolation from one another.  We were meant to function as a society with each member performing to the best of their abilites in their chosen line of work.  This is oppposed to a government that requires (and in many cases - manadate) the interaction.  To paraphrase Thomas Paine - you are confusing society with government.  Individualism doesn't mean that a person must operate in total independence - it means they are free to choose their own path and reap the rewards or suffer the punishment of their actions.

----------


## Rover

> .  To paraphrase Thomas Paine - you are confusing society with government.  Individualism doesn't mean that a person must operate in total independence - it means they are free to choose their own path and reap the rewards or suffer the punishment of their actions.


Unless of course they choose to live outside of downtown.  Those are evil people.  Right JTF?

----------


## Just the facts

> Unless of course they choose to live outside of downtown.  Those are evil people.  Right JTF?


People can live where ever they want, they should just have to pay the full cost of that decision.  As for downtown vs 'not downtown', there are several areas in OKC that are coming close to restoring their traditional neighborhood model - so no, you don't have to live downtown to live an urban lifestyle.

As for the evil comment, I live in a subdivision and don't consider myself evil.  Unfortunately, when I bought my home I was unaware of the many downsides to sprawl.  For instance, I saw living on a cul-de-sac as a safe environment to raise children.  I know see how that decision has led to a suspended state of childhood as they have gotten older.

My oldest son is 13 and he has never gone to the store by himself because the nearest store in 3 miles away (6 miles round trip).  When I was 13 I routinely ran errands for my mom - taking deposits to the bank, picking up bread and milk at the store, walking to the post office for stamps, getting dog food, and even walking to our local restaurant to eat when she was working late.  My kids do none of that - not because they are lazy or don't want to - but because they can't.  Now that I see the error of my ways I am doing what I can to correct my mistakes.

----------


## Larry OKC

never mind...

----------


## Rover

> Sorry, I missed the "sub" portion.  It seems we are mostly in agreement.  As long as the urban core of OKC is scaled to the automobile then sprawl (urban, suburban, ex-urban) is going to continue.  Personally, I think the rural countryside should be saved for open space, farms, and nature.  But in order for that to happen urban land-use has to be maximized.  You can't maximize urban space and scale it to the car at the same time.


 But, until there is proper infrastructure in place, ie mass trans, there has to be an allowance for cars. Normally development follows infrastructure, not the other way around.

----------


## kevinpate

ah, fergitabout da parking format and lift a red solo cup high for the overall effort.  I had thought the fundraising was farther along than it seems to be, but it'll get there.

----------


## Just the facts

> But, until there is proper infrastructure in place, ie mass trans, there has to be an allowance for cars. Normally development follows infrastructure, not the other way around.


The problem is that it is difficult to implement mass transit in a world scaled to the automobile.  Destinations and resources are simply spread too thin.  The change has to start some time and there is no better time the present to start scaling development to the human and not something capable of 70 mph.  To be successful, all mass transit trips must start with and end with walking.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> The problem is that it is difficult to implement mass transit in a world scaled to the automobile.  Destinations and resources are simply spread too thin.  The change has to start some time and there is no better time the present to start scaling development to the human and not something capable of 70 mph.  To be successful, all mass transit trips must start with and end with walking.


you can't just say .. no more 70mph ... and only 2 lane streets .. in the short and mid term you would crush economic development ...     long term it might work ..

changing the "car" culture .. is going to be a long term process

----------


## Just the facts

> you can't just say .. no more 70mph ... and only 2 lane streets .. in the short and mid term you would crush economic development ...     long term it might work ..
> 
> changing the "car" culture .. is going to be a long term process


I actually expect it to happen naturally, whether we want it to or not.  Every government in the US is going broke trying to support suburbia and gasoline prices are going to force the issue for us.  So places can either make plans for that eventuality or they don’t.  The ones that do will reap the economic rewards and the ones that don't will fade away into the sunset.  Suburbia was created in 1945, urban living has been in existence since the dawn of time and is still the primary form development around the world.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> I actually expect it to happen naturally, whether we want it to or not.  Every government in the US is going broke trying to support suburbia and gasoline prices are going to force the issue for us.  So places can either make plans for that eventuality or they don’t.  The ones that do will reap the economic rewards and the ones that don't will fade away into the sunset.  Suburbia was created in 1945, urban living has been in existence since the dawn of time and is still the primary form development around the world.


the oklahoma state and city govts .. are not "going broke"

----------


## Just the facts

> the oklahoma state and city govts .. are not "going broke"


They just can't afford to repave P180 streets, fix a crumbling capitol building, or finish a museum.

Granted though, the problem is not as sever in Oklahoma as it is in a lot of places.

----------


## Just the facts

And now a story form the "No Duh" file.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...lth/55162620/1




> New evidence shows that a long commute by car not only takes hours out of your day, but could take years off your life.
> 
> A study published this month in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that the longer people drive to work, the more likely they are to have poor cardiovascular health.
> 
> "This is the first study to show that people who commute long distances to work were less fit, weighed more, were less physically active and had higher blood pressure," said Christine M. Hoehner, a public health professor at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and the study's lead author. "All those are strong predictors of heart disease, diabetes, and some cancers."

----------


## Spartan

I think we need to bring this conversation back down to earth a little, or at least to a closer orbit..

Fixing the OK Korral would have involved some very minor tweaks. It would have been a very routine design review process, but the City did not chose to do that because they would have been perceived as anti-children's hospital. Honestly they could have spun it as working with the developer to help improve the project and bring even greater value to the community.

City codes shouldn't be treated as a nebulous scepter to cross your fingers to get around, just as city code shouldn't be something that we beat bad developers upside the head with. City code exists in the form that it does because we have determined, through a public process, that this is how we want our city to be built - they are constructive building guidelines that make the whole greater than the sum of its parts.

----------


## kevinpate

> They just can't afford to repave P180 streets, fix a crumbling capitol building, or finish a museum.s.


fwiw, lacking the will/spine to make an unpopular or hard choice to take action is different than lacking the resources to fund the action.  Could be wrong, but there seems to be more funding than will or spine available to many decision makers.

----------


## Just the facts

> fwiw, lacking the will/spine to make an unpopular or hard choice to take action is different than lacking the resources to fund the action.  Could be wrong, but there seems to be more funding than will or spine available to many decision makers.


You might be right about that but since the City, State, and Federal are not running surpluses they are spending the money on something.  How much debt do you think the State would be in if they weren't getting funding from the federal government (who has to borrow all that money on the State's behalf)?  That is kind of like a wife saying she isn't broke because her husband takes out a loan every month to give her spending money.

----------


## grandshoemaster

> And now a story form the "No Duh" file.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...lth/55162620/1


What is your point?

----------


## Just the facts

> What is your point?


No point other than living in a car-culture is making us un-healthy.  That wouldn't be a problem if taxes weren't spent building freeways, bailing out auto companies, having wars to ensure the free flow of oil at market prices, and then also having to pick up the healthcare cost of people who chose to drive to the store instead of walking to the store (of course they can't walk to the store even if they wanted to because modern planning has created an environment scaled to the automobile).  The taxpayer is tapped out but we have a huge tax liablity overhead in place.

----------


## grandshoemaster

So people should just live in an urban setting as supposed to the suburbs because of these issues?  I live in the suburbs and work downtown.  So I commute everyday to work and I am in perfect health.  However, I work out almost everyday and eat somewhat healthy.  That has nothing to do with where I choose to live and how I choose to get to work.  That article doesn't make sense in my world.

----------


## Snowman

If you torture statistics hard enough, they will tell you anything you want to hear.

----------


## Dubya61

> If you torture statistics hard enough, they will tell you anything you want to hear.


Amen, Lawdy-Mama

----------


## SOONER8693

> If you torture statistics hard enough, they will tell you anything you want to hear.


I think it was Mark Twain that said, "statistics are like a cheap whore, once you throw them down there, you can do about anything you want with them".

----------


## Just the facts

I guess holding such beliefs allows anyone to ignore anything that doesn't suit their needs.  My guess is very few people commenting on statistics actually read the article.  On a side note, I decided to take up smoking now that I can disregard all the crazy smoking statistics.  Can anyone recommend a brand to a new smoker?

----------


## Snowman

My reason for bringing statistics up is while the average driving distance increasing may play a part in obesity rates but it is by no means even close to the entire reason, driving certainly allows you to ignore the problem longer. The changes in diet, food available/promoted, activity levels on jobs, the jobs people do, activities around the house, time spent exercising have all dramatically shifted over the recent decades and play a part. Compared to twenty years ago the average commute in OKC is not a whole lot longer than it was then but the obesity rate is more than doubled over that time frame.

----------


## kevinpate

> I guess holding such beliefs allows anyone to ignore anything that doesn't suit their needs.  My guess is very few people commenting on statistics actually read the article.  On a side note, I decided to take up smoking now that I can disregard all the crazy smoking statistics.  Can anyone recommend a brand to a new smoker?


Perhaps a Joe 20?
http://www.homedepot.com/buy/outdoor...ker-54083.html

oh, wait, you meant .... nevah mind.

----------


## Bellaboo

> Perhaps a Joe 20?
> http://www.homedepot.com/buy/outdoor...ker-54083.html
> 
> oh, wait, you meant .... nevah mind.


HAHA  Good One.........

----------


## Larry OKC

You may not be far off... while back there was some study that grilling/smoking meats only added to the suggested carcinogenic factors of eating red meat anyway...

----------


## kevinpate

> ... study that grilling/smoking meats only added to the suggested carcinogenic factors of eating red meat anyway...


one man's carcinogenic factors is another fella's flavor nodes.

----------


## Larry OKC

I would be in the later  :Tongue:

----------


## circuitboard

Would the building at 802 NW 8th, built in 1910 be protected from being torn down if one was to buy it?

----------


## Spartan

Are the SoSA people wanting to tear it down now?

You could probably buy it for pretty cheap, save for the typical SoSA land spec rates.

----------


## Just the facts

I watched a program last night on urban development and one thing I thought was a different approch to traffic problems was a city in South America (don't remember which one) implemented a bus rapid transit system and then started removing downtown parking spaces.  Now they do not allow any more parking spaces to be built.  To quote the mayor, he said people complain to him about not being able to a park their car, he tells them it is their car and their problem.  They might as well complain to him that they don't have anywhere to hang their clothes either.  In short, if you buy a private good the city has no reason to provide you a parking space for it.  They provide mass transit, not parking spaces.

Of course, you can't do this in OKC yet because we don't have a regional mass transit system, but maybe some day.

----------


## Mr. Cotter

Are you talking about TransMilenio? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransMilenio  I think this is one of the better models for transportation infrastructure.  It's almost as cheap as a bus route, with most of the advantages of rail.

----------


## Just the facts

Yes, TransMilenio.  I am no fan of BRT, but that system is pretty good.  As you said, as close to rail as you can get without actual rail.  Even the 'bus stops' look and function like a rail stop.  Sadly, not very good for TOD or development oriented transit though.  Bogota is the city.  The Mayor they interviewed in the documentary Urbanized was awesome.  When asked about parking he said show me where there is a constitutional requirment to provide parking (once again just to be clear, I know you can't do this in OKC because there is no regional transit system).  I need to watch the video again to see what city it was that bsically stopped making roads and now only makes sidewalks and bicycle paths.  Cars driving in dirt and mud and bikes on nice 4 lanes paved paths.  That might have been Bogota as well.

----------


## Rover

Sometimes I can't decide if you guys are promoting fascism or communism, but it sure goes beyond urbanism in a free society.  When your ideals are more like South America, Africa or Russia I have to wonder.  

The idea that you make cities more livable by taking away choices vs making intelligent infrastructure decisions is puzzling.  The idea that you are going to force eliminate cars in the city is silly.  I have been to many cities which have tried it and failed miserably...cities like Athens.  But the cities who took the positive route of building world class mass transit systems found people would CHOOSE to use them.  They didn't have to FORCE people by taking away all other choices.

----------


## Architect2010

> Sometimes I can't decide if you guys are promoting fascism or communism, but it sure goes beyond urbanism in a free society.  When your ideals are more like South America, Africa or Russia I have to wonder.  
> 
> The idea that you make cities more livable by taking away choices vs making intelligent infrastructure decisions is puzzling.  The idea that you are going to force eliminate cars in the city is silly.  I have been to many cities which have tried it and failed miserably...cities like Athens.  But the cities who took the positive route of building world class mass transit systems found people would CHOOSE to use them.  They didn't have to FORCE people by taking away all other choices.


Why must you always inject into a conversation, the most cut-and-dry responses? LORD. Heaven forbid a couple posters have a small conversation on what other cities in the world are doing to uniquely combat overuse of the automobile versus the pedestrian or mass-transit. There is nothing wrong with that at all and yet, you somehow manage to get offended by it. I found it very interesting and not once did I think that they were actually advocating turning OKC into Bogota. Actually though, I like the idea of getting rid of MOST of the parking spaces downtown for automobiles. Obviously that won't work now or any time soon, but in the future I could see this being possible with a good mass-transit system. Thataway, we aren't "FORCING" people to choose, instead they can choose whether or not they want to visit downtown or the Shoppes at Moore. Lol. Of course, this would have to at a time when Downtown is well-supported by the local urban population and the inner-city and NOT by suburbanites. It's definitely an interesting topic that doesn't have to be confined by the principles of our country versus another.

----------


## Spartan

> Sometimes I can't decide if you guys are promoting fascism or communism, but it sure goes beyond urbanism in a free society.  When your ideals are more like *South America, Africa or Russia* I have to wonder.


Have you ever been to any of those dark, distant places?? 

I agree with your caveat that you provide the choice, not the decision for people.. but I cringed at your first paragraph. My god. Suburban sprawl is derived from the ideals of socialists and communists like Le Corbusier... for the record Moscow is one of the coolest cities I've ever been to, and St. Petersburg one of the most cultured. In fact I'm not aware of many cities that are more cultural than SPB. 

As for Latin America, the Bogota mayor is in fact awesome (as Kerry correctly pointed out) and was directing transit spending toward the highest utility. Far more people utilized his TransMilenio system than what comparable funding for traffic lanes would have done. Far more people whizzed by on bicycles on the newly-redesigned bicycle pathways that also enhanced safety in many areas of Bogota, than on the mud roads beside them.

Anti-internationalism is cut from the same cloth as anti-intellectualism, and I don't see the point in resorting to either. There is no such folly in consulting people who have studied a topic just as you can't go wrong in studying how other peoples have confronted similar urban problems. I'd argue that only through drawing inspiration from elsewhere can our beloved American exceptionalism be preserved. I also think people are people everywhere.. just because someone comes from a part of the world that has struggled with corruption or ideology shouldn't discredit good urban solutions. That's heinous.

----------


## Rover

Actually I have been to many of the cities and done business on site in about 30 different countries, mostly in their most urban cities.  I know businessmen in many, if not most of them.  None of them have been successful in eliminating autos.  Most of the most urban cities in the world are full of cars and have huge requirements for parking.  The idea that you are not going to affect commerce by strangling parking is an odd notion.  

I think St. Petersburg is great...but you might want to learn how the wealth, art and culture actually was accumulated there. And the people I have known from Moscow think of it as anything but a cool city.  When we visit we see a totally different side to it than when we actually live in it.   

And, suburban sprawl is NOT advocated by communists.  Communal living IS.  Control of movement between communities is also a long standing way to control populations.  

I in no way support either practically or ideologically the idea of urban sprawl.  It is inefficient and in many, many ways unsustainable.  It can be controlled and should be, but it will not be eliminated unless the population decreases or stays the same.  I am on the same side as many, if not most, of the urbanists on this site.  However, I bristle at the notion that we should start forcing the changes on the population.  I also see a lot of things stated as fact on here that simply are not true.  Some is manipulation of information/data, and some is simply myopathy.  I actually respect Spartan's views greatly because he not only has read about it but has made the sacrifices and effort to go SEE what is happening in the world.  I also respect many on here who are putting their money where their words are...taking the risks to prove their points.  I hope they are amply rewarded for it.

----------


## CaptDave

> I in no way support either practically or ideologically the idea of urban sprawl.  It is inefficient and in many, many ways unsustainable.  It can be controlled and should be, but it will not be eliminated unless the population decreases or stays the same.  I am on the same side as many, if not most, of the urbanists on this site.  However, I bristle at the notion that we should start forcing the changes on the population.  I also see a lot of things stated as fact on here that simply are not true.  Some is manipulation of information/data, and some is simply myopathy.  I actually respect Spartan's views greatly because he not only has read about it but has made the sacrifices and effort to go SEE what is happening in the world.  I also respect many on here who are putting their money where their words are...taking the risks to prove their points.  I hope they are amply rewarded for it.


I think most people would agree with you on this Rover. I strongly believe we should redirect some of our resources to facilitate the rebirth of our American urban centers. I do not think we should continue to encourage further sprawl as we have nearly exclusively over the past 4 or 5 decades. I do not view living in an urban environment any more communal than living behind a wall in a suburban development. 

There are no silver bullet solutions, nor are there any short term fixes. We have completely lost balance in our urban development and transportation policies;  I think restoring balance is what many people would like to see. If we do this, we restore the choice of suburban or urban living. This will be a 10 year or longer process if it was started today - and the suburbs would still be available for those that choose that lifestyle.

----------


## Just the facts

To paraphrase the former Mayor of Bogota, a bus with 100 people is entitled to the same transportation funding and consideration as 100 single occupancy cars.  Anyone else see the irony of calling Bogota socialist or fascist because it is easier to move around in than OKC?  I imagine Rover isn't happy the government is making him buy health insurance but doesnt think twice about being forced to buy a car.

----------


## metro

> I think most people would agree with you on this Rover. I strongly believe we should redirect some of our resources to facilitate the rebirth of our American urban centers. I do not think we should continue to encourage further sprawl as we have nearly exclusively over the past 4 or 5 decades. I do not view living in an urban environment any more communal than living behind a wall in a suburban development. 
> 
> There are no silver bullet solutions, nor are there any short term fixes. We have completely lost balance in our urban development and transportation policies;  I think restoring balance is what many people would like to see. If we do this, we restore the choice of suburban or urban living. This will be a 10 year or longer process if it was started today - and the suburbs would still be available for those that choose that lifestyle.


Well said.

----------


## catch22

> Holy crap. It would be "urban"
> 
> 
> 
> This, if it were just more Browntones or something similar in form, it would feel extremely European. I think that in itself would be quite a view, even if it's just a narrow view.


I don't know why you think I am not in support of urbanism. Yes it'd be urban, but if you have a 3 story house. And you are paying extremely good money, as these cost. A view of the back of an apartment complex (literally feet away) or the view of an alley. Those two views are non starters for the price point. But what do I know?

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> I don't know why you think I am not in support of urbanism. Yes it'd be urban, but if you have a 3 story house. And you are paying extremely good money, as these cost. A view of the back of an apartment complex (literally feet away) or the view of an alley. Those two views are non starters for the price point. But what do I know?


Then the price point needs to decrease.

----------


## Spartan

Well maybe we should consult Rogers Marvel Architects on what to do to get these apartments a view that is required for urban living...

----------


## catch22

> Well maybe we should consult Rogers Marvel Architects on what to do to get these apartments a view that is required for urban living...


In reality... If all the land in the downtown area is taken. You must build on less desirable lots if you want to keep developing. But not all of our land is taken, far from it actually. If you have a lot of money to spend on a house. Where you can get street frontage and a good view for the same price as an alley view that is not directly connected to the sidewalk. Which one would you buy, Spartan?

----------


## Spartan

I don't think the view is as essential as you're making it out to be. If it is, then fine - these lots don't develop for a while.

But here are some photos I took in Amsterdam once. I don't know why you don't think this wouldn't sell in a prosperous American downtown:




While the Brownstones definitely look Dutch (brownstones by nature are either an Amsterdam or New Amsterdam "thing"), the alley we're talking about in Deep Deuce is actually much wider than the one above...which I guarantee you the equivalent square footage there would be at least $3M.

Otherwise don't call them the Brownstones. Call them the Tall Narrowish Estates at Maywood Park or something else ridiculous, maybe even get a "Morning Woods" or "Weeping Willows" joke in there too..and a gate

----------


## catch22

It may not be a HUGE deal but it definitely will be a factor as long as we have vacant parcels in the downtown area. And the Core to Shore area is about to bring a lot of them into the picture. 

But which would you buy? I still like having questions answered.

----------


## Spartan

Which would I buy - I would buy the Brownstone that is in a beautiful, quaint, albeit cramped space, over a unit in C2S with a view because it is surrounded by nothing. I couldn't even believe that was posed as a real question.

I think the open range form is not what people are looking for in urban living. More than just an unobstructed view, I think people are looking for something that feels "complete." Arguing against completeness because it obstructs the view is very anti-urban. I bet there are a lot of folks who won't pay the downtown premiums on space just because the product is a facade, however they would purchase a unit were it authentically urban.

----------


## catch22

> Which would I buy - I would buy the Brownstone that is in a beautiful, quaint, albeit cramped space, over a unit in C2S with a view because it is surrounded by nothing. I couldn't even believe that was posed as a real question.
> 
> I think the open range form is not what people are looking for in urban living. More than just an unobstructed view, I think people are looking for something that feels "complete." Arguing against completeness because it obstructs the view is very anti-urban. I bet there are a lot of folks who won't pay the downtown premiums on space just because the product is a facade, however they would purchase a unit were it authentically urban.


Nowhere did I say open range view. You are grasping at straws. I said a view of an alley won't be a selling point. A view of the street would be preferred by many not only for aesthetics but also for access issues and sense of safety concerns.

Don't put words in my mouth. My point is this: As long as there are more desirable open lots to develop that have street frontage, the more an alley view becomes a negative. Not saying it can't or won't sell, but it will definitely make it more difficult to sell at this point in time. If you think people would pick alley view over street frontage for the same price point and comparable construction, is hard to believe.

----------


## Spartan

You're talking about the kind of living space that doesn't even exist at all anywhere in Oklahoma. I'm sorry, but where's your expertise in urban development from? Wheres your market analysis homework?

----------


## catch22

I was not aware those were prerequisites to participate in this forum. Excuse me, wise one.

----------


## Spartan

Well its just absurd for you to categorically bemoan development of what could be a very, very unique "alley" as you call it

----------


## catch22

Well perhaps a fair solution is to have all posts run by a board of enlightened members such as yourself to make sure all analysis studies have been thoroughly reviewed by the poster. I apologize if I have offended you in any way because I do not hold the qualifications required to express my opinion.

----------


## Spartan

It's not that, this is just like fighting with people who said downtown will never ever ever have the density for streetcar circa 2006.. See the bigger picture goddam

----------


## catch22

Don't curse at me.

----------


## Spartan

$;(\% you little >~{%#? person...

Just kidding. Cheers

----------


## catch22

> $;(\% you little >~{%#? person...
> 
> Just kidding. Cheers


Yes these lots will be developed and yes they will sell. That's not my argument.
These lots would not be considered prime, but secondary. This is a lot like the middle seat on an airplane. People do not book the middle seat when other options at the same price point are available. Window and aisle seats sell first. And once those sell the middle seats start to sell. They still sell though.

So moving that argument to this topic. These lots do not have direct sidewalk access (aisle seat) or a good view of the street (window seat). We still have plenty of supply of window and aisle seats so it will be hard to get a market premium from the middle seats.

That is my argument. Yes i do want these lots developed and yes I do think they will be developed and yes I do think they will sell. Just too soon IMO to capture a market premium off of them at *this point in time.* In the future when Deep Deuce and AA really start to mesh these will be fantastic lots.

I hope that makes sense. I waited until today to reply so we could both cool off a little bit and perhaps explain our perspectives a little better.

----------


## Just the facts

I had to go back and read 4 pages of material but I think I got it now.  At the density DD is building at it makes Deep Deuce Urban Apartments seem like a waste of space.  Funny how running out of space but still having demand create more density.  At the suburban fringe we would just push everything out another mile creating the same number of housing units but at 100X the cost to taxpayers.  This is a nice change.

----------


## Soho

> I had to go back and read 4 pages of material but I think I got it now.  At the density DD is building at it makes Deep Deuce Urban Apartments seem like a waste of space.  Funny how running out of space but still having demand create more density.  At the suburban fringe we would just push everything out another mile creating the same number of housing units but at 100X the cost to taxpayers.  This is a nice change.




Funny you mention that, my wife and I were discussing the other day that with the apparent lack of maintenance on the DD apartments, they may not last another 10 years. Almost all the south and west facing windows are occluded and need replacement, exterior paint is in bad shape, exterior light fixtures are in disrepair and it would be great to get rid of the unsightly surface parking with multiple gates that don’t appear to work as designed. That said, they have been replacing some roofs recently.

And before someone calls me out… I did defend the parking lot for the Law Firm redoing the Baptist Church. I am willing to overlook one lot if it means saving an iconic structure. Huge difference in my opinion, when compared to the sprawling lots of DD. I didn’t at first understand what a tremendous difference in construction costs central parking adds to these projects! Having a bird’s eye view to watch the construction of Level, was quite an eye opener (bad pun intended). The scope, and I’m sure related costs, of building the parking lot was many times greater than I had imagined. Watching yard after yard of concrete being poured, day after day, the miles of rebar and cabling, concrete pumps that seem to defy the laws of physics, large labor force imported from Texas… 

It is a common theme on this site that living space is overpriced in DD, just imagine the excavation and removal costs that the Lofts and Maywood Park Apartments suffered to provide parking! Level and Aloft are out the same construction costs, but didn’t have to excavate. Thank goodness the cost of land has risen to the point that another urban style complex like DD apts will never be built in this area again.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Anyone else out there think that apartments downtown should not be so bland, boring and suburban? Downtown should look and feel like the capital city of our state. I'm looking at some apartments on this New York Architecture website. This is more like the kind of place I would enjoy living. 

New York Architecture Images-

----------


## Teo9969

> Anyone else out there think that apartments downtown should not be so bland, boring and suburban? Downtown should look and feel like the capital city of our state. I'm looking at some apartments on this New York Architecture website. This is more like the kind of place I would enjoy living. 
> 
> New York Architecture Images-


Apple to Oranges...what's NYC's new construction look like?

----------


## OKCisOK4me

Sorry, but when I think of big city living, I think of buildings that look like the one Neo is all jumping around and through in the first Matrix.  I don't know why ya'll be going for extravaganza mania...

----------


## betts

> Anyone else out there think that apartments downtown should not be so bland, boring and suburban? Downtown should look and feel like the capital city of our state. I'm looking at some apartments on this New York Architecture website. This is more like the kind of place I would enjoy living. 
> 
> New York Architecture Images-


Those look expensive to build.  The only way we get construction like that is if downtown living becomes so desirable that the wealthy want to live downtown, I fear.

----------


## Rover

> Those look expensive to build.  The only way we get construction like that is if downtown living becomes so desirable that the wealthy want to live downtown, I fear.


The last condo project I worked on in NYC was 8 stories in Chelsea.  The cheapest unit was $1.5 million and top floor almost $4 million.  It's was sold out months before completion....in the recession.

----------


## betts

> The last condo project I worked on in NYC was 8 stories in Chelsea.  The cheapest unit was $1.5 million and top floor almost $4 million.  It's was sold out months before completion....in the recession.


And in Manhattan, the wealthy want to live downtown.  When that happens here, we will get more quality construction downtown, with more of the architectural features UnFrSaKn is talking about.  I'm pretty happy with my brownstone though.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

How about we have mixed quality...OKC is not high society...

----------


## betts

> How about we have mixed quality...OKC is not high society...


I think that's what UnFrSkN was hoping for.  Right now we mostly have quality on the lower end of the spectrum in downtown housing.  It doesn't hurt to have some high end stuff.  Again, I'm pretty happy with my brownstone, but there's certainly nothing in the apartment or rental categories that fits that description.

----------


## Just the facts

> Anyone else out there think that apartments downtown should not be so bland, boring and suburban? Downtown should look and feel like the capital city of our state. I'm looking at some apartments on this New York Architecture website. This is more like the kind of place I would enjoy living. 
> 
> New York Architecture Images-


We had buildings like that but we tore most of them down.  However, the ones we do have left are being converted to housing - and they don't cost near what New Yorkers are paying.

----------


## Rover

> How about we have mixed quality...OKC is not high society...


The high costs in NYC aren't "high society".  It is simply supply and demand.  Location drives up the prices considerably. One of the prices to pay for high density living (not counting the slums/projects) is generally higher prices for real estate in those areas. What some consider to be "high society" here is normal and commonplace in many other places.  We are blessed with low cost of living for many years, but also low average incomes.

----------


## adaniel

> How about we have mixed quality...OKC is not high society...


The problem with this logic is people who want to live downtown likely work downtown or in the OUHSC. These areas are home to 2 of the biggest concentration of high paying jobs in the state. It's not a big deal for a DINK couple working at Presbyterian making $100K or a young professional at Devon pulling $70K to plop down $1,500/month for rent or 250K+ for a condo. Provided, of course, its a quality home.

There is no shortage of affordable housing just on the outskirts of downtown.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> The problem with this logic is people who want to live downtown likely work downtown or in the OUHSC. These areas are home to 2 of the biggest concentration of high paying jobs in the state. It's not a big deal for a DINK couple working at Presbyterian making $100K or a young professional at Devon pulling $70K to plop down $1,500/month for rent or 250K+ for a condo. Provided, of course, its a quality home.
> 
> There is no shortage of affordable housing just on the outskirts of downtown.


Thank you for summarizing what I already know. Now how about affordable housing downtown that is available for people that want to live downtown that don't work downtown? Sorry I didn't clarify the first time around.

----------


## betts

> Thank you for summarizing what I already know. Now how about affordable housing downtown that is available for people that want to live downtown that don't work downtown? Sorry I didn't clarify the first time around.


It seems to me that there is already pretty affordable housing downtown for renters.  Affordable for sale housing will be available downtown when it is profitable for a developer to create it.  In most cities that's not happening.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

No...the reason it will never happen is class issues. You very well couldnt be neighbors with someone that only pulls in $30,000.

----------


## Rover

> No...the reason it will never happen is class issues. You very well couldnt be neighbors with someone that only pulls in $30,000.


So, you want to be in a prime desirable location but not pay for it?  And this is somehow a class issue?  Is it that people are entitled to the best without paying for it?  

This isn't a class issue.  The issue is that as these areas are more and more desirable the prices will increase with the demand.  It is purely economics, not social discrimination.  If you want true urban density then you must be willing to pay for it.  If you want cheap then dense urban is not what you want.  In places like NYC multiple individuals share small apartments to be close in...OR they commute from one of the less desirable areas like Brooklyn, Queens, etc.  It has been easy for some on here to take shots at Okies for not walking...well we can take a shot at Okies for just not wanting to do what others do in other cities when they want the better locations and properties.  Go find a roommate and pay the rates or don't complain when someone else does.  Building cheap, cheap housing that will become dilapidated in 20 years isn't the answer.

There will always be financial inequality and those that have money will always be able to out-bid those without.  That is far different than social discrimination.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

My whole point was that I think downtown should look and feel different than anywhere else. I want to see something above the norm when I'm downtown. It will likely cost more if that ever happens. I myself couldn't afford to live in the most expensive apartments. I'm just saying from someone who walks down the street and sees it, I want downtown to be the classiest destination and be able to experience things without having to drive to Dallas or Tulsa.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> So, you want to be in a prime desirable location but not pay for it?  And this is somehow a class issue?  Is it that people are entitled to the best without paying for it?  
> 
> This isn't a class issue.  The issue is that as these areas are more and more desirable the prices will increase with the demand.  It is purely economics, not social discrimination.  If you want true urban density then you must be willing to pay for it.  If you want cheap then dense urban is not what you want.  In places like NYC multiple individuals share small apartments to be close in...OR they commute from one of the less desirable areas like Brooklyn, Queens, etc.  It has been easy for some on here to take shots at Okies for not walking...well we can take a shot at Okies for just not wanting to do what others do in other cities when they want the better locations and properties.  Go find a roommate and pay the rates or don't complain when someone else does.  Building cheap, cheap housing that will become dilapidated in 20 years isn't the answer.
> 
> There will always be financial inequality and those that have money will always be able to out-bid those without.  That is far different than social discrimination.


How is what I typed complaining???!  Screw you Rover, it's called an observation.  

Obviously it's called get into a relationship where more than one person is in the partnership...be it a friend or a lover OR go out there and make more money.  I'm not a tard ya donkey.  And as far as economics goes, I seem to remember that when more is being produced and the demand is higher prices go down.  I don't recall HDTVs becoming more expensive since the technology has become more and more available.

I choose my life and my life is my concern.

----------


## Spartan

Ugh...

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> Ugh...


lol, Spartan.

Don't get me wrong, I love my $500 rent.  Does it lead to the most desirable area?  No, of course not.  If I could live without a car and without the costs that come along with it, then I could make that adjustment and move closer to downtown.  Problem is, downtown doesn't have a lot of variety jobs.  You either gotta work in oil, biotech, or medical.  Not all of us have degrees.  Not all of us choose to go that direction in life. So I guess we're banned from downtown living unless we win the lottery, lol.  Oh well, I'll still roll through yo hood in my car and take pics of your neighborhoods :-)

----------


## Just the facts

Not everyone working in Devon's tower has a college degree.  In fact, I'll bet a significant number of downtown employees don't.  If you go on some of the company websites you might be surprised what is available.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

You're right.  You probably don't have to have a degree to wheel a janitorial cart around.  But those non degree positions probably can't afford to live downtown.  I bet they drive from at least 4 miles away.

----------


## Just the facts

> You're right.  You probably don't have to have a degree to wheel a janitorial cart around.  But those non degree positions probably can't afford to live downtown.  I bet they drive from at least 4 miles away.


Like I said, you would be surprised.  Devon has an opening for a Security Officer right now and it only requires a high school diploma.  I think it would pay $30,000 or more.  I'm not sure you could get someone to take a bullet for less than that.  :Smile: 

And do you think a college degree is managing the janitor push cart guy?

----------


## Rover

> How is what I typed complaining???!  Screw you Rover, it's called an observation.  
> 
> Obviously it's called get into a relationship where more than one person is in the partnership...be it a friend or a lover OR go out there and make more money.  I'm not a tard ya donkey.  And as far as economics goes, I seem to remember that when more is being produced and the demand is higher prices go down.  I don't recall HDTVs becoming more expensive since the technology has become more and more available.
> 
> I choose my life and my life is my concern.


Just don't play the class discrimination card..  

And you can't compare tv sets to real estate.  That's nonsensical.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

Yes sir drill sergeant sir!

I've forgotten my lessons on Economics and micro economics since college at oSu back in 98 & 99 :-(

----------


## hoya

I'm not even sure how this discussion got here.  I am confuzzled.

Downtown will eventually have a mix of different price points.  When I last looked, even the Deep Deuce Apts were fairly pricey.  I could get a much nicer place in the suburbs for cheaper.  At this point in time that's what I chose to do.  When I eventually buy a house, however, I'm going to try to get one in a more historic area closer to downtown rather than buying something in Yukon.  I think the reinvestment we're seeing in downtown will cause those property values to go up and up.  So it's worth it to me to buy something more expensive with the promise of higher property values in the future.  It is not worth it to me to get a half-assed urban experience (as exists now) and pay twice as much for it.  Eventually, when the streetcar goes in and after we've had another 10 years of development in Deep Deuce and Midtown, maybe it would be worth it.  Right now it's not to me.

Most every place downtown where you can live is either brand new construction or an old building recently converted to housing.  As people have said, in another 10 to 15 years, Deep Deuce Apartments are going to be kind of run down.  Once that takes place, one of three things will happen.  1) You've got your lower rent apartments.  2) Someone converts them into for sale housing.  3) Someone buys them one building at a time, tears them down, and puts a higher density structure in their place.

----------


## progressiveboy

> No...the reason it will never happen is class issues. You very well couldnt be neighbors with someone that only pulls in $30,000.


 Are you referring to 30,000 a year millionares? LOL. We have plenty of those types in Dallas.

----------


## Mr. Cotter

I work downtown with serveral people without a college education in my office.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

I really didn't know where to put this article, but here it is. 

From Steve Lackmeyer: Bricktown's skyline is about to dramatically change | NewsOK.com

----------


## Teo9969

> Wooooow. So if we stopped sprawl, think how much the world would be better off? That's why Europe has so many financial problems and poverty issues. That's why insanely dense cities in Asia are 3rd world societies engulfed in pollution. That's why cities in central america and South America that are also very dense and urban are filled with crime and poverty.


First off, sprawl can happen in more than one way, and it didn't start necessarily with the Greatest Generation (See Louisiana Purchase and the flight out West), they just brought it down to a daily level, which has only compounded the problem: Sprawl is an inefficient use of resources. Furthermore, we're not talking about the problems that pertain to the world, we're talking about the problems that pertain to us, one of the richest countries in the history of the world. We shouldn't be having problems at all, all things considered.






> Real estate volatility: this can happen in any market, urban or suburban. This has nothing to do with sprawl. It has to do with overbuilding, which can happen with sprawl, but sprawl isn't the reason for over building. Look what happened with all of the condos in Miami in 2008. A lot of that was downtown and in urban areas, not suburban sprawl.


In the US, it had to do with red-lining, racism, discomfort with class disparity; today it has to do with the left over systemic effects of those issues and others. Things were so easily overbuilt in an environment where there was not much to begin with because 1. It was made artificially cheap to do so 2. Because the American Dream preached a doctrine of lavish living 3. Because an underprivileged class of people were perceived as a threat to entire communities and those communities were far too quickly abandoned by those who created them (and they subsequently left and used more resources to create new and unnecessary homes for themselves only to turn around and do it again 15 years later) 4. The advent of the 30 year mortgage…There are still countries in other parts of the world that don't do mortgages.




> Oil wars: so you're saying because people want to drive and live in suburban areas, that oil, used for many things other than just gasoline, that sprawl drives oil wars? So just for sh!ts and gigs, if there were no sprawl in the US, there wouldn't be war in the middle east? That is hilarious.


Absolutely there would be wars in the Middle East…but do you think we would really care? Consider how active we are militarily in the rest of the world for humanitarian reasons compared to the Middle East. If we were in the Middle East for "humanitarian reasons" we'd be spending half our resources in Africa and plenty in South America and Asia as well. We're clearly involved militarily to the extent we are in the M.E. because we need stability and influence in the oil market. 




> Irresponsible personal spending: seriously? What bullsh!t. That happens anywhere. Not just in the suburbs. You're saying it contributed to it, well of course it did. There will always be people out there, whether living in a loft in downtown Manhattan or in the endless sprawl of Las Vegas that will spend spend spend, incurring debt that won't be able to be paid off. The only reason sprawl contributes to it is simply because it exists, not because of what it is. The same thing is said for an urban area, an urban area contributes to irresponsible spending, but not because of what it is, simply because it has people living in it.
> 
> Car culture: now you're just throwing things in your list to make it longer and look better. This is crazy. What exactly is 'car culture?' Something that doesn't require having to rely on a freaking bus all of your life? Something where you can just jump in and literally go anywhere you want? I guess for some that isn't freedom. Freedom is relying on 20 methods of transportation, street car, bus network, light-rail, buses, renting a car to travel across country, crappy rail methods like the Tulsa-OKC line, etc... If having to wait on all of those the majority of which is on a fixed line and you can't go off of that, and not to mention it all costs money to use, is your idea of freedom vs. a car than that boggles my mind. I still can't believe you would classify car culture as a problem that is associated with sprawl. If someone moves out into Edmond, they're not going to be worried about mass transit.


Car-culture and irresponsible spending is purchasing a brand-new car, losing 15% of the value as soon as you leave the dealership, selling it back to that dealer 3 to 5 years later and buying the latest model and once again losing a notable % of your resources. Cars are really really expensive and the average American spends a ton of money to do so (many because they have to based on the lifestyle that the system has determined they will have to live). Further irresponsible spending is to buy a home for $100k, sell it 5 years later for $115k and move into a new 30-year note for a house that cost you $125k. This likely would be done because a school district starts to go downhill because due to the aforementioned reasons.




> Opportunity costs of suburban lifestyle: yeah, explain to me exactly what that is. I guarantee you each and every thing you will list happens to people in urban lifestyles as well.


Those opportunity costs would be: Time and resources spent driving/maintaining vehicles which is an obligatory component of suburban living, slow growth of resources because those resources are invested in a home tied to a market value that appreciates slower than inflation, the "spread-thin" nature of resources for our public education system. Speaking of...




> Education: Really!? The best education systems you usually get are in suburban sprawl cities. Edmond, Deer Creek. . .ring any bells? Even the schools in inner New York city are horrid and they have drawings of who is able to go to select charter schools.  I suppose you're going to blame that on sprawl as well.


You might familiarize yourself with this article to understand the whys: The Case for Reparations - The Atlantic 

------------------

We'll start with that.

----------


## Teo9969

Double Post

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> First off, sprawl can happen in more than one way, and it didn't start necessarily with the Greatest Generation (See Louisiana Purchase and the flight out West), they just brought it down to a daily level, which has only compounded the problem: Sprawl is an inefficient use of resources. Furthermore, we're not talking about the problems that pertain to the world, we're talking about the problems that pertain to us, one of the richest countries in the history of the world. We shouldn't be having problems at all, all things considered.


Never said it couldn't.

There are a lot of things that are inefficient, but guess what, sometimes wants and desires trump efficiency and we find ways to deal with it. I'm not going to sit here and disagree with you that if every single person lived in 100 story towers downtown we would have nicer roads, schools downtown, street car. . .it would be an urban paradise. What person in their right mind living in OKC would want that? Oh, maybe a good number of folks here, when it comes to the city, I'm venturing to guess it is less than 0.1 percent.

Teo, there will always be problems with something. We are never going to have a perfect society and quite frankly, I'm glad that is.




> In the US, it had to do with red-lining, racism, discomfort with class disparity; today it has to do with the left over systemic effects of those issues and others. Things were so easily overbuilt in an environment where there was not much to begin with because 1. It was made artificially cheap to do so 2. Because the American Dream preached a doctrine of lavish living 3. Because an underprivileged class of people were perceived as a threat to entire communities and those communities were far too quickly abandoned by those who created them (and they subsequently left and used more resources to create new and unnecessary homes for themselves only to turn around and do it again 15 years later) 4. The advent of the 30 year mortgageThere are still countries in other parts of the world that don't do mortgages.


White flight caused a lot of sprawl no doubt. Again, I wasn't arguing that. It would have happened anyways. If Henry Ford never started the first mass production line, I'm sure we would have something like it. If Nikola Tesla or Thomas Edison never existed, I'm sure we still have electricity and phones. Sprawl was going to happen. It has happened everywhere. 

As far as real estate volatility, my point remains valid: it happens everywhere. Even Iran where they don't give mortgages has had real estate crashes.

This country is a free market society also. That is important to remember. No one is forcing people to live out in the suburbs, they are choosing to. We have every right to have large highways and roads serving us as you want your buses and street cars. If urban living was so great, there would be huge demand to live in them, but there is not. The majority still choose to live in suburbs.




> Absolutely there would be wars in the Middle Eastbut do you think we would really care? Consider how active we are militarily in the rest of the world for humanitarian reasons compared to the Middle East. If we were in the Middle East for "humanitarian reasons" we'd be spending half our resources in Africa and plenty in South America and Asia as well. We're clearly involved militarily to the extent we are in the M.E. because we need stability and influence in the oil market.


Well, seeing as how we have gone into 'mini-wars' across the Middle East that we really didn't need to, I'd say yes. There are other options available for collecting oil, so I'm not buying into this conspiracy that 9/11 was made up so we could go to war for oil. I'm also not buying into the notion that sprawl has caused oil wars.




> Car-culture and irresponsible spending is purchasing a brand-new car, losing 15% of the value as soon as you leave the dealership, selling it back to that dealer 3 to 5 years later and buying the latest model and once again losing a notable % of your resources. Cars are really really expensive and the average American spends a ton of money to do so (many because they have to based on the lifestyle that the system has determined they will have to live). Further irresponsible spending is to buy a home for $100k, sell it 5 years later for $115k and move into a new 30-year note for a house that cost you $125k. This likely would be done because a school district starts to go downhill because due to the aforementioned reasons.


You call that irresponsible spending, that's fine. You can spend your money how you see fit. People are well aware they are not buying cars to make money on. I don't care that I lost money purchasing a brand new car. I was aware I wasn't going to sell it more than I bought it. What a ridiculous argument really. If you live out in the suburbs, *you are choosing to pay for these things and they are not bad*.

Once again, irresponsible spending can happen anywhere. It will simply exist where there are people, in both urban and suburban environments. As for real estate and housing, virtually everyone I know has made money on their house because property values went up, more than you claimed, and they bought a nicer and bigger house. It's called upgrading. Usually if one buys a new, bigger house, they did so because received a raise or bonus.

I don't even know why we're discussing why what investments are and how they work because that is not the point. The point is, it happens in urban and suburban areas. So far, you have yet to address that.




> Those opportunity costs would be: Time and resources spent driving/maintaining vehicles which is an obligatory component of suburban living, slow growth of resources because those resources are invested in a home tied to a market value that appreciates slower than inflation, the "spread-thin" nature of resources for our public education system. Speaking of...


That's fine. Those aren't opportunity costs. Hundreds of millions of people who live in suburban areas that become successful didn't loose that because they lived in suburbia. None of those things you listed are opportunity costs, those are things you don't like about suburbia personally and that is why there are urban living options for you.

I don't see how a resource tied into a home that is based on market value would cause slow growth. Every living unit is based on market value. Look at how expensive the New York City housing market is. It's supply and demand. When there is a big demand, prices will go up.

Inflation is, again, something that happens in both urban and suburban areas. The 'thin spread' nature of our schools is no problem for Edmond or Deer Creek.




> You might familiarize yourself with this article to understand the whys: The Case for Reparations - The Atlantic


Cool article. There are always going to be doom and gloom articles of will happen if we don't do this and that. I'll let time tell because at this point, people are still choosing to live in suburbia and that isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

----------


## Montreal

> This country is a free market society also. That is important to remember. No one is forcing people to live out in the suburbs, they are choosing to. We have every right to have large highways and roads serving us as you want your buses and street cars. If urban living was so great, there would be huge demand to live in them, but there is not. The majority still choose to live in suburbs.


I think you're misguided on this notion because the U.S. real estate and transportation system is very far from a free market. The government (at local, state, and federal levels) dramatically alters the market, which affects the subsequent decisions made by individuals. I'll briefly highlight 5 key ways, and I encourage you to look more into each of them:

1) Mis-taxation of different development modes
Predominantly in the form of ad valorem (property) taxes, they are based solely on the assessed value of the land/structure, depending on the type of structure. They are not based on the actual costs incurred by governments required to maintain the public infrastructure and provide services. Infrastructure such as roads and water lines cost a great deal more in less dense areas; the same can be said for fire and police protection, but it really applies across the board. Governments also limit the ability of regulated industries like electric and cable providers to charge more even though it costs them more to serve sprawled out areas.
I believe it was Chuck Marohn from strongtowns.org who estimated that a typical suburban cul-de-sac repays the city the cost to build it only after 77 years. The rub is that the lifespan of the cul-de-sac street is only about 25 years, meaning the city perpetually loses money maintaining the development. He estimated that it would require an immediate 46% increase in property taxes (with a subsequent 2% increase each year) to pay for the cul-de-sac in its 25 year lifespan. This ignores the rest of the services those property taxes ostensibly are supposed to pay for. 
Here is a well-cited illustration of how sprawl development costs twice as much to serve vs traditional development patterns: Sprawl Costs the Public More Than Twice as Much as Compact Development | Streetsblog USA

2) Parking minimum requirements
As you are most likely well-aware, governments require a minimum number of parking spaces for different types of structures in the vast majority of areas (CBDs and very historic districts being the primary exceptions). This can severely impact the cost of land-restricted (i.e., urban) developments and making it favorable to seek out greenfield developments. This topic is very well trodden, but please read _The High Cost of Free Parking_ if you haven't already done so: http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free.../dp/193236496X

3) Transportation favoring cars over other methods
Almost every level of government in most places in the U.S. favors vehicular road transportation over other methods. This happens even when the total cost of that transportation (public and private spending) exceeds other methods (rail, bus, bike, walk). In many cases, it's a self-reinforcing cycle where zoning and land use codes increase the dependency on cars as the primary (and oftentimes) only viable mode of transportation, regardless of individual preferences. Minimum lane width requirements and artificially low gasoline-taxes contribute to the financially unviability of this policy.
See and example on Texas explicitly favoring road construction and maintenance over mass transit options: Budget limits transportation spending - Houston Chronicle

4) Single-use zoning regulations
The preferred land-use regulations in the U.S. also skew the market. Single use developments that are partitioned off from one another increase the prevalence of car-dependence and suburban style development, regardless of the wishes of developers or the surrounding community. Additional regulations such as mandated setbacks and height restrictions make it artificially more expensive on land-restricted areas, again regardless of what a free market might actually dictate.
See: Zoning in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also the YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard movement): Permits Filed: 215 Freeman Street, Greenpoint - New York Yimby

5) Federal housing law
There are two key ways this skews the market: federally-insured mortgages and the mortgage interest tax deduction.
Federally insured mortgages encourages people to purchase larger, and relatively more expensive homes even when the buyers wouldn't be able to secure a loan for the property in a free market
The mortgage interest tax deduction also favors home-ownership and having a mortgage, making it artificially cheaper to afford a house. 
See: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412...ing-Market.pdf

Now these aren't the only ways governments affect the way we live. There are plenty others like building safety regulations (sprinkler systems, electrical and plumbing codes) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Incentive programs, historic preservation tax credits, and low-income housing all fall under this umbrella as well. I think it's fair to assess all of these as a group and decide which ones really fall under the realm public safety and well-being and which ones are seemingly arbitrary methods for the government to artificially pick winners and losers in the housing and transportation sectors. 

Who knows, maybe even after all the unnecessary, artificial government policies are weeded out, a majority people will still choose suburban-style development. I'd be completely fine with that because then they would be paying their fair share for the construction and upkeep of their lifestyles without forcing people who live in denser, more productive regions to subsidize them. I'm sure you would agree with this premise.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Doesn't matter. No one is being forced to live anywhere.

----------


## dankrutka

> Doesn't matter. No one is being forced to live anywhere.


Yeah, but those of us living urban areas are being forced to subsidize that suburban lifestyle to the detriment of our collective health and the environment.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

The majority of what you said is common knowledge and is besides the point. It costs less to serve high density vs. low density. No way! Here's the thing, I don't care. I'll take my suburban yards and sprawled out neighborhoods with green yards and blue skies vs. your concrete jungle.

You want both, we already have it. Stop saying every level of government favors cars over people in every case because it's bs. If it were true, we wouldn't have walkable urban areas.

If you want development like Europe that was heavily developed before the car, you can go live there. Even though parts of the U.S. were developed before the car it wasn't long and America has a car loving culture. That isn't going to change and it doesn't need to.

Diversity is good and I love Europe for what it is, but I don't want to see cities in the US designed anything like cities in Europe.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Yeah, but those of us living urban areas are being forced to subsidize that suburban lifestyle to the detriment of our collective health and the environment.


works both ways.

The majority outweigh you. The majority of people in OKC won't use a street car in downtown OKC yet they are paying for it.

----------


## Motley

For anyone interested.  The following link is the latest concept to redevelop 120-160 acres in the heart of San Diego where the existing Qualcomm stadium is and to use the revenue from the development to fund a new stadium.  Interesting design ideas and interesting commentary from the locals.

New Chargers stadium site could attract $1.6 billion in land sales, NFL and other sources. | UTSanDiego.com

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> I think you're misguided on this notion because the U.S. real estate and transportation system is very far from a free market. The government (at local, state, and federal levels) dramatically alters the market, which affects the subsequent decisions made by individuals. I'll briefly highlight 5 key ways, and I encourage you to look more into each of them:
> 
> 1) Mis-taxation of different development modes
> Predominantly in the form of ad valorem (property) taxes, they are based solely on the assessed value of the land/structure, depending on the type of structure. They are not based on the actual costs incurred by governments required to maintain the public infrastructure and provide services. Infrastructure such as roads and water lines cost a great deal more in less dense areas; the same can be said for fire and police protection, but it really applies across the board. Governments also limit the ability of regulated industries like electric and cable providers to charge more even though it costs them more to serve sprawled out areas.
> I believe it was Chuck Marohn from strongtowns.org who estimated that a typical suburban cul-de-sac repays the city the cost to build it only after 77 years. The rub is that the lifespan of the cul-de-sac street is only about 25 years, meaning the city perpetually loses money maintaining the development. He estimated that it would require an immediate 46% increase in property taxes (with a subsequent 2% increase each year) to pay for the cul-de-sac in its 25 year lifespan. This ignores the rest of the services those property taxes ostensibly are supposed to pay for. 
> Here is a well-cited illustration of how sprawl development costs twice as much to serve vs traditional development patterns: Sprawl Costs the Public More Than Twice as Much as Compact Development | Streetsblog USA
> 
> 2) Parking minimum requirements
> As you are most likely well-aware, governments require a minimum number of parking spaces for different types of structures in the vast majority of areas (CBDs and very historic districts being the primary exceptions). This can severely impact the cost of land-restricted (i.e., urban) developments and making it favorable to seek out greenfield developments. This topic is very well trodden, but please read _The High Cost of Free Parking_ if you haven't already done so: The High Cost of Free Parking, Updated Edition: Donald Shoup: 9781932364965: Amazon.com: Books
> ...


ps, I am going to check out those last two points. I didn't get a chance to check the links as i was at work.

----------


## Jeepnokc

> 1) Mis-taxation of different development modes
> Predominantly in the form of ad valorem (property) taxes, they are based solely on the assessed value of the land/structure, depending on the type of structure. They are not based on the actual costs incurred by governments required to maintain the public infrastructure and provide services. Infrastructure such as roads and water lines cost a great deal more in less dense areas; the same can be said for fire and police protection, but it really applies across the board. Governments also limit the ability of regulated industries like electric and cable providers to charge more even though it costs them more to serve sprawled out areas.
> I believe it was Chuck Marohn from strongtowns.org who estimated that a typical suburban cul-de-sac repays the city the cost to build it only after 77 years. The rub is that the lifespan of the cul-de-sac street is only about 25 years, meaning the city perpetually loses money maintaining the development. He estimated that it would require an immediate 46% increase in property taxes (with a subsequent 2% increase each year) to pay for the cul-de-sac in its 25 year lifespan. This ignores the rest of the services those property taxes ostensibly are supposed to pay for. 
> Here is a well-cited illustration of how sprawl development costs twice as much to serve vs traditional development patterns: Sprawl Costs the Public More Than Twice as Much as Compact Development | Streetsblog USA


This study doesn't really apply to OKC.  I live in OKC limits and I along with all of my neighbors are not provided city water, sewer,sidewalks, public transportation, storm and waste services so take all those off.  Most rural developments out this way are built by the developer (ie...the road and infrastructure of the neighborhood) so the cul de sac argument of recuperating the cost doesn't really apply here either.  My kids go to Moore schools and the school district provides the bussing...not OKC.  I question why it costs so much more for "governance".  As far as police, when I lived in downtown, I saw numerous cops...not that I live out, the only time I see an OKC cop is when they are running a speed trap on 104th.   

There is really no way to compare apples to oranges.  There are valid arguments and fallacies on both sides of the argument and way too many variables.  There are a lot of assumptions.  How do you figure the revenue from taxes.  Most homes I see in the rural developments are pretty expensive which means they are generating more tax revenue.  I am paying about 5 times more in property tax now than what I was in Heritage Hills East.  In HHE, I had new sidewalks, curbs, water, sewer, and had to have the police out couple of times when someone threw brick through window or when we heard someone prowling in backyard. (In 7 years here, never had to call police)

The urban core could not support all the things this city has to offer without those from outside the core.  It is the diversity of our citizens that is making this city great.  I can't wait for the streetcar even though I don't think it will ever run to 104th street because a strong downtown make the experience better for all.  People will always want to live different lifestyles.  Some value raising their kids next to great parks and close to the libraries and arts while others want to raise their kids where they can go out back and ride their dirt bike and fish in the creek.  I enjoy waking up in the morning and seeing the deer or turkeys in the back yard.  Others want to wake up and walk down the block to the local coffee shop.  Nothing wrong with either.  I have lived in both at different stages of my life and will probably change again as kids mature and move and lifestyle needs change.

----------


## Teo9969

> This study doesn't really apply to OKC.  I live in OKC limits and I along with all of my neighbors are not provided city water, sewer,sidewalks, public transportation, storm and waste services so take all those off.  Most rural developments out this way are built by the developer (ie...the road and infrastructure of the neighborhood) so the cul de sac argument of recuperating the cost doesn't really apply here either.  My kids go to Moore schools and the school district provides the bussing...not OKC.  I question why it costs so much more for "governance".  As far as police, when I lived in downtown, I saw numerous cops...not that I live out, the only time I see an OKC cop is when they are running a speed trap on 104th.   
> 
> There is really no way to compare apples to oranges.  There are valid arguments and fallacies on both sides of the argument and way too many variables.  There are a lot of assumptions.  How do you figure the revenue from taxes.  Most homes I see in the rural developments are pretty expensive which means they are generating more tax revenue.  I am paying about 5 times more in property tax now than what I was in Heritage Hills East.  In HHE, I had new sidewalks, curbs, water, sewer, and had to have the police out couple of times when someone threw brick through window or when we heard someone prowling in backyard. (In 7 years here, never had to call police)
> 
> The urban core could not support all the things this city has to offer without those from outside the core.  It is the diversity of our citizens that is making this city great.  I can't wait for the streetcar even though I don't think it will ever run to 104th street because a strong downtown make the experience better for all.  People will always want to live different lifestyles.  Some value raising their kids next to great parks and close to the libraries and arts while others want to raise their kids where they can go out back and ride their dirt bike and fish in the creek.  I enjoy waking up in the morning and seeing the deer or turkeys in the back yard.  Others want to wake up and walk down the block to the local coffee shop.  Nothing wrong with either.  I have lived in both at different stages of my life and will probably change again as kids mature and move and lifestyle needs change.


Your property taxes are set by the county, no?

The overall point is that suburban living is heavily subsidized. The point I think generally trying to be made by the pro-urban crowd is that we just want those living in the suburbs to pay for it. It sounds like you have come far closer than your average deer-creek development since you do not have city services.

If every suburban home had water wells, non-city built & maintained roads (including "thoroughfares" like SW 104th&MacArthur, lacked city-based services, and residents paid non-subsidized gas prices to use their automobiles to move about, then there would be no argument for urbanists to hold against suburban-dwellers. There would also be far fewer people living in suburbia.

Nobody in this country lives an unsubsidized lifestyle, so I'm not trying to say that today's urbanism is devoid of that (see the TIF issue downtown as one example). But the amount of suburban subsidy is quite a bit higher. That much is obvious from historical development patterns.

----------


## Jeepnokc

> Your property taxes are set by the county, no?
> 
> The overall point is that suburban living is heavily subsidized. The point I think generally trying to be made by the pro-urban crowd is that we just want those living in the suburbs to pay for it. It sounds like you have come far closer than your average deer-creek development since you do not have city services.
> 
> If every suburban home had water wells, non-city built & maintained roads (including "thoroughfares" like SW 104th&MacArthur, lacked city-based services, and residents paid non-subsidized gas prices to use their automobiles to move about, then there would be no argument for urbanists to hold against suburban-dwellers. There would also be far fewer people living in suburbia.
> 
> Nobody in this country lives an unsubsidized lifestyle, so I'm not trying to say that today's urbanism is devoid of that (see the TIF issue downtown as one example). But the amount of suburban subsidy is quite a bit higher. That much is obvious from historical development patterns.


Forgot about gas...propane here for that too.  Sw 104th and MacArthur were here long before neighborhood as both directly feed the FAA and Mike Monroney Center.  Thus, the city infrastructure was already in place.   Which brings up another interesting point...two of my neighbors work for FAA so their commute doesn't really tax the system.  People work all over the city and not just downtown.  Shouldn't they live near their work?  How many people in Deer Creek and those areas work in Edmond, Mercy and surrounding medical facilities, Lynn Energy, etc.  How do you figure in the economic impact offsetting the subsidies?  What about all the people in East OKC that work at Tinker...should they live downtown also?  How do you figure Tinker's economic impact?  A lot of East OKC was developed when GM was still out at 240 and Sooner.  Brand new apts were just built out east on 240...these are dense and taking advantage of the infrastructure that was there from the GM plant and South Tinker....do we attribute all of the subsidy to them or so we get to offset it with the economic benefits from those companies? How much tax base comes from Memorial road, I 240 corridor, the outlet malls....would any of this be there if everyone lived downtown? Do we offset the cost for this?

I am not super familiar with Deer Creek but it appears that they have their own water district and their own fire department so not completely subsidized by downtown OKC residents.  I noticed some houses for sale at Coffee Creek and Penn that were septic systems and Deer Creek water.  

I agree that OKC should not have annexed the whole damn county and I wish we were not part of OKC.  

It is both downtown and suburbia that that make for a great community.  There is no way downtown alone could have paid for the canal, the Peake, the streetcar, new library, civic center remodel, the new park, etc.  In those aspects, an argument can be made that suburbia is subsidizing downtown.  I don't mind as it makes for a great city. If you want the good...comes with the bad.  The nice airport and all the other nice things we have come from the population of the whole city.  

It isn't has easy as telling people they have to move downtown or pay more.  How about we divide maps up by urban and suburbia projects and only the tax base from those areas pay for the projects.  When I spend money in the urban core, the extra penny goes to urban projects and when I spend money in the suburban area....it goes to those projects.  That had been one of the complaints about MAPS is that it favors downtown.  I have the same message for those people also....it benefits all of us and makes for a stronger more vibrant city.

I agree that everyone is subsidized but my point is simply that  I don't think it is easy just to say that suburbia is heavily subsidized when there really is no way to compare and certainly no way to figure in the economic impact the surrounding businesses contribute back into the city economy and/or the actual costs.

----------


## Montreal

Please don't frame this as a downtown vs. the suburbs argument. I apologize for my poor word choice by not qualifying "suburban-style development" as *sprawling* suburban-style development. I am a fan of traditional neighborhood design with a mix of uses and a fair number of single family homes, which was the suburban norm for many many years. I am not a fan of government mandated, subsidized, and heavily-encouraged sprawl (both commercial and residential) that all-too-often fails to be fiscally self-sufficient.




> The majority of what you said is common knowledge and is besides the point. It costs less to serve high density vs. low density. No way! Here's the thing, I don't care. I'll take my suburban yards and sprawled out neighborhoods with green yards and blue skies vs. your concrete jungle.
> 
> You want both, we already have it. Stop saying every level of government favors cars over people in every case because it's bs...


Plutonic Panda, this isn't a well-reasoned response because it's not what I said, and it's not very true on your part. My initial point was to refute your notion that our real estate and transportation systems, and the decisions that result from them, are a free market. U.S. government policy, in the majority of cases, provides disincentives to traditional urban or suburban development by limiting what type of structure can be built on a plot of land and how much of a structure can be built on that land—essentially a heavy tax on this type of development. Car-favored transportation policy follows as traveling by car becomes the only viable way in those resulting built-environments—essentially a tax on families who may choose to spend car dollars differently in a less skewed market. Yes there are examples like the streetcar that swing the other direction, but they are anecdotal when looking at the grand scheme of things. I believe I did a sufficient job proving my case, so I won't belabor the issue too much more, but I will leave you with two more examples:
The Cost of Sprawl: More Than $1 Trillion Per Year, New Report Says - Developments - WSJ
US Federal Budget FY16 Estimated Spending Breakdown - Pie Chart (about three quarters of ground transportation dollars go towards car transportation) 

I do welcome a well-reasoned response from you. 

Also Jeepnokc as for subdivision developers building their roads initially, this is oftentimes correct, but the perpetual maintenance and upkeep are then offloaded onto the city/county/etc. At this point, they become steep liabilities for the respective government where upkeep and replacement cost more than the tax base created by them.

To the both of you, I encourage you to read the following resources to gain a more accurate picture of the economic portion in particular.
Strong Towns Blog ? Strong Towns
New Urbs | The American Conservative
The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream: Christopher B. Leinberger: 9781597261371: Amazon.com: Books (by Chris Leinberger)

And for a civic and quality of life perspective on the effects of our modern society, including sprawl, Robert Putnam cannot be recommended enough:
http://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-.../dp/0743203046
Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis: Robert D. Putnam: 9781476769899: Amazon.com: Books

----------


## Plutonic Panda

I will respond more in depth tomorrow, but I will say this for now, what I said most certianly was a well-reasoned response, it just wasn't whay you wanted to hear. No matter.

----------


## DenverPoke

> We have some cranes; Thunder Blue tower cranes.


Looks great! 

Obviously a totally different beast, but it isn't pretty crazy to think that Toronto has roughly 150 cranes in the sky right now. Amazing.

----------


## Just the facts

> Looks great! 
> 
> Obviously a totally different beast, but it isn't pretty crazy to think that Toronto has roughly 150 cranes in the sky right now. Amazing.


I just did a google search for that - holy cow!  That puts things in perspective.

----------


## Mississippi Blues

I was in Toronto in June. That city is incredible as far as construction goes. What also stood out to me was that despite all the construction, it was such a clean city.

----------


## AP

> I was in Toronto in June. That city is incredible as far as construction goes. What also stood out to me was that despite all the construction, it was such a clean city.


I've made it pretty clear in the past based on how much I've gushed over Canadian citys, but man I just love that country. They are doing A LOT of things right up there.

----------


## bchris02

> I've made it pretty clear in the past based on how much I've gushed over Canadian citys, but man I just love that country. They are doing A LOT of things right up there.


I agree.  Canadian cities, even smaller ones, seem to do a much better job with urbanism than cities in the United States do.  Downtowns are much larger and more dense than American cities of the same size. Just look at Calgary.  Even their suburbs are a lot more compact and make more sense in their design.  I am not sure what caused their cities to develop so differently than cities in the U.S.  One common theme I see in most Canadian cities is their sprawl seems so much more contained.

----------


## Pete

Canada is a lot like Australia in that they were both founded and developed about the same time as the U.S. (newer, huge countries formerly part of the Commonwealth) but the difference in the U.S. is that we were dominated so long by auto manufacturers and oil companies and that drove the ridiculous highway building and sprawl and the simultaneous crushing of the existing public transportation infrastructure.

Both those countries have far fewer people in bigger geography, but their cities are dense have have amazing mass transit that almost everybody uses.

In the U.S., we completely sold our soul to a few massive corporations to drive a short-term economic engine and now we are paying a huge huge price and will be for many generations to come.

----------


## BoulderSooner

The USA is bigger in land area than Canada and Australia.  

90% of Canada pop lives within 300 miles of the U.S. Border. Because of the frozen tundra that is the entire north of Canada

Australia has a giant desert covering most of the country. The population is all within less then 10% of the country. 

Vancouver for instance almost everyone has a car and lots drive 30 plus min to work a day

----------


## AP

19% of people in Vancouver take public transit to work........................................... Commuting to work

----------


## TU 'cane

> The USA is bigger in land area than Canada and Australia.  
> 
> 90% of Canada pop lives within 300 miles of the U.S. Border. Because of the frozen tundra that is the entire north of Canada
> 
> Australia has a giant desert covering most of the country. The population is all within less then 10% of the [country's habitable geographic area]. 
> 
> Vancouver for instance almost everyone has a car and lots drive 30 plus min to work a day


This... So much... This...

----------


## Spartan

> The USA is bigger in land area than Canada and Australia.  
> 
> 90% of Canada pop lives within 300 miles of the U.S. Border. Because of the frozen tundra that is the entire north of Canada
> 
> Australia has a giant desert covering most of the country. The population is all within less then 10% of the country. 
> 
> Vancouver for instance almost everyone has a car and lots drive 30 plus min to work a day


Europe and Russia are even more inhabitable than the U.S. Theory debunked.

----------


## HOT ROD

Sorry to bring up the Canada Urbanism and please feel free to move/merge to another thread but I 'have' to comment here.

Actually, Canada has more land mass than the USA, even including Alaska. And as someone who has been to Vancouver many times since I live so close, I can definitely say that VISIBLE use of transit is far more than most any US city irregardless of the 19% figure. That likely mean half a million people a day use transit, find me an american city not NYC, Chicago, Boston, DC, with those numbers. 

Vancouver has the #1 busiest bus route (for example) in North America, with over 50,000 pax per day per direction (98 B line) in the busiest transit corridor - Broadway (over 100,000 pax per day). Each of their 3 metro (SkyTrain) lines gets 100,000 pax per day. Travel to Vancouver and you see this (and cars too). Not too shabby for little ole Canada's 3rd largest city with only 19% transit use.

----------


## AP

^Thank you. Go Canada.

----------


## SOONER8693

Hooray for Canada. Problem is, we all live in the crappy old USA. So, we suck.

----------


## Rover

Quick comparison Vancouver v OKC:

You would need around 4,072.16$ in Vancouver to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 3,400.00$ in Oklahoma City, OK (assuming you rent in both cities). This calculation uses Consumer Prices Including Rent Index. This comparison assumes net earnings (after income tax).

Indices Difference	Info
Consumer Prices in Vancouver are 4.08% higher than in Oklahoma City, OK
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Vancouver are 19.77% higher than in Oklahoma City, OK
Rent Prices in Vancouver are 63.89% higher than in Oklahoma City, OK
Restaurant Prices in Vancouver are 7.59% higher than in Oklahoma City, OK
Groceries Prices in Vancouver are 2.13% lower than in Oklahoma City, OK
Local Purchasing Power in Vancouver is 10.75% lower than in Oklahoma City, OK

Note, these are after tax comparisons.  The tax rates in Canada are usually higher than in the United States. In Canada, tax revenue makes up 38.4 percent of the GDP, while in the United States, the tax revenue makes up 28.2 percent.

Also note that the average time to get to and from work/school in Vancouver is nearly twice the time (40 min vs. 20).

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Vancouver and spend time there.  But if we did the same things here, this board would blow up with bitching about costs, etc.  Many of the same people who extol the virtues of these great places can in no way afford to live there.

----------


## Pete

> Many of the same people who extol the virtues of these great places can in no way afford to live there.


There are tons of people who live in Vancouver (and New York, SF, Boston, Seattle and other great North American urban cities) who are not rich.

Lots and lots of people are willing to trade owning a home or renting a big apartment for living in a city with great public transport, tons to do within walking distance, great recreation, etc.

Anyone can "afford" to live anywhere.  There are just tradeoffs.

----------


## Bellaboo

> There are tons of people who live in Vancouver (and New York, SF, Boston, Seattle and other great North American urban cities) who are not rich.
> 
> Lots and lots of people are willing to trade owning a home or renting a big apartment for living in a city with great public transport, tons to do within walking distance, great recreation, etc.
> 
> Anyone can "afford" to live anywhere.  There are just tradeoffs.


This past September we spent a couple of weeks in Hawaii on vacation. I could not believe the number of people 'camped out' on three different islands we visited. We saw an old lady sleeping in the back seat of her beater of a car, with an oxygen line running from the front of the car (outside) to a compressor and bottle plugged into an electrical outlet... in a park. The city of Honolulu was making sweeps removing tent villages from highway medians. There are a lot of people existing in Hawaii who can't afford to be there. My wife got back from Seattle a few weeks ago and said she saw lots of park benches full, people living out of trash cans for food down by the public market. We were there a year ago and she said it was worse this time around. I'm sure the West coast weather being somewhat mild attracts a lot of people who otherwise would not be there.

----------


## Pete

^

There are tons of people living on the streets in OKC too.


I used to run a nonprofit that had an outreach program for the homeless in Los Angeles (another very expensive place to live) and virtually none of those people were homeless due to the cost of living.

----------


## jerrywall

> Canada is a lot like Australia in that they were both founded and developed about the same time as the U.S. (newer, huge countries formerly part of the Commonwealth) but the difference in the U.S. is that we were dominated so long by auto manufacturers and oil companies and that drove the ridiculous highway building and sprawl and the simultaneous crushing of the existing public transportation infrastructure.
> 
> Both those countries have far fewer people in bigger geography, but their cities are dense have have amazing mass transit that almost everybody uses.
> 
> In the U.S., we completely sold our soul to a few massive corporations to drive a short-term economic engine and now we are paying a huge huge price and will be for many generations to come.


Wasn't the creation of the massive highway system driven by national defense concerns and logistical needs?  We just became more dependent on it over time for personal use.

----------


## adaniel

> Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Vancouver and spend time there.  But if we did the same things here, this board would blow up with bitching about costs, etc.  Many of the same people who extol the virtues of these great places can in no way afford to live there.


I have some old college buddies that work in the movie biz up that way, so I hear all time about how expensive Van is. Lots of wealthy Chinese gobbling up RE there, as with the Bay Area and the San Gabriel Valley near LA. At the same time Vancouver has been at the forefront of allowing unconventional housing types as a  more affordable option. Think micro-apartments, "tiny houses", and laneway homes (homes built on existing residential lots that front the back alleys). 

Most US cities are zoned and deed restricted within an inch of their lives, and even the most progressive cities would have the NIBMY doom squad threatening to burn down their city halls if half of this was allowed. How embarrassing that "socialist" Canada is more in tune to the housing needs of their citizens and are more willing to let the free market work that good ol' capitalist USA. 

Something else to consider when comparing US and Canadian cities. They never had to experience the nearly complete and total departure of their white middle class the way a lot of US cities did. This is not to suggest that Canada is a utopia of tolerance and understanding (FAR from it), but the white flight a lot of US cities suffered between WWII and the early 1990s was a pretty unprecedented movement of people in the modern history of the developed world. Car companies and developers had a lot to do with it, but all they had to do was tap into a lot of existing angst over crime and race. It is a minor miracle a lot of cities have not ended up like Detroit, i.e. completely bankrupt with large tracts of city completely abandoned.

----------


## Canoe

What is the best book detailing the rise and fall of Detroit?

----------


## Urbanized

A great read on Vancouver's planning process from ULI: How Vancouver Invented Itself - Urban Land Magazine

----------


## hoya

> What is the best book detailing the rise and fall of Detroit?

----------


## adaniel

Interesting article. Did not know where to put this:

As Trends Shift, Urban Home Values Outpace Those in the Suburbs - Jan 29, 2016

FYI, OKC urban home values are about 2K higher than what can be found in the suburbs.

----------


## KayneMo

Are there any prospects for the vacant land along N Broadway between 13th and 16th?

----------


## KayneMo

I would love to see more of these types of houses built throughout the core. All of the ones pictured were built in 2010, located in Chicago.

----------


## AP

^ditto

----------


## HangryHippo

> ^ditto


Word.

----------


## skanaly

I'm curious as to what everyone thinks about a development this size, for such a crucial site. Are people expecting more taller, denser buildings? Or is this a stretch? Please comment, I'd love to hear what people believe will be built here. I basically downsized the clayco dev. for the sake of posting this.

----------


## Pete

^

Very nice!

And actually, the Core 2 Shore renderings showed something similar; just conceptual but generally the same idea, with retail along both Reno and the blvd.

----------


## ChrisHayes

What ever happened with the Core to Shore plan? I know 2008 put a halt on a lot of stuff, but is there any plans for that general area beyond the park and the CoOp?

----------


## Teo9969

Denser buildings, yes...Taller buildings not necessarily. I can't post enough just how much I think the Sony Center in Berlin should be sort of the framework for how both the Cox site and the Ford site are developed. 






Without focusing on things like the roof, the facades, the gimmicks, pay attention to how this building simultaneously creates its own environment yet still interacts with the surrounding environment. An open space that brings people in yet maintains visibility between MBG and Central Park/Santa Fe station. Yet it also maintains interaction at street level (at least on the sides where it's most important). 

But it's also big. It's plenty big to house significant office space, a number of housing units, plenty of retail/restaurant options (which on the Ford lot will be critical for the Convention Center to be the best C.C. that it can be). I think that on each pad there could be a 20+ story building, but I would rather 80% of the block be built at 12-15 stories high than 10% built at 20+ and 90% built at 4-6 stories high.

The connectivity opportunity between 3 of the most important sites downtown (MBG, Central Park, SF station) is massive, and I'd love to think that it's a given that these two developments will push for that, but it costs a lot of money to leave a hole in the middle of a project so that there's direct-line access to MBG from the other two sites. It's the #1 most important aspect of these sites, followed directly by density and mixed-use.

They might just be the 2 most important pieces of real estate in the entire state of Oklahoma. So the projects should be ambitious.

----------


## skanaly

Yes, for the cox site I 100 percent agree. A 'central hub' for downtown OKC would be crucial, just like you said, allowing people to connect from the gardens, SF station, the CBD and from Thunder games. This site I believe is the most valuable site in downtown...with the Ford site coming in 2nd and Prod. Coop coming in 3rd. 

This is what I have for a fill on the Cox site, but would much rather see something with 'a bit of everything' ...I had to make the building on the south-east corner a parking garage knowing OKC's history...

----------


## Teo9969

I don't mind that design on the Cox site if you rotated it 90where the tall building is by CHK. The goal is to not have to walk from the Santa Fe Station over one block to Reno or Sheridan and then enter the park at the corner. I think we should aim to be able to walk out the door from Santa Fe Station straight ahead and true without running into any building until we've reached the other side of Robinson (or whatever it's called right there).

Same thing on the other site. You should be able to walk a straight-line on the Harvey spine from park to park without running into a building. If you do the spaces right, they will constantly be full of people, because they will be places unto themselves, and create a synergy in the area that will make the area truly feel like it's a place for all people at all times.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Going south on 235 past Bricktown... the view is incredible. Amazing how much it has transformed. With East Bricktown Hotel Complex, Staybridge, Bodyworks Development, and The Hill is will even better. Now if the Coca Cola Even Center lot can get developed that will be great!

----------


## warreng88

I have said it before and I will say it again, I think the best set up for this site would be to split it into four quadrants. The NW quadrant (SE corner of Robinson and Sheridan) would be a high-rise apartment/condo building, the SW quadrant (NE corner of Robinson and Reno) would be a high rise office building, the SE quadrant (NW corner of Gaylord and Reno) would be a high rise hotel and the NE quadrant (SW corner of Gaylord and Sheridan) would be the parking garage for all. The parking garage and hotel area would have space on the ground floor and maybe two floors up for the multi-modal hub expansion. The Harvey and California street grid would be put back, but would be 100% pedestrian and retail would be on the ground floor, facing into the middle. That, I think, would be the best use of the property, with changes as we expand mass transit as needed.

----------


## KayneMo

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4391...2!8i6656?hl=en

Other than the nearby warehouses, this would be a great spot for residential development. The view of downtown is awesome!

----------


## Teo9969

> https://www.google.com/maps/@35.4391...2!8i6656?hl=en
> 
> Other than the nearby warehouses, this would be a great spot for residential development. The view of downtown is awesome!


Isn't Mount Trash more just to the south?

----------


## KayneMo

^ About 3 miles to the south.

----------

