# OKCpedia > General Real Estate Topics >  Map of Potential Infill Sites in Central OKC

## shane453

I came across a thread at SkyscraperCity (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=12557910) where one of the members had created images comparing some North American cities by taking a Google Earth shot from 9000 ft and filling in areas of surface parking lots to show how surface parking dominates business districts. This got me wondering how Oklahoma City's shot would look.

I knew that the core of our CBD has no surface parking lots, but beyond that there are a lot of them. As I started drawing them out, I noticed that raw land (where structures have probably been demolished in the past) is extremely plentiful in central OKC. So I have made maps showing most of the sites in central OKC where a developer could build WITHOUT TEARING DOWN A SINGLE BUILDING.

Here is the map with parking and greenfields shown:



Parking only:



And greenfields only (SoSa, the area South of the Medical District (SoMed?), and the area between the Medical District and DT are amazing):





And we thought the frontier days were over. We have work to do!

----------


## Kerry

Shane453 - thank you for taking the time to do this.

----------


## circuitboard

This is awesome! Thanks for the work on this!

----------


## Spartan

Looks like a very Merry Christmas downtown.

----------


## Kerry

@Shane453 - can you give the link to the skyscraper page again?  The one above doesn't work.

----------


## jmarkross

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...690618&page=31

----------


## bombermwc

I must be the minority here, but I don't feel like we need to populate every square foot with concrete in one shape or another. I actually like seeing areas of green around without a building there....it reminds me that "oh yeah, there is nature her". It's actually a very good thing to have greenspace in an urban area folks. Not only does it help have somewhere for some of the rain to go to help refill aquifers (if it's all concrete it just goes into the over flowing storm sewer to dump to the rivier and be fed downstream out of our auqifer), and it also helps to clear the air. The more conrete we have, the fewer air scrubbers we have. I look at a google map of somehwere like LA and get depressed at all the conrete and lack of green. And their bad air is an example of how that "paid off" for them. I'd rather take a stance like Portland any day.

----------


## Architect2010

Ummm, those lots were once filled with development. I'm sure the city wasn't so unhealthy and had horrible flooding problems because there were continuous plots of development. That is an excessive amount of open land in the core of the city and it's not a good thing.

----------


## Kerry

> I must be the minority here, but I don't feel like we need to populate every square foot with concrete in one shape or another. I actually like seeing areas of green around without a building there....it reminds me that "oh yeah, there is nature her". It's actually a very good thing to have greenspace in an urban area folks. Not only does it help have somewhere for some of the rain to go to help refill aquifers (if it's all concrete it just goes into the over flowing storm sewer to dump to the rivier and be fed downstream out of our auqifer), and it also helps to clear the air. The more conrete we have, the fewer air scrubbers we have. I look at a google map of somehwere like LA and get depressed at all the conrete and lack of green. And their bad air is an example of how that "paid off" for them. I'd rather take a stance like Portland any day.


There is a place for people like you.  It is called the suburbs.  All that smog in LA is caused by people driving hours everyday just to get to work and back.  If LA had high-rise density like NYC, Vancouver, Hong Kong and Singapore, or low-rise density like London and Paris, they wouldn't have a smog problem.  In fact, LA is the poster child for bad urban sprawl.  Intersting that you cited them as a "what not do" example.

----------


## metro

Those renderings are telling, someone needs to smack the city council with them on how bad the problem really is.

----------


## Kerry

As bad as those pictures are, they get even worse if you had some way to quantify the quality of the structures on the non-vacant land.  We aren't Detroit bad, but we are in pretty bad shape.  There is a long long long way to go just to get OKC back to the density of 1940.  Just think, OKC went from nothing to super dense in 40 years.  Can we do it again?

----------


## Pete

Although things are better now, the amount of un- or under-developed property around downtown and just beyond always smacks me in the face when I come for a visit.

As illustrated, there are still huge gaps everywhere, even in the 'better' areas of Midtown and northward.


We've got a long way to go but at least we are on the right track.

What would help most is to turn OCURA into a pro-active entity and actually fill it with people that have a passion for and knowledge of urban development.

----------


## okclee

Shane, thank you for putting in more work in one weekend than OCURA has done in a year. 

Time to send my monthly email to the city in reference to OCURA, and ask how the Urban Renewal website is coming along?

OCURA must become more accountable and the leader for urban renewal and growth. Like Pete said OCURA must be "pro-active"!

Again take a look at the urban renewal websites of cities Denver and Portland.
http://www.renewdenver.org/
http://www.pdc.us/

----------


## Rover

Great work!

This illustrates why it is so hard to convince developers to build UP instead of building suburban style.  Until land is scarce and therefore valuable, we will have this problem.  However, some creative incentives, restrictions, taxations, permitting, etc. could attack this.

I happen to think a surtax on dilapidated properties, unkempt properties, vacant properties, etc. should be imposed so that it gets expensive to just hold onto properties without doing something to improve them and the city around them.  Right now there is no disincentive.  If it becomes progressively expensive to own, the owners would be forced to develop or sell.  On the flip side, expedited permitting, tax incentives for the right kind of construction, etc. can encourage quicker development.

----------


## circuitboard

> Great work!
> 
> 
> I happen to think a surtax on dilapidated properties, unkempt properties, vacant properties, etc. should be imposed so that it gets expensive to just hold onto properties without doing something to improve them and the city around them.  Right now there is no disincentive.  If it becomes progressively expensive to own, the owners would be forced to develop or sell.  On the flip side, expedited permitting, tax incentives for the right kind of construction, etc. can encourage quicker development.


I like this!

----------


## Kerry

You're correct Rover, there needs to be a push and a pull.  Your point about the disincentive to build is spot on also.  This is why I said I would rather see mediocre development take place if for no other reason than to use up all the available ground space.  Once that is gone then everything has to go vertical.  Step one is getting rid of the empty lots and surface parking.  This can be done by making it to expensive to let it sit vacant but by also simplifying the process to build with incentives for going vertical.

I would be in favor of freezing property taxes at the current level for 5 years for every 5 floors of vertical development for residential projects.  For example, there is a lot now that pays $7,500 per year in property taxes.  If they build a 10 story residential mid-rise they would pay the same $7,500 per year for 10 years.  After that it would go up.  Meanwhile, the value of surrounding properties would go up as normal over the 10 years.  People would have to develop or get out of the way.

----------


## Rover

> I would be in favor of freezing property taxes at the current level for 5 years for every 5 floors of vertical development for residential projects.  For example, there is a lot now that pays $7,500 per year in property taxes.  If they build a 10 story residential mid-rise they would pay the same $7,500 per year for 10 years.  After that it would go up.  Meanwhile, the value of surrounding properties would go up as normal over the 10 years.  People would have to develop or get out of the way.


How about property tax being on the land only and a separate tax for the improvements that gives them certain credits for construction costs, etc., helping them justify increased investment.  The land tax could be established and raised each year without material improvements and then when construction starts be reduced to the original low level.  Improvement taxes don't start until the building is permitted for occupancy or use.  Things like surface parking would be considered same as undeveloped with rates reduced on parking garages based on investment made (multiple story).

Maybe be creative on prop tax for condos...for instance, make sure all within the development area are less than same size suburban property taxes for similar.  Reduced rates for every additional floor....10th floor rates are cheaper than 3rd floor.  Give incentives for condo owners or builidng owners to build UP.  

Maybe a suburban development tax can be added for new developments and those taxes go primarily to subsidize inner city development. 

Then, lightning fast track construction permitting, inspections, etc. so that developers can reduce their construction financing costs and risk of market changes.

----------


## Kerry

You might be able to do that Rover.  My only concern is that if the plan gets too complicated, it will scare people away, or discourage them from even trying to figure it out.

----------


## Midtowner

Rover, the supervision of such a system would be too objective and obviously wide open for fraud and abuse.  

Honoring the KISS policy, the smart play is just to eliminate property tax exemptions for developers.  Make sitting on land cost money.  That's a win-win for the city--it motivates development to increase the value of the property and the tax base, while adding a new and significant revenue stream.

----------


## Kerry

Midtowner - do you have an example of property tax exemptions for developers?  People should not get an exemption for sitting on vacanct property.  If they are a 'developer' they need to develop.  Otherwise they are land speculators and need to pay up.  Unfortunately, OCURA is the worst land speculator disguised as a 'renewal' authority.  They hold property for decades and OKC doesn't get a penny in property taxes.

----------


## Rover

> Rover, the supervision of such a system would be too objective and obviously wide open for fraud and abuse.  
> 
> Honoring the KISS policy, the smart play is just to eliminate property tax exemptions for developers.  Make sitting on land cost money.  That's a win-win for the city--it motivates development to increase the value of the property and the tax base, while adding a new and significant revenue stream.


I agree wholeheatedly.  But I think the issue is in clearly delineating the program, helping people understand it, more than the complexity of it.  It has to be done such that favorites are not played...that the rules are the rules for everyone.

The city has in many ways suffered from not having a real development plan with teeth.  People and companies do what they are $$$ motivated to do.  Something has to be actively done to change the $$ dynamics or it will take a century to work off the undeveloped inventory of land.  HOPING will not do it.

----------


## shane453

Couldn't find edit button on original post, but here is the corrected link: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1255791

Enjoying the discussion on disincentives/incentives to help encourage development of underutilized land. I'll dig around to see if I can find examples from other cities. I know I've heard of basing taxes on the value of the property rather than the structure, so that vacant core properties might be taxed as much as nice homes in the suburbs based on the value of the land. There may even be some merit to something as simple as a marketing campaign generating awareness to developers about these abundant opportunities for infill. Our best hope in OKC is for some of our big suburban developers to decide to try their hand at a few urban developments, so making them aware of the infill opportunities would be a good step.

This map could also be used to show density of vacant space, which could help in the streetcar planning. Walker, 4th St, and Robinson all look like they would benefit greatly from having a streetcar line nearby. Walker especially, because it has a lot of vacant space but also a lot of existing nodes nearby. (Sycamore/Legacy/Civic Center, Plaza Court/St Anthony)

Bomber, your point is correct that not every inch should be filled with concrete and buildings- there is a place for open space in the urban environment, but it is better for it to be in the form of a park or other public space rather than a parking lot (which is not a welcoming environment) or private vacant lot. However, I think a vacant lot is preferable to a surface parking lot because you have places like the triangle between 4th and Gaylord that become unofficial gathering spaces.

Also for comparison's sake, here's one I made of Tulsa:



And here are a few of the others from the SkyscraperCity thread.

Houston



Seattle



Vancouver (Really well known for its desirability for residential construction)

----------


## Spartan

They were a little generous with the Houston map. In addition a LOT of the red lots have been filled, particularly around the Discovery Green...

----------


## blangtang

how hard would it be to put a color on the OCURA properties?

----------


## HOT ROD

> Great work!
> 
> This illustrates why it is so hard to convince developers to build UP instead of building suburban style.  Until land is scarce and therefore valuable, we will have this problem.  However, some creative incentives, restrictions, taxations, permitting, etc. could attack this.
> 
> I happen to think a surtax on dilapidated properties, unkempt properties, vacant properties, etc. should be imposed so that it gets expensive to just hold onto properties without doing something to improve them and the city around them.  Right now there is no disincentive.  If it becomes progressively expensive to own, the owners would be forced to develop or sell.  On the flip side, expedited permitting, tax incentives for the right kind of construction, etc. can encourage quicker development.


Amen Rover - very well stated!!!

Midtowner, Kerry, Pete - this is great discussion. And definitely thanks to Shane for initiating.

This is very good, and progressive discussion.

----------


## bombermwc

> There is a place for people like you.  It is called the suburbs.  All that smog in LA is caused by people driving hours everyday just to get to work and back.  If LA had high-rise density like NYC, Vancouver, Hong Kong and Singapore, or low-rise density like London and Paris, they wouldn't have a smog problem.  In fact, LA is the poster child for bad urban sprawl.  Intersting that you cited them as a "what not do" example.


It doesn't have to be a suburb. But the kind of thinking that everything has to be concrete also leaves us with a food issue. Granted this is an exaggeration, but you can't look at an area that's not developed as backwards. Where do you think your food is grown...in rural areas. Yes, that's not downtown and entirely different point. But that's where my air point comes into play.

Yes, in LA people need to ride the bus more, Chicago does a much better job, but it's still pretty bed. Look at Dallas...DART hasn't made a dent in traffic. 

Somewhere like D.C. is a place I would consider a good example. Look all around that city and the surrounding cities (i'm not going to call them burbs because they are cities in their own right). There is a lot of green around there and it's still very much vibrant, alive, and is much cleaner in air quality. The Potomac stinks to high heaven, but that's just crap in the river. 

The arguement of downtown still having room to grow out instead of up is a good one. That's one reason why it's hard to convince anyone to build a tower downtown. Land further out is so much cheaper, why do it? When you've got someone like Devon, you've found gold...but there are a dozen that didn't move for every one that did.

I'm not trying to be a debbie downer or anything, I'm just saying that making it all concrete has it's drawbacks. They aren't as immediately tangible, but they are there.

----------


## shane453

Yeah bomber- DC is a good example- but do you want to see a map of vacant lots and surface parking in downtown DC, the TODs of Arlington, etc? There will not be very many.

Also, the idea that "if everything is concrete there will be a food issue" is exactly the most significant reason that infill of these central city lots should be considered such a priority- channeling growth to the developed areas will take some growth away from the rural fringe where suburban residential development is actually eliminating the source of our food.

----------


## dedndcrusr

> Also, the idea that "if everything is concrete there will be a food issue" is exactly the most significant reason that infill of these central city lots should be considered such a priority- channeling growth to the developed areas will take some growth away from the rural fringe where suburban residential development is actually eliminating the source of our food.


Exactly! Which uses up more food bearing land, a high-rise apartment building built on a former vacant lot in downtown OKC, or a 150 acre tract home development built in a wheat field on the outskirts of OKC?

----------


## Kerry

> Yes, in LA people need to ride the bus more, Chicago does a much better job, but it's still pretty bed. Look at Dallas...DART hasn't made a dent in traffic.


It has made a dent in the traffic for the people that use it.  DART wasn't created so people on the freeway would have less traffic, it was created so people taking the train would have less traffic.  It works everytime it is tried.




> Somewhere like D.C. is a place I would consider a good example. Look all around that city and the surrounding cities (i'm not going to call them burbs because they are cities in their own right). There is a lot of green around there and it's still very much vibrant, alive, and is much cleaner in air quality. The Potomac stinks to high heaven, but that's just crap in the river.


I think you are confusing the New Urbanism with the Old Urbanism.  Once you see the completion of Project 180 you are going to be surprised at how much green can be added without the addition of parks.  A tree that provides oodles of green canopy only needs a few feet of sidewalk space.  The tree in my front yard has a huge canopy, but at the ground level it sits in a bed that is less than 4 feet across.




> The arguement of downtown still having room to grow out instead of up is a good one. That's one reason why it's hard to convince anyone to build a tower downtown. Land further out is so much cheaper, why do it? When you've got someone like Devon, you've found gold...but there are a dozen that didn't move for every one that did.


This is why the City needs to create incentives to build in the core.




> I'm not trying to be a debbie downer or anything, I'm just saying that making it all concrete has it's drawbacks. They aren't as immediately tangible, but they are there.



You don't get much more concrete than London, but they have streets like this.

----------


## Pete

Back to OKC -- and I hate to keep beating the OCURA horse -- but there is simply no proactive effort on the part of the city to make development happen.

This is particularly distressing given the tremendous amount of taxpayer dollars that have been poured into the central core.  Some organic development has followed but not nearly enough, as Shane has dramatically illustrated.

Maybe we should just leave OCURA alone and start over with a progressive city body that targets specific neighborhoods and properties for acquisition, promotion and incentive to build.


Right now, we merely plow hundreds of millions of public money in and then sit back and wait.  There are many other progressive cities that have created a model for us to follow -- we don't have to reinvent the wheel here, just someone (the mayor, most likely) needs to recognize the need for the wheel in the first place.

----------


## Kerry

> ... but there is simply no proactive effort on the part of the city to make development happen.


I have always thought the New Urbanist were fighting the right battle but for the wrong reasons.  For years I heard about green this and green that and blah blah blah.  Most people don't want to hear that.  This battle should always have been fought on the tax front.  Nearly everyone hates taxes and almost everyone does as much as they can to avoid paying them.  If the tax benefit of high density urban development was brought to people's attention it would have been much more successful, especially in places like Oklahoma City where most of the people are overwhelmingly opposed to taxes in the first place.

Your comment Pete that there was not a proactive effort on the part of the city to make development happen is wrong.  There is an effort, but that effort is all directed at the outer fringe.  Most of taxes and cost used to build new roads, fire stations, police stations, electrical systems, cable systems, telephone systems, parks, and sidewalks is spent at the outer fringe.  The problem is the outer fringe is always expanding so the hole just gets deeper and wider.  We have to stop the insanity.

When a 150 unit condo building is constructed in the urban core, the road in front of it doesn’t have to be built – it is already there.  But when 150 homes are built along Memorial new roads have to be constructed and maintained.  We need to get more out of our existing tax funded assets before we go building new tax funded assets.  The tax and cost benefit needs to be emphasized more.  The City should simply say, no more tax payer funded construction outside a designated development line.  If you want to build out there the homeowners have to pick up 100% of the cost and maintenance.  Government can't afford it anymore.

----------


## BG918

> When a 150 unit condo building is constructed in the urban core, the road in front of it doesn’t have to be built – it is already there.  But when 150 homes are built along Memorial new roads have to be constructed and maintained.  We need to get more out of our existing tax funded assets before we go building new tax funded assets.  The tax and cost benefit needs to be emphasized more.  The City should simply say, no more tax payer funded construction outside a designated development line.  If you want to build out there the homeowners have to pick up 100% of the cost and maintenance.  Government can't afford it anymore.


I agree.  Make new subdivisions pay for all new infrastructure costs, which would then be carried down to future residents.  Also throw in added costs for police and fire protection, or don't offer it all.  If developers can still make enough money to go through with the project then they can proceed but at least the city is not subsidizing sprawl.  

The key is creating an inventory of the infill sites in the inner city, then contacting the land owners about selling their property.  More people would buy/sell land if there was such an inventory.

----------


## OKC@heart

Okc Smart Growth Steps:
I think that the plan should work somewhat like this...First there needs to be an educational campaign that helps citizens learn what their tax dollars are buying as it relates to development.  Maybe we could do this in the video form on PBS locally, make a big deal about it in the media and make sure that everyone is able to watch and is aware of this. Likely the show should not be any longer than 30 minutes, and should be well crafted and feel like in a OKC Chamber PR format what we have accomplished and how we have improved ourselves against all odds, but acknowledge that we have a long way to go. To get to get there will require many steps.  Then launch into how we are planning to derive maximum effect of these investments but to do so require some changes.  Next provide a well-documented, thorough but concise explanation of the benefits of a strong urban core; resulting in job creation and stability for the surrounding communities.   Then explain that our current incentives reward development on the fringes rather than in the central core where the city and as a result the entire metropolitan area derives the greatest benefit from.  The basic thrust of the presentation should be to help the tax base understand that to get the most out of the investments that they have been making though the MAPS programs we need to put the new procedures in place.  Then roll out the proposal of a smart growth type plan with geographical districts identified where the greatest incentives will be in place.  Then somewhat diminished incentives the further you go out away from the core.  I know that this is not a new concept as it has been implemented successfully in other cities.  I do however think that it is going to take the concerted effort of a core group of people to initiate the process and then get the citizens on board to put the appropriate amount of pressure on the mayor and city council to implement the plan. I don't see how else it will take place.

----------


## okclee

Developers already pay for all new infrastructure costs, and they do pass it on to the future residents. You just can't get around the fact that suburban land is cheap and if Okc doesn't want them to develop within city limits, Edmond, Moore, Deer Creek, Choctaw etc. will. 

This isn't an Okc problem or a developers problem. This is about the citizens of Okc and their demand to live in the suburbs. It is what the people want in Okc if more people were demanding urban living developers would be all over it.

As an experiment try talking someone that is living in the suburbs into moving downtown and be prepared for them to look at you like you are nuts.

----------


## Kerry

> Developers already pay for all new infrastructure costs, and they do pass it on to the future residents.


Really, what subdivision paid to expand Memorial from a 2 lane road to what you see today?  Who is paying for street improvements around the Oklahoma City Outlet Mall, taxpayers or developers?  Any idea the cost spent on Lake Hefner Parkway, what developer kicked in the money for that?  Sure they might spend money to build the residential street directly in front of the house, but taxpayers pick up the maintenance tab forever.

----------


## betts

> As an experiment try talking someone that is living in the suburbs into moving downtown and be prepared for them to look at you like you are nuts.


Fewer than you would think, but mostly the young and empty nesters are seriously interested.  I get asked about it all the time, and people usually comment on how fun they think it would be (which it is!). People also comment on how tired of caring for a big lawn they are (I don't miss it at all!). There are a couple of issues that people who live here have expressed that I think a lot of cities don't have.  People have expressed the concern that you can't live downtown with dogs.  Here, I think a lot of people must like putting their dog out in the backyard for an extended period of time.  It is true that if you live downtown you have to walk your dogs.  My dogs love it, but I see a lot of skeptical faces from people.  The other thing I hear is the lack of an outdoor swimming pool in many of the downtown living options.  Because the climate here is so hot, a lot of people are accustomed to using a pool a lot and I've heard people express the fact that they want a pool and they can't get one downtown, except at the Centennial. Maybe that and the fact that it was the first downtown living option have something to do with the fact that it sold out quickly.

Currently, I think the economy is definitely affecting interest in moving downtown as well.  People worry about what they can sell their house for, and so far downtown prices haven't really decreased the way some of the suburban prices have, perhaps with the exception of the Hill.  I've heard they've dropped prices there although I can't confirm that.

----------


## bluedogok

> Really, what subdivision paid to expand Memorial from a 2 lane road to what you see today?  Who is paying for street improvements around the Oklahoma City Outlet Mall, taxpayers or developers?  Any idea the cost spent on Lake Hefner Parkway, what developer kicked in the money for that?  Sure they might spend money to build the residential street directly in front of the house, but taxpayers pick up the maintenance tab forever.


Those were ODOT designated corridors and most of the right-of-way was acquired long before any development occurred. The frontage roads of Memorial from Western to Meridian have been there as long as I can remember.

----------


## okclee

Downtown Okc, a great and fun place to visit but not a great place to live. Not my thoughts, but this is what many people are thinking. These people enjoy Bricktown, Thunder games, running downtown marathons, downtown arts fest, and having a night on the town, but they also love their quiet gated neighborhoods and pulling into their 4 car garage.

I too often hear living downtown would be fun, BUT....excuse, excuse, excuse. (really, swimming pools and needing to walk your dog? lol, that is two of the worst)

Developers know this and hear this too. There are some top notch real estate agents that are giving it everything they have to sell people on downtown and it is a slow go. 

If it is going to change, the mindset of the people needs to change first. The city and developers will adapt to what the people want and demand, and right now the demand is not in downtown. If it does change, the infill will begin to happen. Unfortunately OCURA will still be running things and let's hope they are prepared by then. 

Can we get an OCURA website packed with Okc urban development info?!?!? Is that asking to much??

----------


## betts

Actually, the lack of an outdoor swimming pool was almost a deal breaker for my husband, and we've got several very close friends who love to come down and visit us, looked at townhouses and said they just cannot give up their pools.  So, I'm not sure I would say it's a bad excuse.  It's a reason, and obviously important for some people.  I don't miss our pool, but he swam every night in the summer and still says he misses it, despite the fact that we belong to the downtown Y.

And, while I like it because I get exercise, it is a commitment to have a dog downtown, because it's really best that they be walked twice a day, or at least once.  Some people aren't willing to make that kind of commitment.  Or they truly believe their dogs will miss the opportunity to lie out in the grass, they have big dogs who need to run, etc.  I don't think they're bad excuses.....just the way people think.  But again, I think this is a real reason, not an excuse.  

What will probably happen eventually, as Oklahoma City expands downtown, is people will move here from other cities where downtown living is commplace, and they'll not think twice about living here.  The streetcar will get built and more of the Deep Deuce/Triangle area will get built up, making people less nervous about making an investment.  I didn't grow up here, and when I lived in Denver I always lived downtown or close to it.  I tried the suburbs here and hated the drive and the open space.  There will, over time, be more people like us and our downtown will eventually be more like other downtowns.  I'm not really worried, just wish it would happen sooner rather than later.

----------


## Kerry

> Those were ODOT designated corridors and most of the right-of-way was acquired long before any development occurred. The frontage roads of Memorial from Western to Meridian have been there as long as I can remember.


That is what I am saying -taxpayers had to pick up that bill.  Are we going to fund the construction of another Memorial 5 miles further out?

----------


## OKC@heart

One of the things that aided Austin in the Residential, Hotel and office construction was the influx of jobs from the technology sector.  They had people coming from California & Chicago who were used to much higher price points and were already wanting to live downtown. This aided in accelerating the demand for downtown housing options and increased the price points as well. All things needed in order to justify the high cost of construction required to make a project like that viable. As far as amenities go, people are right.  May sound like a trivial matter (pool and walking dogs) however the amenities that have been offered to date are worse in some cases than your run of the mill apartments in the burbs. That is not conjecture that is a fact. Take a tour of any self-respecting urban residential high-rise or even midrise good density type project and most of them are going to offer an amenities deck, with Pool, rentable cabanas, community use grilling areas and event areas, many have fitness centers with some even having spa services.  All there to enhance the urban lifestyle.  It really isn't about getting families downtown, (that works for some but a much more limited group) no it is really targeting the empty nesters, divorcees, singles etc...those who don't want the commute, driving for everything, yard maintenance, ready access to arts and entertainment and the use of great public parks and spaces for their personal enjoyment. They typically work very hard but are able to enjoy the same time at home due to a lack of commute and gas/wear and tear on the car, often only one car, if that. The time that they spend at home is for eating and sleeping and often they spend the evenings out on the town at local favorite spots away from the trendy touristy spots such as Bricktown. Sure they will go there and enjoy the scene, but usually to meet friends who are coming in from out of town for a game or some other function.  Oh and about parking, most of them plan on more than just one space per unit.  Typically they plan for 1.5 per unit or some formula like that so that they have visitor spaces separate from resident parking (security).  They will also have some units that can opt to purchase two spaces if they have multiple cars; you know one business car and one fun car.  Most offer valet services and some of the bigger ones will offer a car detailing service during the day.  

If you think about it, that could make for quite a nice living experience.  Factor the costs of all the gym memberships, pool and maintenance fees, HOA fees, etc...Lump them all into the cost of the mortgage add what your time is worth, in the to and fro, plus increased insurance costs and wear and tear, gas etc...And while you still might pay a bit more it begins to be more comparable and if nothing else the convenience of having all of the city as a back and front yard is a pretty enticing package. In addition to that think about this, most of the properties in growing cities will vastly increase in value due to the growth and pressures created due to lack of space in the more dense areas, and so up goes the value in conjunction with the desire to be there, and so as far as an investment is concerned, it can have handsome rewards as time moves forward.  Makes even more sense as you age and wish to have access to the services and amenities but a reduced desire to maintain everything. Hospitals within a short distance no shortage of medical expertise.  Yes it has a great deal of allure for many folks, but when you have never seen or experienced it or have been around those who do or have, it is a foreign concept, so it is not a surprise that it will take some time.  However I fully expect that with the increase of out of stators moving in that we will see this demand on the increase and that the standards will have to be raised to what the consumers in the know are used to in other markets.  The developers who get it and apply it will be rewarded handsomely.  Those who attempt it in any other way will regret it and then try to say it must be a demand issue...and they would be partly right and the error would have been on their side having failed to meet the market expectations. 

I think our natural first major opportunity to do an exciting high-rise residential project will arrive (if not before) with the construction of the Convention. It will already need a very large hotel to accommodate some of the demand for the conventions, and it will not be able to handle it alone so there will need to be several large scale hotels built in and around downtown. With these come the opportunity to combine the amenities that are required for these type of Hotels and offer them to the residents that live in the tower above the podium and hotel levels. This allows you to have an anchor tenant that is able to sell services to a much larger patron base than just the overnight guests. Good for the Owners of the condos because of the amenities and services that come with a full service hotel. Great for the investors and developers because they are able to achieve a much taller and grand structure that becomes a draw in itself without having to take 100 risk as they have an operator who is a long term tenant offsetting a chunk of the construction costs.

----------


## okclee

I apologize for using the word excuse, bad wording. Should have said, "living downtown would be fun, BUT....reason 1, reason 2, reason 3".  I hear it all the time too. 

It's easy to come up with reasons to not live downtown. Once the deciding factors become equal and the list of pros vs cons of downtown living evens out, real development will start to happen.

----------


## BG918

In lots of cities the new downtown developments, whether they be lofts or condo towers, have swimming pools.  The Centennial and Legacy are the only newer projects that have pools.  I'm really surprised the higher priced Block 42 didn't include a pool.

----------


## Pete

Even the Deep Deuce apartments have a pool.


In many ways, pools are even more important in a dense project as most people have little or no outside space.

----------


## betts

Without factoring in anything but the really obvious, it's $30,000 cheaper a year for us to live downtown in an only slightly smaller house versus a house on a lot with a pool.  My utilities are one tenth what they were, and then there's lawn and pool maintenance, decreased insurance costs, decreased property taxes, etc. That's without factoring in gas, wear and tear on cars, difference in resale value of low mileage cars, etc.  In 5 years, I'll have saved at least $150,000.  People complain about the cost of property downtown, but if you deduct $30,000 a year from your expenses, it gives you a lot more disposable income and that's not a bad thing.  

But, I agree that pools are important.  I haven't been able to convince our developers of that, however.

----------


## okclee

betts.. Having said all that, how may people have you been able to convince into moving downtown?

I think you are one of, if not the best promoter for Okc downtown living.

----------


## Pete

The Hill had a pool in their original plans but who knows if that will ever get built.

----------


## Architect2010

I willing to bet you okclee that if there were a variety of builds and prices to choose from with different amenities to the level of a complete and matured neighborhood, then Downtown would be easily persuadable to many. Thing is, Downtown housing and the Downtown community is faaaaaar from being complete. That's what this whole thread is about. Look at the maps provided. Unlike the suburbs, people expect the downtown area to already be matured. Which it isn't. It's not just DOWNTOWN vs Suburbs. You're forgetting the whole inner-city around downtown. There are more options than strictly urban and strictly suburban and they are explored every single day by potential buyers. Why do you think the inner-city has seen such a dramatic revival? Yes, the suburbs are the fastest growing portion of our city, but that comes with our southern way of life, our car-culture, and our human-nature to be wasteful and consume which is a whole other topic.

----------


## betts

> The Hill had a pool in their original plans but who knows if that will ever get built.


I seriously considered the Hill simply because of the pool and then decided I just didn't like the configuration of any of the townhouses, compared to Maywood and also wasn't sure the pool would ever happen.  My husband worried about highway noise.  We've got train noise, but we actually usually like that.  Sometimes when we leave our bedroom door open at night to catch a cool breeze we are reminded that trains can be very noisy.  

I haven't completely convinced anyone to move down here, but I'm working on a couple of people.  Again, if people thought they could sell their homes for a reasonable amount of money I think they'd be more interested.  I'm hoping as the economy improves and the neighborhood has a few less empty lots, people will feel bolder.  A closer grocery store would help too, although I think that's a bit overrated, personally.  It was never one of my reasons not to move.

----------


## Kerry

> I apologize for using the word excuse, bad wording. Should have said, "living downtown would be fun, BUT....reason 1, reason 2, reason 3".  I hear it all the time too. 
> 
> It's easy to come up with reasons to not live downtown. Once the deciding factors become equal and the list of pros vs cons of downtown living evens out, real development will start to happen.


I hear these same excuses (that is what they are) from my wife when I even mention of living in an urban enviornment.  Just tonight on our way home from dinner we drove by a coffee shop near our home.  She mentioned how she always wants to go there but doesn't want to drive there.  I told her it would be nice if we lived in a walkable area.  She said yep and then went on about when she was in Chicago to see her sister they walked to the grocery store because it was so close.  I just wish she would start to connect the dots.  Here is the thing that kills me the most: said coffe shop is only 100 yds from our backdoor (I can see the front door right now from our second story windows).  However, because we live in a subdivision, it is a 1.24 mile walk each way (unless we want to cut through someones back yard and scale an 8' privacy wall).

----------


## betts

What happened to alleys?  They were a great place to locate utility easements, offered people an option to having their garages face the front of the street and offered access between fences.  And, I've just about had it with privacy walls around subdivisions as well.  Just as you say, Kerry, it offers people very limited access out of their subdivision, and gives such a closed-in feeling.  As I've said before, my son lives in the Springfield neighborhood in JAX. We were able to walk to dinner several times, as well as to a coffee shop nearby.  There's a lot of empty retail that would be excellent for redevelopment in that area, and I hope as the economy recovers it happens.  He's got a great alley that allows him access to his garage/carriage house.  It also allows lots to be narrower.   I became very nostalgic for alleys when I visited.

----------


## Platemaker

> What happened to alleys?


I've often wondered that myself. They only exist in the oldest parts of OKC, yet some cities - like Altus - build alleys for all new subdivisions and streets.

----------


## USG'60

Alleys are perfect for trash pickup, underground utilities, etc.  It is sad that they were discarded when tract house suburbia became the thing.

----------


## Pete

Regarding alleys, sometime after WWII and the great spread out to suburbia, they were forsaken in favor of large backyards.

It used to be that homes were oriented toward the street; shorter setbacks and large front porches.  But more and more Americans preferred big, private backyards to interacting with their neighbors.

Thankfully, we are starting to see a push back towards alleys and putting cars in the back where they belong, and more front-oriented homes.


Plus, homes just look better without a huge garage dominating at least half of it's front elevation.

----------


## bluedogok

The main reason why alleys are unpopular with developers is that they eat up space that could be sold and yield a better profit.

I absolutely hate the alley/garage system that is so dominant in the Dallas area. It creates a bunker mentality in most people if they never have to interface with their neighbors. I have more interaction with neighbors when I am out front and see them come home as opposed to pulling into a blind alley and into their garage never to be seen. I do prefer a garage set behind the house with a front, street access like my Great Grandfathers house in Heritage Hills. The biggest thing that has reduced interaction is the lack of porches and people using them.

----------


## Spartan

I wanted to bump this thread in light of our city's apparent difficulty to find room for new developments and convention centers.

----------


## CaptDave

> I wanted to bump this thread in light of our city's apparent difficulty to find room for new developments and convention centers.


Good call.....wonder if any of them will actually look?

----------


## progressiveboy

> The main reason why alleys are unpopular with developers is that they eat up space that could be sold and yield a better profit.
> 
> I absolutely hate the alley/garage system that is so dominant in the Dallas area. It creates a bunker mentality in most people if they never have to interface with their neighbors. I have more interaction with neighbors when I am out front and see them come home as opposed to pulling into a blind alley and into their garage never to be seen. I do prefer a garage set behind the house with a front, street access like my Great Grandfathers house in Heritage Hills. The biggest thing that has reduced interaction is the lack of porches and people using them.


 I agree that the alley system does not encourage interaction with neighbors and it also encourages crime. In Dallas, robbery is a common thing when residents drive their cars through the alley ways and are greeted by a robber. The one thing I do see good about having garages in the back of the house is it detracts from seeing all the junk in ones garage and with the style of many homes in Dallas being "ranch style" it adds beauty in the front of the house and just looks good "aesthetically". Just my opinion of course.

----------


## wschnitt

> you want to build out there the homeowners have to pick up 100% of the cost and maintenance.  Government can't afford it anymore.


Well said.

----------


## MidCenturyModOKC

This is a great thread!  I am so interested in the infill opportunities in NW OKC!  Oklahoma City is one of the largest cities in America (by square miles) and that has left behind a huge number of Urban Core vacancies!   

I have begun work on a business plan centered around developing single family new res on infill lots in NW OKC!  I feel these are the perfect options for building new modern styled, energy efficient homes.  My research shows that OKC has a huge demand for Modern style and brand new energy efficient green options in the Urban Core!  Primarily young professionals like myself, so price points will be a major factor, but why can't this be done in OKC?  One of my favorite blogs 100khouse.com shows that you can build with an eye on modern style, energy efficiency, and budget in PA, but I think we should bring it to OKC!

----------


## UncleCyrus

Small update to the first map image: I believe that green triangle between NE 4th, Lincoln Blvd., and I-235 now has a building on it.

----------


## UncleCyrus

> It has made a dent in the traffic for the people that use it.  DART wasn't created so people on the freeway would have less traffic, it was created so people taking the train would have less traffic.  It works everytime it is tried.


Well said!

----------

