# OKCpedia > General Real Estate Topics >  Why does OKC have such a lack of condos and townhouses?

## adaniel

This is both an observation and a rant, so bear with me. 

I have noticed compared to other cities, OKC has a serious dearth of any quality condo and townhome developments. I am talking about the entire city, not just the core area, as we all know the 2008 crash derailed any hope of large scale condo developments in that area. A quick look on Zillow reveals that OKC has 102 condos and townhouses for sale. That compares to 188 for Tulsa, 66 for Little Rock (of course Little Rock has 67% fewer people than OKC but only 35% fewer listings), and 276 for Kansas City. I realize this isn't super scientific and browsing through the listings showed a lot of 70's shag carpet specials. 

I also remember a story in the Journal Record that revealed than up to 9% of people surveyed would like to own a condo/TH but they consisted of 1% of total housing units in the city. Even in my very suburban hometown, townhouse developments, many quite high end, have been popping up and selling out fast. 

I have always felt that OKC's housing stock is very undiverse; if you don't want a standard suburban lot or something semi rural you are really out of luck here. At the same time, with more young people moving here, baby boomers looking to downsize, and people waiting later to have kids if at all, you would think developers would start looking seriously at adding some for sale multi family units. Am I really asking too much here?

----------


## Pete

Because:

1. Single family homes are super cheap.
2. Because it's very easy to get anywhere in OKC, so people can just move to the most affordable option (houses)
3. Previous condo / townhouse developments have sold very poorly due to reasons 1 & 2.
4. Appreciation rates are well below singe family homes


In fact, I asked this question a few years ago and it was rhetorical because I knew the answer:  Has OKC EVER had a successful condo project?

The answer at the time was an absolute NO.

All the projects in Deep Deuce (Maywood Lots, The Hill, Brownstones, Block 42, Central Avenue Villas, etc.) were having a terrible time selling their units.  Things have turned around but it took years and years after completion.  That is a very bad news for a developer.

The one exception has been the Centennial.  It sold out quickly.

Besides that, the city is littered with townhome and condo projects that completely failed or spent years in low-sales pergutory.  And not just downtown, all over the place.


It's starting to change in the downtown areas due to the access to all the urban amenities, but for the most part condos and townhouses have been very bad investments for both the developers and purchasers.

----------


## Pete

BTW, you can still buy a very nice home in Mesta Park (not to mention Gatewood, Jefferson Park, etc.) for well less than almost all the condo options downtown.

----------


## Urbanized

Everything Pete said is correct. To distill it down even more: cheap, abundant land with absolutely zero barriers to new development on the fringe.

----------


## Pete

Rather than a pure townhouse or condo, patio homes seem to have found a niche around OKC.

Even Gallardia has relatively small lots given the size of the homes.


When it comes right down to it, land is so cheap around OKC it doesn't make sense to squeeze a lot of units into a small space.  Construction is by far and away more expensive than the land.  Out here in California, it's just the opposite.

So, rather than share a wall or two or three with neighbors, people can opt for a stand-alone home with a low or zero maintenance small yard.  And those projects seem to do pretty well.


I should add that I think the Waterford sold pretty well, as another notable exception to the dozens and dozens of projects that have largely failed.

----------


## Urbanized

Location, location location. It's probably why one day some condo projects downtown will make a certain amount of sense.

----------


## Garin

What part of town are you look in?

----------


## bchris02

OKC finally started getting the attention of real estate speculators just as we were approaching 2008. Projects that had not broken ground when the recession hit were cancelled. Had the 2008 recession happened in 2010, OKC would probably have a few downtown high-rise condo towers.

----------


## adaniel

So OKC has too much cheap available land but Tulsa, Little Rock, Kansas City, and my hometown of Plano Texas do not? Not trying to be rude here but this assumption does not hold up. 

Maybe because you are coming at it from a strictly utilitarian stance; I am looking at it from a lifestyle perspective. Lots of people (myself included) have busy lifestyles and do not have time for yard maintenance nor do they need 2,000 square feet to heat, cool, or maintain. I don't think I am some special snowflake; more people would buy a quality condo on townhouse if it was offered. In fact, I am posting this after I read these articles recently:

Aging Boomers to Boost Demand for Apartments, Condos and Townhouses - Real Time Economics - WSJ

And these. 

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...side-Nashville

Condo conundrum: Lots of demand, not enough building | Star Tribune

While Nashville and Minneapolis are bigger than OKC, they are largely sprawling urban areas with lots of cheap land (although less so for Minneapolis).

As you pointed out, the Waterford and a handful of other condo developments are holding up well here, because they were built at a high quality and have a strong HOA.

And I will politely disagree that there are a lot of patio homes developments available in OKC. I would actually jump at one, but the only developments I can think of are currently are Gaillardia and Edinburgh, both of which are well north of 400K. I could be wrong though.

----------


## bchris02

Little Rock, Tulsa, Charlotte, etc all have very cheap land as well. That isn't the issue. It's all about timing and the fact OKC's proposals had the unfortunate luck of coming too close to the recession, therefore had not broken ground, therefore cancelled.

----------


## zookeeper

> So OKC has too much cheap available land but Tulsa, Little Rock, Kansas City, and my hometown of Plano Texas do not? Not trying to be rude here but this assumption does not hold up. 
> 
> Maybe because you are coming at it from a strictly utilitarian stance; I am looking at it from a lifestyle perspective. Lots of people (myself included) have busy lifestyles and do not have time for yard maintenance nor do they need 2,000 square feet to heat, cool, or maintain. I don't think I am some special snowflake; more people would buy a quality condo on townhouse if it was offered. In fact, I am posting this after I read these articles recently:
> 
> Aging Boomers to Boost Demand for Apartments, Condos and Townhouses - Real Time Economics - WSJ
> 
> And these. 
> 
> http://www.tennessean.com/article/20...side-Nashville
> ...


You make some valid points here. There really are many people who would pay MORE for LESS as long as it came with convenience, nothing too large that they feel lost in it, etc. The minimalist and simplicity movement is growing, and they're looking at much more than square feet.

My problem with the whole condo thing is outrageous HOA fees that when tacked on to your mortgage, they're simply unaffordable for many. In fact, I guess that's basically what you were saying about the patio homes. Good post, adaniel.

----------


## Pete

> Little Rock, Tulsa, Charlotte, etc all have very cheap land as well. That isn't the issue. It's all about timing and the fact OKC's proposals had the unfortunate luck of coming too close to the recession, therefore had not broken ground, therefore cancelled.


The only condo / townhouse project I know of that was cancelled was the forerunner to the Edge.

There just hasn't been the demand for these types of projects...  I could name dozens that actually were built and were pretty big failures.


adaniel, if you would provide a price range, house size, and general area, then we can point you to some of the developments that might be suitable.

----------


## onthestrip

I think the reasons there have been a lack of them (developers going for more rentals since '08, along with already mentioned reasons) are starting to disappear. Financing is starting to come around as well as demand for for-sale units. I think we will begin to see more projects, starting with Lisbon Lofts, come along in downtown/midtown in the next few years. We will also see more land of St. Anthonys used for more for-sale projects as they own a scattering of midtown properties, many of them suited for townhome type projects. 

It'd also be nice to see OKC encourage more density in the core and try to prevent single family homes being built on individual lots. Basically I want more, and I think we will see more, of housing similar to Lisbon Lofts which should begin construction soon.

----------


## Pete

The reason there are so few of these projects is because all the previous ones have been failures.  And often huge, awful failures.

What people say they want and what they actually buy are usually two completely different things, and there has simply not been the demand.

----------


## OKVision4U

> You make some valid points here. There really are many people who would pay MORE for LESS as long as it came with convenience, nothing too large that they feel lost in it, etc. The minimalist and simplicity movement is growing, and they're looking at much more than square feet.
> 
> My problem with the whole condo thing is outrageous HOA fees that when tacked on to your mortgage, they're simply unaffordable for many. In fact, I guess that's basically what you were saying about the patio homes. Good post, adaniel.


Whoever places the 1st High-End Residential Tower ( 25 stories ) in the CBD, will have the demand to fill it 100%...w/ all the amenities, it will move quickly.

----------


## bchris02

> Whoever places the 1st High-End Residential Tower ( 25 stories ) in the CBD, will have the demand to fill it 100%...w/ all the amenities, it will move quickly.


I think it depends on if its apartments or condos. A lot of the developments in Charlotte and in Little Rock had to be repurposed as apartments following 2008 because they weren't selling as condos.

----------


## betts

Just cutting lots to 25' widths helps density a lot and that's what's happening in SoSA.  As houses near the core are torn down and land values skyrocket, skinnier houses become logical.  It's the perfect compromise:  not a condo, but markedly less lawn to keep up.  We may see more and more of that as young people who have rented downtown want to buy and yet stay close to amenities.

----------


## OKVision4U

> I think it depends on if its apartments or condos. A lot of the developments in Charlotte and in Little Rock had to be repurposed as apartments following 2008 because they weren't selling as condos.


The price p/sf will be roughly the same, so either /or. I'm surprised that we have not seen this type of development being announced.

----------


## Anonymous.

> The reason there are so few of these projects is because all the previous ones have been failures.  And often huge, awful failures.
> 
> What people say they want and what they actually buy are usually two completely different things, and there has simply not been the demand.


Maybe he is lumping the Cotton Exchange in there?



I agree, OKVision4U, the first residential tower that goes up is going to make a killing. And this is why I play the lottery.

----------


## adaniel

> Just cutting lots to 25' widths helps density a lot and that's what's happening in SoSA.  As houses near the core are torn down and land values skyrocket, skinnier houses become logical.  It's the perfect compromise:  not a condo, but markedly less lawn to keep up.  We may see more and more of that as young people who have rented downtown want to buy and yet stay close to amenities.


This would actually be a good compromise and I am a bit surprised this hasn't already caught on. The inner loop in Houston is filling up with these "skinny homes" on lots about half the size of a typical suburban lot. And for the most part they are still pretty low maintenance. As an aside I am REALLY rooting for Lisbon Lofts because that may be the thing that jump starts new for sale development. 




> You make some valid points here. There really are many people who would pay MORE for LESS as long as it came with convenience, nothing too large that they feel lost in it, etc. The minimalist and simplicity movement is growing, and they're looking at much more than square feet.
> 
> My problem with the whole condo thing is outrageous HOA fees that when tacked on to your mortgage, they're simply unaffordable for many. In fact, I guess that's basically what you were saying about the patio homes. Good post, adaniel.


Thanks. If anything I have been thinking more about this because I have friends who SFHs that were way too big for them and now they hate having to mow grass, pay for ac/heat, maintenance, etc. But looking around there is really not a lot of choices for them. You are right about more people embracing a "less is more" mantra and would be willing to pay if it is of high quality. 




> The only condo / townhouse project I know of that was cancelled was the forerunner to the Edge.
> 
> There just hasn't been the demand for these types of projects...  I could name dozens that actually were built and were pretty big failures.
> 
> adaniel, if you would provide a price range, house size, and general area, then we can point you to some of the developments that might be suitable.


FWIW I think condos during the "bigger is better" 2000s were a tough sale nationally, and especially after the 2008 crash. But demographics are changing and they are becoming more doable for a lot of people. But lets face it developers here are sloooooowwww to adapt to any new trends. And thank you for the offer to help, but as of now I am only dipping a toe into the market. I want this to be a discussion more than anything.

----------


## OKVision4U

The CBD could have a couple of towers, Bricktown could have a couple of 12 - 16 story towers for high end apartments.

----------


## Spartan

I think you guys are missing the point. Property laws in Oklahoma are weird. I forget the exact specifics, but I know Richard McKown went into a 5 minute lecture once about how state law sucks and needs revisions. There may be a legal issue with HOAs in condos.

Obviously state law is a bigger factor than excessive land, because there should still be enough condo supply in a major U.S. metro to account for "different strokes for different folks." This is why I'm so militantly anti-suburb; because we're overbuilt there and it's doing nothing for us. We really need to diversify our housing supply, badly. The morons elected to the State House would consider that blasphemy though.

----------


## Pete

> FWIW I think condos during the "bigger is better" 2000s were a tough sale nationally, and especially after the 2008 crash. But demographics are changing and they are becoming more doable for a lot of people. But lets face it developers here are sloooooowwww to adapt to any new trends. And thank you for the offer to help, but as of now I am only dipping a toe into the market. I want this to be a discussion more than anything.


I am talking about failures before, during and after the 2000's.

Unless I was looking downtown where new construction is the only option, I'd be looking at existing properties.  I just looked through the listings on Realtor.com and there are a bunch of options, and they are cheap.

And because the resale stock is so inexpensive and because past projects have failed miserably, you aren't going to see a lot of new development because there simply isn't the demand at new construction prices -- apart from downtown and even there the sales are far from brisk.

What we are seeing are droves of people renting nice apartments, which is why there are so many more of those projects being built.

----------


## Pete

> I think you guys are missing the point. Property laws in Oklahoma are weird. I forget the exact specifics, but I know Richard McKown went into a 5 minute lecture once about how state law sucks and needs revisions. There may be a legal issue with HOAs in condos.
> 
> Obviously state law is a bigger factor than excessive land, because there should still be enough condo supply in a major U.S. metro to account for "different strokes for different folks." This is why I'm so militantly anti-suburb; because we're overbuilt there and it's doing nothing for us. We really need to diversify our housing supply, badly. The morons elected to the State House would consider that blasphemy though.


Hard to discuss this without specifics but there have been tons of condos built in OKC.

And again, besides wanting an inexpensive, well-located, well-built condo -- which isn't going to happen due to the math of development -- what exactly are we missing from property diversity?

----------


## Spartan

> Hard to discuss this without specifics but there have been tons of condos built in OKC.
> 
> And again, besides wanting an inexpensive, well-located, well-built condo -- which isn't going to happen due to the math of development -- what exactly are we missing from property diversity?


We have nothing but ranch homes. Are you arguing the point about diversity of housing supply?

----------


## Pete

We have tons of 2-story homes, condos, townhomes, patio homes, apartments of all types...

What specifically are we lacking and where?

----------


## Spartan

Everything and everywhere.

I don't see how this is even up for debate.

----------


## Pete

> Everything and everywhere.
> 
> I don't see how this is even up for debate.


There is nothing to debate if you can't be specific.

----------


## Spartan

http://www.condo.com/StateLawDownloads/Oklahoma.pdf

I don't know, I'm not an expert on state law. But if you are to believe what several developers are saying, who would otherwise develop condo properties, then the answer lies in the text of this law.

Unless you're looking for more specifics on what real estate OKC does and doesn't have? We both know that OKC is the land of the ranch house. Arguing otherwise is like pleading that the glass is a quarter full.

----------


## Pete

I am quite sure that what McKown was saying is that the math of inexpensive condos won't work downtown; or even inexpensive apartments.  I don't recall anyone ever saying there was something about Oklahoma law that would make such projects too difficult -- that doesn't even make sense, especially since there are hundreds of condo developments in OKC and Tulsa.


As for the bigger issue, I think these "it all sucks but I don't want to get into specifics" discussions are pointless and was therefore trying to lead things away from sweeping generalities.

----------


## Spartan

Nope. The math thing is a canard because as has been correctly pointed out, condos seemingly exist in other land-locked cities. The local home-building establishment doesn't build nice multi-family. That's just a truth...perhaps because until lately the Oklahoma economy has never produced a great deal of transplants, who typically rent for the first year or two (like myself).

We build great ranch houses. That's what we do. We even come up for alternate typologies for them like "Dallas-style" lol

----------


## Pete

There are plenty of nice multi-family projects all over OKC, including condos.

----------


## adaniel

We have them but I definitely would not say that OKC has "plenty."

http://www.naisullivangroup.com/OKNe...ghborhoods.pdf




> Meeting housing demand over the next 20 years, he said, will require different kinds of
> building. He said 90 percent of housing being built now is designed for families with
> children, but that demographic represents just 34 percent of the population and is in
> decline.
> 
> More condos will be needed, Claus said. A city survey showed *9 percent of respondents
> wanting to live in a condo or town house, but those kind of homes make up less than 1
> percent of the housing supply in Oklahoma City.*

----------


## Pete

^

Yet, the existing condos/townhouses on the market now are going super-cheap, showing very little appreciation over the years -- far less than single family homes.

And the new construction projects have been very slow to sell.


I'm very sure that if demand picks up, there will be plenty of developers who will be happy to build and make money.  We are seeing that now in the apartment market.

----------


## bchris02

All of the huge, extravagant condo towers built in other cities during the 2000s were a prime example of the real estate bubble and the excesses of the era.  They were based on speculation and not market reality.  Yes, it would have been great for the OKC skyline if the market had waited a couple more years to go bust, but like in many other cities, they probably would have sat dark and empty, ended up foreclosed on, and then re-purposed as apartments.  Some in Charlotte simply halted construction and sat unfinished and still do to this day.

It sure would be nice to have something like the Austonian in OKC though.

----------


## DenverPoke

> http://www.condo.com/StateLawDownloads/Oklahoma.pdf
> 
> I don't know, I'm not an expert on state law. But if you are to believe what several developers are saying, who would otherwise develop condo properties, then the answer lies in the text of this law.
> 
> Unless you're looking for more specifics on what real estate OKC does and doesn't have? We both know that OKC is the land of the ranch house. Arguing otherwise is like pleading that the glass is a quarter full.


Denver is dealing with similar construction defect law issues.  There is HUGE demand for downtown condo development, but developers aren't willing to take the risk involved.  From what I understand, court rulings have allowed HOAs to pool money together on the behalf of individual unit owners to file a claim, thus there is virtually no cost/risk involved to the plaintiff so lawsuits increase exponentially. I've also heard that obtaining insurance is very difficult for developers, so much so that each unit requires $10-$15k in insurance, thus increasing the unit cost to a point where it makes less sense to build.

----------


## tomokc

Condos were overbuilt here in the 1970s and 1980s, including condo conversions from apartments. Many of the "premiere" condominiums were built by a developer known more for his eyewash than quality. The bust hit, that developer went away, and those well-heeled owners were left having to fix structural problems arising from shoddy construction. Today those people and their children remember this, and are justifiably reluctant to buy condominiums. 

There is demand for quality condominiums and small lot patio homes, at least in my part of town. There are wealthy boomer empty nesters wanting to downsize, but Chesapeake has bought virtually all of the submarket condo stock (even if available the units would all be 30+ years old, so consider these obsolete). One group recently bought a parcel of land on which they are attempting to sell lots for patio homes, but the lots are priced at $350,000 (on average) - build 3,500 sf at $200/sf and you're looking at $1 million. They haven't sold one in a year because there are too many nearby houses available for less than that, and are easier to finance. (My thought is that high rise condominiums should have been built on that parcel.)

I think the market is ready for condominiums, but buyers will have to get past their memories of the bad products built the 1980s, the market will have to digest Chesapeake's condominiums when they are sold, and a developer will have to step up to the plate. 

By the way, I sold one condominium in OKC last year, but own one in another market.

----------


## Rover

Don't know what part of town you are looking at, but there are a bunch of condo/town home/duplex/foreplex in north OKC.  Then, there are a several good zero lot line home developments too.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> All of the huge, extravagant condo towers built in other cities during the 2000s were a prime example of the real estate bubble and the excesses of the era.  They were based on speculation and not market reality.  Yes, it would have been great for the OKC skyline if the market had waited a couple more years to go bust, but like in many other cities, they probably would have sat dark and empty, ended up foreclosed on, and then re-purposed as apartments.  Some in Charlotte simply halted construction and sat unfinished and still do to this day.
> 
> It sure would be nice to have something like the Austonian in OKC though.


It's still going HAM in Miami.

This was to be built back in 2010 I think and it should be completed by now or still u/c but very close.




I don't want to Hijack this thread, but here is one more

62 stories tall.

Here is a website listing all of Miami's condo wether they're done or currently under construction. It is worth looking at as there are extremely impressive ones in there.
http://themiamicondocollection.com


-------

As for OKC, I think it just has to do with lack of interest at this point. Garden homes are apparently becoming very popular Edmond and I know there is a new condo development in Edmond on BLVD. and Covell. It is only 2 or 3 stories, nothing at all special. I think OKC will get some in the near future as the market expands.

----------


## bchris02

If there is another boom where these types of developments take off, especially speculatively, I would expect OKC would be in on it this time.  Such a boom would be a fast way to transform the skyline of OKC as well, much moreso than waiting for office towers to be built/announced.  It will take out of state money to make it happen.  The national economy, six years after going into recession, is still not firing on all cylinders but if/when it does I expect these types of developments to start being announced again.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

OKC will never experience a condo high-rise boom like Miami's, but we could definitely support a couple significant towers in the future I bet.

----------


## adaniel

> Don't know what part of town you are looking at, but there are a bunch of condo/town home/duplex/foreplex in north OKC.  Then, there are a several good zero lot line home developments too.


There are some very nice albeit a bit older patio homes off of 122nd and Meridian that are really nice. I went to a party there last year and was really impressed by the area; this person's home was right off a pond. I am a creature of downtown though and it would be tough for me to go north of 63rd, but I would be open to it. Like I said before I am personally just scoping out the market at this point and wondering if its even worth my time/money. 




> Condos were overbuilt here in the 1970s and 1980s, including condo conversions from apartments. Many of the "premiere" condominiums were built by a developer known more for his eyewash than quality. The bust hit, that developer went away, and those well-heeled owners were left having to fix structural problems arising from shoddy construction. Today those people and their children remember this, and are justifiably reluctant to buy condominiums....I think the market is ready for condominiums, but buyers will have to get past their memories of the bad products built the 1980s, the market will have to digest Chesapeake's condominiums when they are sold, and a developer will have to step up to the plate. 
> 
> By the way, I sold one condominium in OKC last year, but own one in another market.


Did not think of this. The few condos on the market here look no different that a typical run down apartment complex from the same era (1970s/80s). Of course nobody will buy that. It doesn't mean there is no market for them, just no market for crappy built ones. Developers here are just so conservative...if it ain't an "okie chateau" on a quarter acre out in Arcadia it won't sell. I hate this attitude...God help you if you want something *gasp* different. If we want to get a quality multifamily development in this city, either in the core or the suburbs, its probably going to take an out of state company. Who wants to start lobbying ?!?

Also I am curious as to your experience in selling you old condo. Did you have a hard time? Di you receive what you though you did price wise?

----------


## bchris02

> OKC will never experience a condo high-rise boom like Miami's, but we could definitely support a couple significant towers in the future I bet.


Agree.  Many cities much smaller than OKC, Little Rock for instance, got a few in the 2000s.

----------


## Rover

The problem with aging condo developments is that few have strong proactive associations who invest in common area improvement. As a redeveloper, it is hard and expensive to aggregate the units and do an overall rehab and improvement. A few bad owners can ruin the whole development if there aren't strong covenants that are vigilantly enforced.

----------


## Just the facts

Here is my take on it.  For decades in OKC there was nothing for condo development to center around and serve as anchor/attractor.  Very few places in the world are more spread out than Jacksonville, FL - and that includes OKC, but Jax has lots of mid-rise and high-rise condos.  They are all either waterfront or in high-density walkable neighborhoods.  OKC really has neither of those two things yet.  The Centennial is canal-front and it sold quickly and at premium prices, but Randy Hogan didn't make any more condos on the canal.  If he had lined the canal with 3 to 5 story condos he could have sold them all - but we all know he had zero urban building experience (and still doesn't).  Likewise with the Oklahoma River.  For some reason the city chooses not to urbanize it and instead dedicate the river banks strictly to parks and bike paths.  Some section of the river should be walled and development built right to the waters edge.

In downtown Orlando there is Lake Eola Park which rapidly filled up with mid-rise and high-rise condos.  Where is OKC's 'Lake Eola Park' that will induce demand for condos?  Answer, we don't have one.  The canal was our best attempt at it but we know how that went.  Then we had the river and we know how that went.  Then we had MBG and decided to surround it with a convention center, an old convention center, a single use office tower, plus whatever Stage Center becomes.  That leaves Core to Shore but the new central park is being made as suburban as can be so is there any doubt how that is going to turn out.

Condo towers aren't just going to appear out of low density suburban sprawl.

----------


## tomokc

> Also I am curious as to your experience in selling you old condo. Did you have a hard time? Di you receive what you though you did price wise?


It was older, lower-priced, in an area with little upside, and a rental property. The sales price wasn't great, but neither was the ROI. Leverage wouldn't affect the cash-on-cash return. Rather than have the money sitting in something that was doing nothing, I decided to put it to work elsewhere. I performed a little market analysis, picked an eager sales rep, priced it to sell and got it done.

----------


## Pete

Keep in mind that Founders Tower and The Classen are two recent high-quality, high-rise condo conversions that are still largely rental units because they could not sell them as condos.




> Did not think of this. The few condos on the market here look no different that a typical run down apartment complex from the same era (1970s/80s). Of course nobody will buy that. It doesn't mean there is no market for them, just no market for crappy built ones. Developers here are just so conservative...if it ain't an "okie chateau" on a quarter acre out in Arcadia it won't sell. I hate this attitude...God help you if you want something *gasp* different. If we want to get a quality multifamily development in this city, either in the core or the suburbs, its probably going to take an out of state company. Who wants to start lobbying ?!?


Again, I disagree with this assessment and I could link to a bunch of properties currently for sale downtown, in the NH area, Quail Springs, 63rd & May and elsewhere that are of quality at reasonable prices.

If you want something new, nice and located in the central core there are plenty of options, it's just going to cost good money.

----------


## warreng88

Does anyone think in five years we will have some apartments converted to condos for sale, specifically in DD? I know the DD apartments have been discussed, but I could also see Level doing the same thing if the need arises.

----------


## hoya

Condos aren't worth anything unless there's a lot of cool stuff to do right around them.  If I have to get in my car and drive to get anywhere fun then there's no reason not to live in a house.  The attraction to condos isn't "living in a condo", it's living right next to all the cool stuff.

The only place we have that within walking distance is right downtown.

----------


## Pete

^

A view and low maintenance would be two other reasons.

But you can get the low maintenance component in a patio home or a new home with a smallish lot, which seems to be the strong preference in the OKC market.

----------


## HangryHippo

> Here is my take on it.  For decades in OKC there was nothing for condo development to center around and serve as anchor/attractor.  Very few places in the world are more spread out than Jacksonville, FL - and that includes OKC, but Jax has lots of mid-rise and high-rise condos.  They are all either waterfront or in high-density walkable neighborhoods.  OKC really has neither of those two things yet.  The Centennial is canal-front and it sold quickly and at premium prices, but Randy Hogan didn't make any more condos on the canal.  If he had lined the canal with 3 to 5 story condos he could have sold them all - but we all know he had zero urban building experience (and still doesn't).  Likewise with the Oklahoma River.  For some reason the city chooses not to urbanize it and instead dedicate the river banks strictly to parks and bike paths.  Some section of the river should be walled and development built right to the waters edge.
> 
> In downtown Orlando there is Lake Eola Park which rapidly filled up with mid-rise and high-rise condos.  Where is OKC's 'Lake Eola Park' that will induce demand for condos?  Answer, we don't have one.  The canal was our best attempt at it but we know how that went.  Then we had the river and we know how that went.  Then we had MBG and decided to surround it with a convention center, an old convention center, a single use office tower, plus whatever Stage Center becomes.  That leaves Core to Shore but the new central park is being made as suburban as can be so is there any doubt how that is going to turn out.
> 
> Condo towers aren't just going to appear out of low density suburban sprawl.


I agree completely.  Lower Bricktown had a good shot at having some great living options and Hogan blew it masterfully.

It's frustrating to see Little Rock, Omaha, and other smaller cities getting mid to high rise housing and we're striking out on anything over 4 to 5 stories.

----------


## tomokc

> It's frustrating to see Little Rock, Omaha, and other smaller cities getting mid to high rise housing and we're striking out on anything over 4 to 5 stories.


Hem, we're discussing reasons that condo's aren't built in OKC (lots of land, desire for patio homes, bad history of shoddy condo development, etc.), so can you speak to why mid-to-high-rise condominiums are being built in Little Rock & Omaha?

----------


## Just the facts

This is part of the reason.

Density of Omaha MSA: 4,400 people per sq mile
Density of Little Rock MSA: 4,090 people per sq mile
Density of OKC MSA: 208 people per per sq mile

----------


## tomokc

Wow - 20x!!!

----------


## Just the facts

> Wow - 20x!!!


That's what happens you spread everyone across the prairie and this is why I have been saying density is everything.  If you want to keep the wheels of commerce turning during fuel price increases you can't do it at 200 people per sq mile.  OKC needs to get its act together - and soon.

BTW - nothing spells density like hundreds of acres in downtown land dedicated parks and open space. [/sarc]

----------


## bchris02

> This is part of the reason.
> 
> Density of Omaha MSA: 4,400 people per sq mile
> Density of Little Rock MSA: 4,090 people per sq mile
> Density of OKC MSA: 208 people per per sq mile


This is yet another statistic that paints OKC in a much worse light than it really is. Large swaths of all counties that are considered the MSA see completely empty. Even Oklahoma County is mostly rural when you are discussing land area. Unfortunately these are the statistics out of state developers look at and that's why OKC so often ends up getting the shaft on certain types of development. I am not sure about Omaha, but most of Pulaski County Arkansas is developed and the surrounding counties are pretty small land area wise compared to the counties in central Oklahoma.

----------


## Mississippi Blues

Just thought I'd throw this in since it's all related. My sister bought a completely remodeled townhouse today for $69.5k. It's in a little area just south of 122nd & N. May in the Quail Creek division on Rosewood Lane.

----------


## Just the facts

> This is yet another statistic that paints OKC in a much worse light than it really is. Large swaths of all counties that are considered the MSA see completely empty. Even Oklahoma County is mostly rural when you are discussing land area. Unfortunately these are the statistics out of state developers look at and that's why OKC so often ends up getting the shaft on certain types of development. I am not sure about Omaha, but most of Pulaski County Arkansas is developed and the surrounding counties are pretty small land area wise compared to the counties in central Oklahoma.


Even if OKC was 2X as dense, it would still be 10X less dense than Omaha and Little Rock.  If OKC was 10X as dense it would still be 1/2 as dense as Omaha and Little Rock.  Reality is, OKC is spread out.  When I lieved in Norman it was 19 miles from our apartment to downtown OKC.  Drive 19 miles from downtown Omaha and you'll be 10 miles in the country.

----------


## tomokc

> This is part of the reason.
> 
> Density of Omaha MSA: 4,400 people per sq mile
> Density of Little Rock MSA: 4,090 people per sq mile
> Density of OKC MSA: 208 people per per sq mile


Hold on one minute. Although it's not an unimpeachable source, Wikipedia states 599,199 people, 607 square miles land (water omitted). That's 988 people per sq mile, almost 5x your number.

----------


## Dubya61

> Hold on one minute. Although it's not an unimpeachable source, Wikipedia states 599,199 people, 607 square miles land (water omitted). That's 988 people per sq mile, almost 5x your number.


Oh, well then that's completely different!
Er, no.  Point still stands.

----------


## tomokc

Point taken, but when the OKC figure is off by a factor of almost five, then I start questioning the data. 

I agree with the premise that those markets have high rise residential housing due to their greater population density, but it's fair to see corrected relative density numbers.

----------


## Spartan

Pete - I am still curious why you were arguing the point that we do have condos? Apparently it's worse than I realized: 1%

I hate when that happens but it's happening more and more lately, so I just be too optimistic myself.

----------


## bchris02

> Even if OKC was 2X as dense, it would still be 10X less dense than Omaha and Little Rock.  If OKC was 10X as dense it would still be 1/2 as dense as Omaha and Little Rock.  Reality is, OKC is spread out.  When I lieved in Norman it was 19 miles from our apartment to downtown OKC.  Drive 19 miles from downtown Omaha and you'll be 10 miles in the country.


I don't think these density numbers have anything to do with it.  If you were to take the numbers of the actual urbanized area, not city limits and not entire MSA, the density of OKC wouldn't be that far below Omaha and Little Rock.  When you mention the commute from Norman to downtown, remember Omaha and Little Rock are also much smaller than OKC.  Lets take Memphis as an example since its similar in size to OKC.  It takes that long if not longer to commute from downtown to Germantown or Collierville.  OKC isn't the only metro area with sprawl problems.

Where OKC does fall short compared to other cities is per-capita income and concentrated wealth.  The type of grand high-rise condos built in Little Rock and Omaha during the 2000s were aimed at luxury buyers.  There is a perception, real or not, that OKC is a poor market for that type of development.  It's also the same reason these other cities that are much smaller than us seem to get much better retail.  National investors see OKC as risky, and that was especially true in the 2000s when these condo developments were in vogue.

The perception is slowly changing (though not fast enough) and next time there is a condo boom I think OKC will get attention that it did not get the last time.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Point taken, but when the OKC figure is off by a factor of almost five, then I start questioning the data. 
> 
> I agree with the premise that those markets have high rise residential housing due to their greater population density, but it's fair to see corrected relative density numbers.


I don't think the density factor is the driving purpose for Little Rock / Omaha having Residential towers as much as it is the momentum of the CBD being "late to the party".  We missed the building boom of the 80's, we missed the "dot com" / Tech booms for other citys, so we are looking at our first "boom" in 40 years.  Plus, OKC just doesnt view itself ( historically ) as an urban town.  We are closer to the Ft. Worth vs. Dallas mentality.   Ft. Worth is now getting their residential towers, but they have been behind Dallas for 20 years.  

This is now our push for urban life.  There is a desire ( 21 - 40's ) to be downtown again.  If a large residential tower / complex was placed in a prime location w/ full amenities & high end retail on the lower floors, it would go quickly.

----------


## CurtisJ

As much as I would like to see more townhouses and condo's appear in OKC, I hope that it doesn't follow the same course as Houston's inner loop.  Many of Houston's greatest neighborhoods have been flattened to make way for identical town homes and in some areas (not all) it has become the worst of both worlds: the mind numbing conformity of the suburbs with no space AND none of the walk-ability.  

Literally 98% of all town homes in Houston have the exact same floorplan; Garage on first floor with mudroom, office, bathroom.  Second floor has the kitchen and dining room, also a "powder room" and the third floor has the bedrooms.  Mix it up by throwing on stucco with a particular color/texture to look Spanish, Italian, Modern or Victorian, rinse and repeat.

OKC needs more options, but I hope we learn from the lazy mistakes of other cities.

----------


## PWitty

> This is part of the reason.
> 
> Density of Omaha MSA: 4,400 people per sq mile
> Density of Little Rock MSA: 4,090 people per sq mile
> Density of OKC MSA: 208 people per per sq mile


I know that those numbers suit what your trying to say JTF, but the urban population and density numbers are what should be used in this conversation. I don't have them on me right now, but if I recall OKC and Omaha were basically the same density wise give or take a couple hundred per sq mile.

----------


## okcpulse

> This is part of the reason.
> 
> Density of Omaha MSA: 4,400 people per sq mile
> Density of Little Rock MSA: 4,090 people per sq mile
> Density of OKC MSA: 208 people per per sq mile


I have to question that statistic.  OKC, even with its total land area, has almost 1,000 people per square mile.  I won't kill the messenger, but I'd like to know the source so that the source can be re-educated.

----------


## okcpulse

I really doubt density can truly kill dense development.  It's a misconception that is overdriven to argue against developing condos.  In the 1960s and 1970s, Oklahoma City witnessed a lot of high-rise and mid-rise development, both residential and office.  And in the 1970s and 1980s before the oil bust, there were a lot of suburban multi-family units built.  That seems to stick even in today's OKC market.  Multi-family units for rent.  

But back to the subject, the Tiffany house and Lakewiew tower, both mid-rise residential, were built at a time when OKC's density was MUCH less.  607 square miles and 368,000 people in 1970.  We are twice as populated today.  As far as condos go, I put the blame on national investors.  Yes, OKC's per capita income is not as high as some places, but it isn't high in San Antonio either.  And OKC's income growth is closing a lot of gaps.

----------


## PWitty

> I know that those numbers suit what your trying to say JTF, but the urban population and density numbers are what should be used in this conversation. I don't have them on me right now, but if I recall OKC and Omaha were basically the same density wise give or take a couple hundred per sq mile.


If I remember right I think OKC's urban density was around 2,100/sq mile and Omaha's was 2600/sq mile. Somewhere around there.

----------


## jsooner

> This is part of the reason.
> 
> Density of Omaha MSA: 4,400 people per sq mile
> Density of Little Rock MSA: 4,090 people per sq mile
> Density of OKC MSA: 208 people per per sq mile


Seriously, I have to call you out on this one as these numbers aren't even close to being correct. 

Actual Density of MSA's

OKC: 224.5
Omaha: 196.4
Little Rock: 166.7

I am guessing the densities listed for Omaha and Little Rock are that of the urbanized area. Density shown for OKC is actually the density of the CSA.

----------


## tomokc

> This is part of the reason.
> 
> Density of Omaha MSA: 4,400 people per sq mile
> Density of Little Rock MSA: 4,090 people per sq mile
> Density of OKC MSA: 208 people per per sq mile


Hey JTF - What's your source for this?

----------


## Richard at Remax

Slightly off topic but since people keep bringing up the Centennial and to reiterate what JTF said above, the reason they filled up so quickly is because Devon, CHK, and others bought mostly all of them up at way overpriced prices. My folks bought one from Devon in Early 2012 and Devon easily took a $100K hit on the unit, since it came furnished. The good news now is the majority of the units are sold to residents or residents renting from people (Harold Hamm being one of them next door). 

Only problem now is that since there are more people living there, there have been issues of our HOA dues not going directly back into our property, but in a generic Hogan fund going to his other endeavors. When head of HOA asked to see the books (trying to give control of HOA dues back to homeowners instead of hiring it out) they got real defensive and but that's another topic entirely.

----------


## Just the facts

> Hey JTF - What's your source for this?


The Wikipedia page for each metro area which in turn comes from the census data.  You guys can argue the data all you want but if you just go look in Google Earth you can see the relative density with your own eyes.  OKC is spread across a lot more area.  You will be miles into rural Nebraska by the time you drive the distance from downtown to Moore.  It is not even close and OKC did this by design in the '60s when they decided to annex every available parcel of land and then paved four lane roads all the way to Guthrie and Shawnee.

If you want to see how other 'great plains' cities compare just go look a Calgary and compare its geographic size to OKC.  All of Calgary would fit inside the I-35/I-240/I-44 loop and it has the same population as all of metro OKC.

And if you guys think you can bump the OKC numbers up by subtracting water or carving out rural land just remember, that same game can be played in Omaha and Little Rock.  Urbanized metro Omaha is only 16 miles across the longest way.  Edmond to Norman is 35 miles and eastern Oklahoma County is the lowest of low density sprawl.

----------


## bradh

I'm calling BS on this comparison to Omaha.  I'm up there a few times a year and was just there this past weekend.  It's over 15 miles from downtown to 168th and Maple, and that's hardly country out there.  

Not excusing OKC because there is room for improvement, but maybe visit Omaha and quit relying on stats.

----------


## Just the facts

> I'm calling BS on this comparison to Omaha.  I'm up there a few times a year and was just there this past weekend.  It's over 15 miles from downtown to 168th and Maple, and that's hardly country out there.  
> 
> Not excusing OKC because there is room for improvement, but maybe visit Omaha and quit relying on stats.


13 miles from downtown Omaha to 168th and Maple.  You hit open farm land 1 mile away.  I'm looking right at it with an aerial photo.

http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/agree.html

----------


## bradh

Said 15 miles on Google Maps for me, but perhaps we're using different starting points (I used Century Link Center).

You know what that farm land is trending towards?  Housing.

----------


## Just the facts

> Said 15 miles on Google Maps for me, but perhaps we're using different starting points (I used Century Link Center).
> 
> You know what that farm land is trending towards?  Housing.


I just picked a place downtown (baseball stadium I think) but I am happy to use your number.  However, thanks to UrbanNebraska it look like Omaha is trying to target more of their growth towards downtown.

http://www.okctalk.com/other-communi...nt-update.html

Alas, population density is just one factor, and really not even the biggest.  OKCs main problem is that we don't have anything for condos to coalesce around.  The canal had one waterfront condo and it sold out with a premium price and then no more condos were built.  As was pointed out earlier, people don't live on top of each for the fun of it.  They do it for access to local attractions and amenities.

I saw the other day where the old real-estate adage of Location, Location, Location has been replaced with Access, Access, Access.

----------


## bradh

I'm all about the access, it's why we're looking at moving closer to downtown.

Maybe I'm missing it, but I guess I don't see amazing urban condo developments when I go to Omaha.

----------


## Just the facts

> Maybe I'm missing it, but I guess I don't see amazing urban condo developments when I go to Omaha.


From what I gather in UrbanNebraska's posts they are renovating existing buildings or build new low/mid-rise condos.  They aren't adopting the Austin style 'taller is better' approach.  Downtown Omaha has just under 9,000 residents and condo sales are picking up; 152 in 2011 and 168 in 2012.

Downtown Omaha condo sales heat up again - Omaha.com

----------


## PWitty

> The Wikipedia page for each metro area which in turn comes from the census data.  You guys can argue the data all you want but if you just go look in Google Earth you can see the relative density with your own eyes.  OKC is spread across a lot more area.  You will be miles into rural Nebraska by the time you drive the distance from downtown to Moore.  It is not even close and OKC did this by design in the '60s when they decided to annex every available parcel of land and then paved four lane roads all the way to Guthrie and Shawnee.
> 
> If you want to see how other 'great plains' cities compare just go look a Calgary and compare its geographic size to OKC.  All of Calgary would fit inside the I-35/I-240/I-44 loop and it has the same population as all of metro OKC.
> 
> And if you guys think you can bump the OKC numbers up by subtracting water or carving out rural land just remember, that same game can be played in Omaha and Little Rock.  Urbanized metro Omaha is only 16 miles across the longest way.  Edmond to Norman is 35 miles and eastern Oklahoma County is the lowest of low density sprawl.


I don't know what Wikipedia pages you are looking at, but those urban densities aren't right. And you can't just look at each metro's Wikipedia page individually. If you just go to the "OKC Metro Area", "Omaha Metro Area", etc. pages, the numbers they pull into the information on the side is never consistent. Some Metro Area pages list CSA data, others list MSA data, and others list Urban data. You have to get the numbers from a table so the data set you're pulling from is consistent across the board. Using the numbers for each city's urban population and urban area you would get this:

OKC: 2,098 per sq. mile
Omaha: 2,673 per sq. mile
Little Rock: 1,670 per sq. mile

Edit: The disparity in your numbers is that large because the Omaha MSA isn't even a real MSA. The total area of the entire Omaha MSA is like 190 sq. miles, and 150 of that is the city of Omaha. You can't compare the density of a city to the density of a full metro area that includes the surrounding counties (which have MUCH lower densities than the actual city). You have to use the urban numbers. But I think you know that.

And your reasoning on including OKC's rural areas into it's population density is so wrong. If we're talking about the density of the urban core of the metro then why does the rural and county land even matter? If one was to compare the densities of two metros using strictly MSA numbers, then Omaha has a greater density than NYC because the population density of the entire NYC MSA is only 1,876 per sq. mile. I don't think you are going to try and tell anyone that Omaha is more dense than NYC are you?

----------


## Spartan

> 13 miles from downtown Omaha to 168th and Maple.  You hit open farm land 1 mile away.  I'm looking right at it with an aerial photo.
> 
> Google Earth


Omaha sprawls all the way to Lincoln almost. It's very uneven, and mostly falls along one thoroughfare. But their sprawl hasn't kept them from developing different housing modes.

----------


## bradh

it's unique in that it's sprawl is mostly only westward (a little south too with Papi/La Vista).

----------


## okcpulse

> The Wikipedia page for each metro area which in turn comes from the census data.  You guys can argue the data all you want but if you just go look in Google Earth you can see the relative density with your own eyes.  OKC is spread across a lot more area.  You will be miles into rural Nebraska by the time you drive the distance from downtown to Moore.  It is not even close and OKC did this by design in the '60s when they decided to annex every available parcel of land and then paved four lane roads all the way to Guthrie and Shawnee.
> 
> If you want to see how other 'great plains' cities compare just go look a Calgary and compare its geographic size to OKC.  All of Calgary would fit inside the I-35/I-240/I-44 loop and it has the same population as all of metro OKC.
> 
> And if you guys think you can bump the OKC numbers up by subtracting water or carving out rural land just remember, that same game can be played in Omaha and Little Rock.  Urbanized metro Omaha is only 16 miles across the longest way.  Edmond to Norman is 35 miles and eastern Oklahoma County is the lowest of low density sprawl.


Here are the correct statistics (this is why I don't rely on Wikipedia)

Omaha MSA total area: 4,407 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 196.35 per sq. mile
Little Rock MSA total area: 4,199 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 166.67 per sq. mile
Oklahoma City MSA total area: 5,582 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 224.48 per sq. mile

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

----------


## Rover

Damn facts always get in the way of a good spin.

----------


## Just the facts

> Here are the correct statistics (this is why I don't rely on Wikipedia)
> 
> Omaha MSA total area: 4,407 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 196.35 per sq. mile
> Little Rock MSA total area: 4,199 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 166.67 per sq. mile
> Oklahoma City MSA total area: 5,582 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 224.48 per sq. mile
> 
> Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis


Thanks for keeping me honest.  I started to wonder where the heck I did find that data and it looks like I copied form the wrong data fields.

_Now why can't I find a youtube of clip of the old lady in my Cousin Vinny who needs new glasses._

----------


## catch22

> Thanks for keeping me honest.  I started to wonder where the heck I did find that data and it looks like I copied form the wrong data fields.
> 
> _Now why can't I find a youtube of clip of the old lady in my Cousin Vinny who needs new glasses._


Let the record show that Mr Gambini is holding up two fingers.

_Your honor, please!_

----------


## josh

> OKC finally started getting the attention of real estate speculators just as we were approaching 2008. Projects that had not broken ground when the recession hit were cancelled. Had the 2008 recession happened in 2010, OKC would probably have a few downtown high-rise condo towers.


You can't continue to blame the 2008 recession in 2014. Bank have been loaning for sever years now and residential towers are being built all across the country. If they're not happening now, they probably weren't going to happen then either. That's the reality.

----------


## bchris02

> You can't continue to blame the 2008 recession in 2014. Bank have been loaning for sever years now and residential towers are being built all across the country. If they're not happening now, they probably weren't going to happen then either. That's the reality.


I disagree.  Not only lenders but developers also have not returned to anywhere close to the level of speculation that was happening prior to 2008.  Residential towers are being built but today it's more likely to be supported by market realities.  Little Rock hasn't had a new residential tower announced since 2008, but had three built prior.  I think had the recession been delayed to 2009 or 2010, OKC would have seen a tower or two announced.

In the area of retail on the other hand, OKC was screwed pretty bad by the 2008 recession.  This city was very close to getting some developments that would bring it in line with most other cities its size in terms of retail options but pretty much all of that got cancelled and was never revived.

----------


## betts

Warning Signs From Columbus About America?s Big Suburban Housing Glut | Streetsblog Capitol Hill

This is an interesting article that indicates we may need to be thinking about increasing this type of housing.

----------


## Spartan

Ha I'm friends with Angie Schmitt, yeah Cbus is a sprawls sun belt mess unlike the other two C's but it's urban core is also phenomenal. Very Austin-like.

----------


## bchris02

> Ha I'm friends with Angie Schmitt, yeah Cbus is a sprawls sun belt mess unlike the other two C's but it's urban core is also phenomenal. Very Austin-like.


I agree. Columbus is actually becoming quite the hipster destination. It's not on a lot of people's radar yet but their core is phenomenal.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

Totally agree.

----------


## Just the facts

I caught an episode of House Hunters on HGTV the last night and the woman they were following was looking for a condo in downtown Memphis.  It was amazing to see the quality of downtown condos she had to pick from.  She also looked at a house in the Harbortown area (for those who know what that is).

HGTV has two version of House Hunters - the regular House Hunters which takes place here in the US and features almost exclusively suburban homes, and House Hunters International which has a mix of urban and rural (not much international suburbia) depending on the country.  I have been wondering when the US version was going to start focusing on more urban settings, especially if they want to start to appeal to younger viewers and stay relevant.

----------


## betts

> I caught an episode of House Hunters on HGTV the last night and the woman they were following was looking for a condo in downtown Memphis.  It was amazing to see the quality of downtown condos she had to pick from.  She also looked at a house in the Harbortown area (for those who know what that is).
> 
> HGTV has two version of House Hunters - the regular House Hunters which takes place here in the US and features almost exclusively suburban homes, and House Hunters International which has a mix of urban and rural (not much international suburbia) depending on the country.  I have been wondering when the US version was going to start focusing on more urban settings, especially if they want to start to appeal to younger viewers and stay relevant.


What price point was the Memphis shopper using?  I think some of OKCs problem is that we were finally getting some for sale downtown housing just as the recession hit.  People who suddenly couldn't afford to buy were renting. Developers, who resemble sheep, were suddenly all in in the rental market. And they'll likely stay all in until there's a rental glut. But that hurts downtown, as for sale housing is typically better built and maintained than apartment complexes and creates more stability.

----------


## Just the facts

Don't quote me but I think she was looking for 2 bedrooms in the $210-$220 range.  I think I have the episode recorded so I'll check and make sure.

On edit..

First condo (The Candy Factory) is listed at $210,000

Second condo (The Paper Factory) is listed at $210,000

One house in Harbortown (3 bedroom/2 bath) is listed at $208,000

----------


## bluedogok

Lower suburban land costs drive much of the lack of urban condo development as most builders are still suburban based. Most of the initial urban developers in Austin came from out of town/state, local developers have increased but are building smaller developments near downtown. The larger condo towers are still dominated by the out of town developers.

----------


## OKVision4U

There is an Atlanta based group that has several in Texas ... Houston / Dallas.  The outside investment communities are what OKC could really use right now.  When they hit town, they move things off "high center" in market demand.

----------


## bchris02

> I caught an episode of House Hunters on HGTV the last night and the woman they were following was looking for a condo in downtown Memphis.  It was amazing to see the quality of downtown condos she had to pick from.  She also looked at a house in the Harbortown area (for those who know what that is).
> 
> HGTV has two version of House Hunters - the regular House Hunters which takes place here in the US and features almost exclusively suburban homes, and House Hunters International which has a mix of urban and rural (not much international suburbia) depending on the country.  I have been wondering when the US version was going to start focusing on more urban settings, especially if they want to start to appeal to younger viewers and stay relevant.


Downtown Memphis is awesome.  The city as a whole has a lot of problems and quality of life issues but downtown is cool and has various things OKC could take cues from.  Their entertainment district is one of a kind (it would be due to the musical legacy the city has).  Most of their historical urban bones has survived the ages unlike other cities that had urban renewal disasters.  As for new development, I love Harbortown/Mud Island and think it should be a model for OKC's Core2Shore.  I am also a fan of the Pyramid as it adds a unique feature to the city's skyline.




> What price point was the Memphis shopper using?  I think some of OKCs problem is that we were finally getting some for sale downtown housing just as the recession hit.  People who suddenly couldn't afford to buy were renting. Developers, who resemble sheep, were suddenly all in in the rental market. And they'll likely stay all in until there's a rental glut. But that hurts downtown, as for sale housing is typically better built and maintained than apartment complexes and creates more stability.


This.  The recession came at the worst possible time for OKC in so many ways.  The city was practically ignored during most of the Bush economic boom and only as it was ending were we finally starting to get attention from large-scale developers.

----------


## Urbanized

It wasn't so much that people couldn't afford to buy, it was that for a time nobody - NOBODY - could get financing. And then the lending rules changed requiring developers to have a ridiculous number of buyers already in the bag before getting a construction loan, effectively ending spec condo devekopment, which had fueled the crazy growth in other markets. Meanwhile, the downtown rental market - which was easier to finance and had been terribly underserved to that point - was still underserved. Developers just took the path of least resistance.

----------


## OKVision4U

There should be signs all over the C2S / Bricktown / Film Row, stating " Coming Soon "....This IS the time for the boom!  Why are we not seeing this?

----------


## hoya

> There should be signs all over the C2S / Bricktown / Film Row, stating " Coming Soon "....This IS the time for the boom!  Why are we not seeing this?


Because money still is t flowing like it was before 2008 (which is a good thing - that's why 2008 happened), and OKC isn't a proven market for it. 

I don't think our downtown would have provided the right environment for condos 5 or 10 years ago. Remember we have basically brought our downtown back from the dead.  Condos are clearly desirable, we want them to be in our downtown area. It will take more time because of where we started from.

----------


## Spartan

> It wasn't so much that people couldn't afford to buy, it was that for a time nobody - NOBODY - could get financing. And then the lending rules changed requiring developers to have a ridiculous number of buyers already in the bag before getting a construction loan, effectively ending spec condo devekopment, which had fueled the crazy growth in other markets. Meanwhile, the downtown rental market - which was easier to finance and had been terribly underserved to that point - was still underserved. Developers just took the path of least resistance.


We still don't have much condo supply no matter how reasonable the development trend has been. I agree with you. It's this simple: financing makes the world go round, and there are rules for what gets financed.

----------


## bchris02

> There should be signs all over the C2S / Bricktown / Film Row, stating " Coming Soon "....This IS the time for the boom!  Why are we not seeing this?


We are not in a speculative market at all.  In fact, real estate investors are still being very cautious.  The housing market is just starting to show signs of life again.  It would take a speculative market to get condo towers in OKC in 2014.

----------


## bluedogok

OKC was a very speculative market in the late 70's to early 80's, all those years between booms seemed to temper the "spec mentality" here and led to much smaller developments by locals and seemed to chase the national developers out of the market. For the large single family developments that can be a good/bad thing, for urban type of developments it generally requires the large, national builders with a proven track record and a large credit facility.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Because money still is t flowing like it was before 2008 (*which is a good thing* - that's why 2008 happened), and OKC isn't a proven market for it. 
> 
> I don't think our downtown would have provided the right environment for condos 5 or 10 years ago. Remember we have basically brought our downtown back from the dead.  Condos are clearly desirable, we want them to be in our downtown area. It will take more time because of where we started from.


It's one thing to pull back on the lending strings, but it is another thing to hold them "so tight" they strangle a market.  East & West Coast are still having this issue.  The central US ( The Oil Belt ) is thriving.  So, the commercial lending should be taking advantage of this.  MidFirst should be building a tower DT too.  This would be a very encouraging statement to all of Oklahoma.   

MFB should be leading the finance charge for all major developments in DT OKC...., Mixed Use Towers / Condo Towers / Large Retail / Large Residential.

----------


## hoya

> It's one thing to pull back on the lending strings, but it is another thing to hold them "so tight" they strangle a market.  East & West Coast are still having this issue.  The central US ( The Oil Belt ) is thriving.  So, the commercial lending should be taking advantage of this.  MidFirst should be building a tower DT too.  This would be a very encouraging statement to all of Oklahoma.   
> 
> MFB should be leading the finance charge for all major developments in DT OKC...., Mixed Use Towers / Condo Towers / Large Retail / Large Residential.


I think we're going to see investors go for what they know is already a success.  At this point in OKC, that means apartment buildings like the Edge and LEVEL.

----------


## OKVision4U

> I think we're going to see investors go for what they know is already a success.  At this point in OKC, that means apartment buildings like the Edge and LEVEL.


hoyasooner, you are probably correct.  This has been their comfort level in large commercial lending.

The primary difference is this, in the past it has been when Oklahoma City was in a Boom time, the other regions where too.  Today, the central US has an advantage of "Economic Momentum going into 2014" and for the next 20 years that other regions don't.   It would take very little additional investment into our local economy and would we see the critical mass hit much quicker here...vs. previous booms.  Jobs / Jobs / Jobs. 

If the commercial lending groups would flood the market w/ local investment ( Large Projects / Towers / Large Developments in the DT ) they would see an explosion in growth from other cities.  We would be "The Place to Be" for an individual / family / corporation looking for the next opportunity.  The energy companies are taking out all the risk in growth by continuing to invest in the DT area.  MAPS is continuing to pour 3/4 Bil in one single area....DT.  Zero Risk. 

The demand is there, ...we just don't have the supply.  MidFirst Bank, where are you?  ....this is the time to become a Major Investment Group.

----------


## betts

I'm happy to see that developers in SoSA are splitting lots into 25' wide parcels and giving us skinny houses. That's the kind of space that gives great density and a great lifestyle in single family housing close to a downtown.  If I weren't so spoiled by my location, I'd buy there as I would love the size of the patch of green you get with a 25' lot.

----------

