# OKCpedia > General Real Estate Topics >  MAPS for suburbia?

## bchris02

The talk about Shadid and possibly wanting to take the city down a path where less is invested in downtown and more is invested in more suburban areas got me thinking.  If there was to be a MAPS for suburbia what would you like to see?  I am calling suburbia anything north and west of I-44, east of I-35, or south of I-40.

----------


## Spartan

No offense, but occasionally you make posts that show how recently you just moved here and just how much of the OKC story you've missed out on. Every single day is a MAPS for Suburbia kind of day.

The MAPS program is downtown and vice versa. It's about trying to strengthen downtown so that it can compete for investment. If some city councilors want to do something about the tide of urban blight, we need to keep rallying around downtown, and not turning against it. This is a political ploy where some politicians are trying to grab the attention of the have-nots and point to the haves downtown because they're very visible, while forgetting for a rhetorical moment that the overwhelming majority of haves live in far north or south OKC.

We seriously need to look at a growth boundary. That will do more than anything else to retain the value of existing housing. Nothing else will help keep nondescript, bland residential tract housing afloat.

----------


## MWCGuy

I think many people are frustrated that many of the suburban streets are falling apart not to mention 911 response time can be anywhere from 7-20 minutes then to top it off code enforcement is not being done (SE OKC). It's a hard pill to swallow when you live next to a suburban town that enjoys 3-7 minute response times, clean streets and lots of places to shop.

The reality of it all is OKC does a pretty good job at balancing the city's priorities list. No area goes neglected for too long. Project 180 was long over due. Many downtown streets had not seen improvements since the Murrah Bombing or prior to that. Not to mention the few attractions we have down there were starting to show major wear. Not a good thing when you have a major city employer invest millions to build a new skyscraper.

----------


## bombermwc

The other side of that is that it does feel like other parts of town get forgotten. The SW side really needs an economic injection. Outside of Westgate Marketplace, what's re-devloped to replace all the jobs lost at Lucent and Dayton? The whole area of Western Heights needs to get something going there to help revitalize the area instead of just sucking it all to Mustang and Yukon. 

The same can be said for 240, but at least there's a push to get that done.

And the NE side....come on. It's been forgotten for 50 years. 

So i can see why someone would feel like the focus is all on downtown. Yes the projects in downtown are a HUGE part of the rebirth of the city. However, the rest of the city shouldn't be sacrificed for it. Now, i'm not saying we need to build some major Maps program around these areas, HOWEVER, a lot could be done with things like community centers, police/fire facilities, roads, etc. in these areas. Bonds are a great way to start, but they take a long time to produce. Economic incentives or incubators in these once thriving areas could help a lot to spur others to move in. Why not encourage someone to move their HQ to the west instead of Memorial? If it's not going downtown, maybe we can keep it from continuing the sprawl on Memorial and RE-develop an existing area.

This is actually a perfect example of what i mean. It is a bit south to count for me, but at least the city is trying.

----------


## Geographer

welcome to the real cost of suburbia...harder and more expensive to maintain roads and essential civic services for such low and spread out density.

----------


## Pete

There are several components of MAPS 3 that are not focused on downtown:
Fairgrounds improvementsSenior Health and Wellness CentersTrailsSidewalks

And of course, MAPS for Kids not only helped OKC Public Schools but provided money for all the districts that operate within city limits (Putnam City, etc.).


If there is a MAPS 4 I would like to see an initiative that not only furthered the sidewalks and trails, but also focused on some of our out-lying parks and perhaps the bus system.

----------


## bchris02

^^^ I agree Pete. I would like to see improvements in city parks. Another thing that would be great is a greenway connecting suburbia to downtown. Charlotte has one and it works great. It gives people the option, if they so choose, to live in the suburban areas and still bike to many areas of the city. It's also great for recreation. Wasn't something like this planned for MAPS3 and then scrapped?

----------


## CaptDave

There are several miles of trails being built as part of MAPS3. They will connect the river trails to Overholser.

----------


## Larry OKC

The original poster is correct... it *IS* called MAPS (Metropolitan Area Projects), not DAPS (Downtown Area Projects). And Pete is correct too. The _perception_ is that MAPS is _mostly_ downtown centric, with some projects thrown in that are more inclusive of the City as a whole. But judging from the responses in another thread, the River, Fairgrounds and other projects may be considered "downtown" as well. ALthough the pitch on the Senior Aquatic Centers presumed the 4 to 5 centers to be built would be equally scattered in the 4 quadrants (maybe with a 5th being centrally located downtown), with the suggested downsizing in number of the facilities are going to be less geographically positioned. And of course, MAPS 4 Kids was truly all-inclusive, even giving surrounding school districts 30% of the funds. From a time standpoint, it really doesn't matter if it thru a bond issue or sales tax. From start to finish there are going to be projects that take about 10 years to get finished (some earlier, some later). IMHO, they need to get back to the more inclusive "truth in acronym" that they did with MAPS 4 Kids.

----------


## Just the facts

Every day is MAPS for suburbia.  I like that Spartan.  First let me say that I think the MAPS brand is dead after this time.  However. If there was another one I would like to see it focused on neighborhood urban cluster and rebuilding urban creeks and greenbelts.  OKC covered over far too many creeks and privatized what was not covered over.

----------


## mkjeeves

> welcome to the real cost of suburbia...harder and more expensive to maintain roads and essential civic services for such low and spread out density.


Total BS.

Suburbia cost so much we were able to come up with the funding to fix downtown. No suburbia, no Maps. End of story.

----------


## mkjeeves

> There are several components of MAPS 3 that are not focused on downtown:
> Fairgrounds improvementsSenior Health and Wellness CentersTrailsSidewalks
> 
> And of course, MAPS for Kids not only helped OKC Public Schools but provided money for all the districts that operate within city limits (Putnam City, etc.).
> 
> 
> If there is a MAPS 4 I would like to see an initiative that not only furthered the sidewalks and trails, but also focused on some of our out-lying parks and perhaps the bus system.


Indeed and there is much to be done. Streets, sidewalks and mass-trans that serve the masses, not just the core.

----------


## mkjeeves

> No offense, but occasionally you make posts that show how recently you just moved here and just how much of the OKC story you've missed out on. Every single day is a MAPS for Suburbia kind of day.
> 
> *The MAPS program is downtown and vice versa. It's about trying to strengthen downtown so that it can compete for investment.* If some city councilors want to do something about the tide of urban blight, we need to keep rallying around downtown, and not turning against it. This is a political ploy where some politicians are trying to grab the attention of the have-nots and point to the haves downtown because they're very visible, while forgetting for a rhetorical moment that the overwhelming majority of haves live in far north or south OKC.
> 
> We seriously need to look at a growth boundary. That will do more than anything else to retain the value of existing housing. Nothing else will help keep nondescript, bland residential tract housing afloat.


That was true and is true to a point and was one of the main reasons we went down this path. It's not true as a rule, thus the reason we are now and will continue to have this discussion about balancing public spending.




> Every single day is a MAPS for Suburbia kind of day.


You skirted right into Music Man territory with that one.

----------


## Dubya61

> Total BS.
> 
> Suburbia cost so much we were able to come up with the funding to fix downtown. No suburbia, no Maps. End of story.


It seems to me that you think some on here are your opponent in an all or nothing battle, but I don't think that's necessarily so, unless you ARE involved in an all or nothing battle.  If you think you are, I bet it would surprise you to find out that none of our fellow posters here oppose suburbia.  If you want to reassure yourself how horrible dense vertical cities are (at their worst) and how wonderful suburbia is in comparison, take a look at this thread http://www.okctalk.com/other-urban-d...not-ocura.html.  It's loaded with photos that UnFrSaKn posts (why? I don't know, but it satisfies one of his communication needs and I enjoy seeing 'em).  Here's one that should put us all in apoplectic shock:



> 


I don't think anybody wants THAT, but ... put on your evil emperor hat for a moment and imagine all the tax payers you could shove in those slums.  Mmmm-mmmassive municipal income!  BWAH-HA-HA-HA.  Okay, now, take off the hat and come back to reality.
One of your frequent "opponents" posted this graphic recently.  I believe that Just the Facts would say that a good city has ALL of these transect types within its geographical boundaries.



> For those wishing to know more about the rural to urban transect or to find your T# look here:
> 
> Center for Applied Transect Studies


Certainly, some of us want to live in the "D" district, some of us want to live in the T6 Urban Core, some of us ... well, you get the point, I'm sure.  Oklahoma City and every municipality should host all of these transects in order to provide a desirable living and working environment for all of its citizens.
As JTF has pointed out many times, OKC is a bit lopsidedly heavy on the T3 (suburban) transect, and that's OK, but it's not the balanced offering that we need to have to appeal to the full spectrum of our citizenry.  Further, it costs more per capita to provide the roads and other municipal services (police protection, fire protection, utilities, etc.) expected by the occupants of the T3 (suburban) than it costs per capita to the occupants of the T6 (urban core) and "D" (District) transects.  Not only does the city have greater expenses per capita in the T3 (suburban) transect than the more dense transects, it also reaps less income per acre in the T3 (suburban) transects than in the more dense transects.
Using that logic that I'm sure we can all say is based in reality, it's easy to say that there IS a huge cost to suburbia -- at least a bigger net cost in comparison to the net cost of dense "D" District urbia.

Again, it's not an all or nothing battle.  Sure, sometimes JTF and others can sound like they despise suburbia when what I think they're saying is that they wish there were a more balanced approach that would allow us to see the values of a denser development and allow us to see the costs (even if only opportunity costs) of suburbia.  You're right to say that MAPS is succeeding in part because of the suburbanites who pay taxes (just like the urbanites and visiting out-of-towners do), but you're wrong to say that all of MAPS is benefiting only downtown OKC.  Even if that were true (and it's not), it's short-sighted to say that the non-CBD parts of OKC don't benefit from the rising tide that lifts both the CBD and the rest of OKC (and it's surrounding municipalities).  I wish I could find the post that references how different OKC would be without MAPS (and, therefore, Devon, OKC Thunder, etc.).  It's also a good read.

In short, I'm sorry that you and PluPan seem to think that the suburbs are under attack and need to be defended, because that's not at all how I read JTF's, Trey's, and other's posts.

----------


## CaptDave

^ Very nicely stated Dubya. 

No one wants to bulldoze all the suburbs - I live in one. I believe we should consider the ramifications of OKC development being so heavily skewed toward suburbia. I would favor a development boundary and incentivize brownfield redevelopment until infill has taken root in the T4-T6; and as our population (and therefore tax base) increases, begin extending development in the T3 and other outer zones.

----------


## Just the facts

Thank Dubya61 - but one thing.  T3 is not the same suburbia OKC has.  T3 is still based on a grid and walkability.  There is a lot of information on how to convert urban sprawl suburbia into T3 suburbia but it meets a lot of resistance by people living in urban sprawl suburbia.  Let me give you an example.  I proposed the following items to our homeowners association.

1) Place sidewalks on both sides of the street.
2) Marked crosswalks at all intersections
3) Decorative intersection surface treatment
4) Stop signs at all intersections
5) Allow picket fences in front yards
6) Encourage water features, wind chimes, etc.. in front yards
7) Convert unused space at the park area to include a restaurant, exercise facility, and corner store
8) Connect cul-de-sacs with bike trails
9) Add docks to some of the neighborhood ponds
10) Create additional access controlled entrances to the subdivision
11) Allow people with side-load garages to create outbuildings with 1/2 addresses
12) Install a dog walk at the community recreation area (I even offered to do the labor if they bought the material)
13) Provide free internet Wi-Fi at the playground and pool

Do you know which of those ideas they liked?  Answer - none of them.  Number one reason given - it would slow down traffic in the neighborhood.  Number two reason - it would destroy the peace and quite.  Number three reason - people who don't live in the subdivision might start coming in.

It might help to note the association contracts with the Jacksonville Sheriffs Office to run speed traps in our subdivision because speeding is a real problem.  My next door neighbor got a ticket for doing 45 mph.  The guy across the street from us has gotten 4 speeding tickets IN OUR SUBDIVISION.

----------


## Larry OKC

duplicate post somehow...

----------


## Larry OKC

Interesting that the 1st opposition was it would slow down traffic when speeding is one of their biggest complaints...it amazes me that people don't listen to themselves most of the time

----------


## Just the facts

I know Larry - it gets very frustrating trying to explain things to people.  I thought about running for the board so I wouldn't have to explain things - I could just propose it, vote, and then do it.  I never looked at our subdivision in terms of walkability until I started working from home.  Everyday there is a man is in a wheelchair who takes his dogs for a walk and he has to do it the street because the sidewalks don't even connect to each other and he has to go over a 'California curb' without a ramp to get on them.  My wife found him one day laying in the middle of the street because his wheelchair tipped over while trying to get out of the street.  Thank goodness this didn't occur when the asphalt was over 100 degrees.

----------


## mkjeeves

> It seems to me that you think


No, that's not what I think. The bare hard facts of OKC is the suburbs of OKC did and are continuing to subsidise downtown. We have sent freight-car loads of money collected on activity in the burbs to downtown to fix it.

End of story.

Every time someone says it's the other way around, outright claiming or inferring downtown is subsidizing the burbs I'm calling them on it. 

Give me an overlay showing where taxes are collected in OKC versus cost to serve those same areas. Adjust that for the billions we sent downtown already and then we can talk about what cost more, where we should spend money etc. 
Put up or shut up.

Things in OKC could change to fit your model at some point in time in the future, but it didn't fit that model before we started working on it with the burbs subsidized downtown, and it won't be for many decades to come after downtown has generated lots of offsetting benefits that the tide can be considered reversed and fully paid for. That will be decades from now, if ever.

----------


## mkjeeves

> If we drew a heatmap from day one of the city and funded every project proportionately based on location of people and work units (the location people work), you'd have dirt roads in much of suburbia and some of the best municipal services on the face of the planet in the inner core.  
> 
> Pretty basic math really.


Not really. Considering the only economic activity that paid for anything OKC during most of the time period up to present day was in the suburbs or due to the suburbs.

----------


## mkjeeves

> How can you say that?  Do you realize how many people work in such a small area in downtown?  You'd put up a square mile of downtown against anywhere else in the community?  
> 
> I'm really struggling to understand your claims.  Can you maybe provide some data to show me where you are coming up with that?


I already did that in another thread and I've got to go generate some economic activity here in the burbs. It's pretty simple though. Here's a start. Look up the major employers in the metro and click off how many jobs are downtown. It's a pittance.

The initial claim was made otherwise, I asked for support for that argument. The burden of proof is on those making that claim.

----------


## HangryHippo

> I already did that in another thread and I've got to go generate some economic activity here in the burbs. It's pretty simple though. Here's a start. Look up the major employers in the metro and click off how many jobs are downtown. It's a pittance.
> 
> The initial claim was made otherwise, I asked for support for that argument. The burden of proof is on those making that claim.


Then back up your claim that the suburbs aren't subsidized by downtown.

----------


## mkjeeves

> Again, those employers are spread out over tons and tons of square miles.  Do you know how much it costs to spread out services that far?  If there was vast nothingness between every suburban major employer and downtown (meaning no roads, utilities, public saftey) then I'd say you might be able to get closer to competing on a work unit/rooftop basis.  But that's not the case.  Instead we've approved building permit after building permit to allow developers to build and sell of property in a much less efficient way. Again, I think there needs to be tremendous diversity of land use.  But we've kind of hit an extreme amount of suburban patterns.  Not interested in seeing any more approved until we being to get back to legitimately offering alternatives for those who also pay taxes and work in the city. Oh, and have a higher return on investment per square foot in tax revenue.


How many water treatment plants, city lakes and dumps do we have in Downtown OKC? None. They are in or closer to the burbs. We pipe and haul everything we need downtown.




> *OKC's budget broke the $1 Billion dollar mark this year.*  How much of that do you think is going for the downtown vs the suburbs? I'm very familiar with municipal budgets and have read OKC's many times.  But you should read it.  The answer is incredibly clear if you do.


How much of the revenue was generated in the burbs? There is almost no sales tax generated downtown, relatively speaking and the real estate values of the property in the burbs far exceeds downtown values. Facts Sid. Give me some real data, of what costs what and where the tax dollars are collected in OKC, not guesswork, supposition, or models that don't resemble OKC.

----------


## HangryHippo

> How many water treatment plants, city lakes and dumps do we have in Downtown OKC? None. They are in or closer to the burbs. We pipe and haul everything we need downtown.
> 
> 
> 
> How much of that was generated in the burbs? There is almost no sales tax generated downtown, relatively speaking and the real estate values of the property in the burbs far exceeds downtown values. Facts Sid. Give me some real data, of what costs what and where the tax dollars are collected in OKC, not guesswork, supposition, or models that don't resemble OKC.


Do people not pay sales tax in Bricktown or at the Chesapeake Arena?

----------


## mkjeeves

> Do people not pay sales tax in Bricktown or at the Chesapeake Arena?



Relative speaking

Does you think that comes to more or less than lets say, the commercial area along I-40 to Council out in the burbs? 

May Avenue?

Penn Square?

How many bricktowns are there downtown again?

----------


## Just the facts

Want to see the tax revenue difference between sprawl and density?  Spoiler alert - it isn't even close.  To quote Sid - orders of magnitude

City Thrive: Impact Studies

On the time to break even we have this:




> In 1989, the Florida Department of Community Affairs compared the infrastructure cost per compact housing unit in downtown ($9,252) to suburban housing ($15,316 - $23,960). The analysts conclude that suburban multifamily housing will take *42 years to pay off the infrastructure investments* but mixed-used downtown development *could pay off those costs in three years*.

----------


## betts

Do businesses not pay sales tax on supplies purchased?  Do contractors not pay sales tax on materials purchased?  If not, well then perhaps the area around Quail Springs might compete with downtown. If they do, I suspect any area in outlying  OKC cannot compete with downtown for sales tax revenue.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

I agree that it is cheaper to live in higher density. I also think quality of life is better in the suburbs, 9 times out of 10. All these claims made by JTF, how suburbia is declining and all this and that, seem be the complete opposite from what I visually witness and what I read. Anyhow, I think OKC's suburbia is just fine and the sprawl here isn't that bad.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> I'm not sure it is cheaper to live, but I submit it is cheaper to serve on a per person basis.  
> 
> I guess quality of life is relative then? 9 times out of 10, I hated living in the burbs. 
> 
> JTF is quoting articles many times that need to be taken into context.  OKC is hardly a trend setter in this department so I wouldn't expect a lot of people to notice a recognizable shift in demand or to see a large migration of people.  Things will move much slower here. 
> 
> I think the sprawl here is fine too! We've got tons of it to choose from. Take your pick!


Ooops, I meant cheaper to provide services and to run.  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## betts

My quality of life is far higher since I moved in from the suburbs, but that's because I like to walk, I like being close to so many amenities, I know more of my neighbors and I'm saving a fortune on utilities, lawn and pool maintenance.  I save enough to pay for at least one big trip a year, which makes my quality of life higher as well.  And, I spend 10 minutes a day in my car instead of an hour. But that's me.  For others, a lawn offers quality of life that I don't have here, and that's fine for them. I've done both and made my choice.

----------


## Just the facts

National trends get to OKC, they just get there slower which in this case is a plus for OKC.  There is still time to turn the ship before impact.  But make no mistake, if OKC is going to compete on a national level for companies, jobs, and tourist they better pay attention to what is taking places in other cities.  See my post about the 'goings-on' in Baltimore.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...tml#post659006




> Usually, a city changes slowly, organically, adapting to its time, its people, its surroundings. Changes occur naturally, a city evolves. Not so in Baltimore, where the rezoning will make a whole lot of change happen, fast.

----------


## Just the facts

> I save enough to pay for at least one big trip a year, which makes my quality of life higher as well.


It has taken me a long time but my wife is finally understanding this.  We spend enough in car payment and gasoline to take 2 over-seas trips a year for our family of 4.  Last year I calculated that we could live in Deep Deuce just on the money we save by moving to Deep Deuce.  Think about that for a minute.

----------


## mkjeeves

While I was gone to lunch, it looks like there has been  lots of conjecture, links to Florida and other irrelevancies but no hard facts about OKC revenue generation and costs. That's about what I expected.

It's apropo that Bricktown and the Chesapeake center were put forward as downtown tax base, since neither would be there were it not for the freight-car loads of cash we sent down there from the burbs to build those places.


As I have said before, I supported that for the reasons it was done, not for the reasons put forth by those who would like to rewrite history with made up facts and co-opt it into something else.

----------


## Just the facts

Just to give a sense how far the pendulum swung to one side, two of the leading indicators of economic health in the US are 'new housing starts' and 'auto sales'.  I can't think of any other country that measure national economic health in these terms.

----------


## Geographer

> Just to give a sense how far the pendulum swung to one side, two of the leading indicators of economic health in the US are 'new housing starts' and 'auto sales'.  I can't think of any other country that measure national economic health in these terms.


bingo. haha.

----------


## betts

> While I was gone to lunch, it looks like there has been  lots of conjecture, links to Florida and other irrelevancies but no hard facts about OKC revenue generation and costs. That's about what I expected.
> 
> It's apropo that Bricktown and the Chesapeake center were put forward as downtown tax base, since neither would be there were it not for the freight-car loads of cash we sent down there from the burbs to build those places.
> 
> 
> As I have said before, I supported that for the reasons it was done, not for the reasons put forth by those who would like to rewrite history with made up facts and co-opt it into something else.


You're demanding hard facts but not providing any.  If you come up with hard data supporting your "position", then I suspect we can too.  I have seen plenty of conjecture on your side of the argument as well.  If not, let's just agree to disagree.

----------


## catch22

Well I'm trapped in the suburbs. I could afford to live downtown without a car, but unfortunately public transit isn't here yet that I could depend on. I would have to have a career downtown or somewhere with adequate public transit to get to work as there is limited service to the airport going to zero service in the future.

There is still not a lifestyle option for people in my demographic who hate living dependent on a vehicle. We are literally trapped in the suburbs.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Well I'm trapped in the suburbs. I could afford to live downtown without a car, but unfortunately public transit isn't here yet that I could depend on. I would have to have a career downtown or somewhere with adequate public transit to get to work as there is limited service to the airport going to zero service in the future.
> 
> There is still not a lifestyle option for people in my demographic who hate living dependent on a vehicle. We are literally trapped in the suburbs.


There are fairly good deals out there I've seen. If you have a friend that works with you, you could possibly look at doing a roommate thing or you could pay him xx a month to carpool.

----------


## warreng88

> While I was gone to lunch, it looks like there has been  lots of conjecture, links to Florida and other irrelevancies but no hard facts about OKC revenue generation and costs.


Where are your hard facts showing revenue generation coming from areas not in downtown?

----------


## mkjeeves

> I've enjoyed other conversations we've had so I don't want to leave on a sour note. 
> 
> I'd gladly welcome research done specifically in Oklahoma City. I don't think I've got the time to conduct it though.
> 
> Basically you're asking for a study to be done like it has been done all over, challenging every single conclusion as well.  I'd welcome the study because it would give the urban core such a better case for further densification.  I have no doubt the conclusion would be any different than any other research that was done but again, it would be neat to have one done in OKC that was really thorough. 
> 
> But you can't just put something like that together easily.  There is a lot of data that would have to be collected.  You are claiming that the suburbs subsidize downtown but you'd probably have to get more specific than that.  
> 
> Is your claim that the suburbs currently (2012-13 budget) provide more revenues per person than downtown (creating a surplus that is spent elsewhere, presumably downtown)? Or always has? Or over a specific period?
> ...


My claim is that in OKC, the burbs et al, not only pay for themselves, they have in the past ponied up the money for improvements to downtown. I chime in when the claim is made otherwise and opposite, that downtown pays for the burbs. That's baldfaced, misinformed poppycock! It's not my job to prove or disprove someone's claims, the burden is on them. I do not dispute much of what you have said, almost all of it not addressing what I've said about OKC currently and historically. Anything in the future owes itself to history.

Now, if you want to dissect the burbs block by block, we can most assuredly find some blocks that don't pay for themselves, but that's not really how it works. (We can do the same downtown.) Most OKC residents do not live, work or shop downtown, they do most all of it somewhere in the burbs.

----------


## Just the facts

I wonder what percentage of suburban OKC homes (built since 1951) were done so with FHA or VA home loans or whose owner claims a mortgage interest deduction on their taxes.  I wonder what that percentage was BEFORE 1951.  Actually, I know what the percentage was before 1951 - 0.00%.  What would happen to suburbia if we went back to the 0.00%?

----------


## mkjeeves

You would be correct that OKC the city of, capitol of a bigtime energy state, owes much of it's wealth to things outside of itself, the feds in particular, oil and consumer culture, homebuilding etc. That includes downtowners as well and particularly that big new tower down there.

----------


## betts

And yet you're making unsubstantiated claims as well.  So, lets all agree to disagree.

----------


## mkjeeves

> And yet you're making unsubstantiated claims as well.  So, lets all agree to disagree.


Only if you buy the first round.

----------


## zookeeper

This is sad. I hope the old Southside versus Northside rivalry is not going to be supplanted by Urban vs Suburban strife. I think betts saying agree to disagree would be best, imo.

----------


## mkjeeves

Mums the word then. When the next person makes a comment about the burbs, betts, zoo, sid, JTF, treyingram90, spartan and all the rest will all be right there to tell them we have agreed to disagree right?

----------


## Dubya61

> No, that's not what I think. ...


Again, you are coming off as quite angry, and I'm not sure why you are angry?  Are you against MAPS?  The one thing (admittedly, not perfectly executed) that makes Mayor Cornett the belle of the ball at every political or peer gathering he goes to.  The thing most often mentioned when journalists talk about successful municipal revitalization, especially regarding OKC?  or are you simply mad that MAPS seems to focus on the CBD?  It doesn't, by the way.  See Pete's post upthread:



> There are several components of MAPS 3 that are not focused on downtown:
> Fairgrounds improvementsSenior Health and Wellness CentersTrailsSidewalks
> 
> And of course, MAPS for Kids not only helped OKC Public Schools but provided money for all the districts that operate within city limits (Putnam City, etc.).
> 
> 
> If there is a MAPS 4 I would like to see an initiative that not only furthered the sidewalks and trails, but also focused on some of our out-lying parks and perhaps the bus system.


Allow me to address your post to me in pieces, if you will.



> No, that's not what I think. The bare hard facts of OKC is the suburbs of OKC did and are continuing to subsidise downtown. We have sent freight-car loads of money collected on activity in the burbs to downtown to fix it.
> 
> End of story.


I don't know if you can say exactly where this money is collected (that funds MAPS), since it's included in the sales tax, but that determining factor is almost inconsequential, since you can't really say WHO is paying that sales tax.  Is it a resident of Deep Deuce?  Is it a resident of the Edgemere neighborhood? South Lakes neighborhood?  Is it a resident of the far-flung reaches of OKC near Pottawatomie County?  Is it someone from Edmond? Norman? Yukon? Tulsa? Chicago? D.C.? Paris? Hong Kong?  Who knows?  I'm sure that someone can actually provide a map that shows where the MAPS money is coming from (based on sales tax collections), but that certainly won't give you any proof that the suburbs are funding MAPS.  If you wanted to, you could extrapolate that the suburbs collecting sales tax in such great quantities shows that OKC is still a very viable entity -- so much that businesses in those suburban areas of OKC are thriving just fine -- and I think that points to the success that is MAPS in OKC.



> Every time someone says it's the other way around, outright claiming or inferring downtown is subsidizing the burbs I'm calling them on it.


... and I think you would be right.  No one should be saying that downtown is subsidizing the burbs.  I DO, however, think that it would be proper to say that the City of Oklahoma City (all 621.2 square miles of it) isn't getting the bang for the buck out of the suburbs that it could be getting.  Just the Facts called me on just that up thread:



> ... T3 is not the same suburbia OKC has.  T3 is still based on a grid and walkability.  There is a lot of information on how to convert urban sprawl suburbia into T3 suburbia but it meets a lot of resistance by people living in urban sprawl suburbia. ...


Sidewalk Sid, in talking about the new proposed Central Park for Moore laid out a small manifesto (that I really like) about how to go about giving Moore a park at a fraction of the costs and allowing developers or entrepeneurs to reap some of the benefits with a guided investment and code.



> ... proper use of the grid in Moore, one block at a time.  Which is precisely why I would try to develop this land as follows:
> 
> 1) Add trees ...
> ...
> Notice we haven't built a park yet.  But what we have done is create an incredibly logical and sustainable place for one.  Also, a place that people will love to walk to and will be dying to live next to...even before park has been built.  If you asked anyone what they would like to see done with this property at this point in the development, they would tell you, a park. Also, how much of the $26M do you think we have spent so far? And we have only used a fraction of the original land.
> ...


I have severely edited both of their posts, but kept the hot spot that you can click on and read their complete posts.  I heartily recommend it.
If JTF and Sid were allowed to have their way, imagine the enhanced property tax revenue a municipality would get from their cul-de-sac neighborhood or central park!
I'm pretty sure that you can look at what JTF and Sid (and MULTIPLE other members of this forum) have said and see that, while the bulk of their strongly opinionated comments focus on the more urban environments, they also see improvements that can be made to suburban environments without turning them in to a downtown Hong Kong slum.  When they DO deride suburbia, it's often a derision to the OKC version of suburbia that seems to have missed the boat on creating a vibrant suburban neighborhood.  I think that the crux of the CBD .vs. Suburbia grudge fight cage match with regards to MAPS comes from the fact that the municipality can collect a WHOLE lot more property tax from the CBD by fostering growth down there rather than collecting a pittance more property tax from the suburbs by ... by doin what?  NOTHING!  Suburbia is thriving and growing just fine without any help from the city.



> Give me an overlay showing where taxes are collected in OKC versus cost to serve those same areas. Adjust that for the billions we sent downtown already and then we can talk about what cost more, where we should spend money etc. 
> Put up or shut up.


Here I am back at the concept of taxes collected in suburbia are going downtown.  I've already addressed it's important to know who, not where the taxes that support MAPS are collected, and even if the where is important, you gotta know that if taxes collected in any part of OKC outside of the CBD far outweigh taxes collected within the CBD, doesn't that indicate a wonderful situation for all those areas who are doing business hand over fist?  probably thanks to the MAPS investments?  Also already addressed is that all these billions of dollars are going downtown.  That's categorically not true.  See Pete's list higher up in this post for those MAPS projects that are NOT in the CBD. 
In response to "put up or shut up,"  No.  I'm relatively passionate about this, but I've already invested close to two hours on this and my previous post, and, believe it or not, I've got a life outside of OKCTalk.  Not gritching -- just saying that, no, I'm not gonna shut up about this or further document the basis for my opinion.  I tell you what, I'll shut up about it when you prove with statistics that you "put up" that the citizens of Edgemere or other non-CBD neighborhoods are literally bundling U]freight-car[/U] loads of money downtown.  Again, to discern my point, it might be on activity in the (OKC) burbs, but you can't say authoritatively that it's money from only citizens of the (OKC) burbs.

All of this to come back around and say what I wish I could have gotten across earlier:  I don't think that anybody proposes an all-or-nothing war between the CBD and the rest of OKC.  It's certainly NOT the end of the story.  By doing what MAPS is doing, all 621.2 square miles of OKC is getting better, not to mention the colleague municipalities that make up the greater metropolitan area here in Central Oklahoma -- even Valley Brook.  You see, when the modern street car gets built, a smart OKC Metro Transit system can say, "hey, why do we have buses servicing the same area that the street car services?  Let's move some of our money around and extend that bus line out to mkjeeves' house!"  Maybe, when the fairgrounds gets improved upon, it'll start making the city more money so that they can start putting more policemen on the streets around mkjeeves' house.  Maybe, when the trails and sidewalks get improved to their optimum capacity, more people will start riding a bike to work and the city can stop repairing that street in front of the Cox Convention center and start repairing the street in front of mkjeeves' house.  Maybe when the new Convention Center gets built the city can demo the Cox Convention center, turn it from a poorly used super block to four smaller conventional blocks, sell 'em for private development, start raking in the property tax and sales tax  on sales that occur in that new set of buildings, and build that library that they've always wanted to build out near mkjeeves' house.  Maybe, when they build that senior center out near mkjeeves' house, you can afford to move your aging parents into that mother-in-law suite you had built behind your garage and feel safer about social options for your parents.
I hope you don't take any of what I've said personally, because I can tell that you feel very strongly, and that, alone, indicates that you are a better citizen than most, but I also feel strongly that there is no one but yourself that sees this as a black or white issue.  There's certainly a lot of grey ground and I, for one, think that the city is doing a good job of equitably spreading around MAPS benefits.  I think that no one in their right mind thinks that the suburbs are being supported by the CBD at this time, but I'll bet that will be true once the CBD becomes all it can be thanks to MAPS.  I am certain that no one wants to invest ONLY in the CBD and leave the rest to rot, but I can see how some might think that's so, when MAPS gets all the publicity and regular expenditures that keep OKC going (suburbs AND downtown) get no press.
Again, I hope I haven't offended you.

----------


## mkjeeves

> Again, I hope I haven't offended you.


No offense taken or intended here either. Just posing a alternate viewpoint to the prevalent group think on this board.

----------


## Just the facts

Maybe we should change gears for awhile.  What if there was a MAPS for Suburbs, what would be on the list?

----------


## zookeeper

> Mums the word then. When the next person makes a comment about the burbs, betts, zoo, sid, JTF, treyingram90, spartan and all the rest will all be right there to tell them we have agreed to disagree right?


I can't speak for the rest of the posters you mentioned, but I admit to being conflicted about certain things regarding funds directed downtown. I support MAPS and am proud of what it has done, but I also can understand living in the suburbs and not liking to be treated as if there's something inherently wrong with that, because there's not. It's about freedom and choices. To take it a step further, I also understand being told that while suburbia _does_ pay for a big chunk of the freight. I'm conflicted and am not afraid to say I don't feel certain enough, about a lot of things, to say X is absolutely right and Y is absolutely wrong. I think there's a middle ground here.

----------


## Dubya61

> ... Most OKC residents do not live, work or shop downtown, they do most all of it somewhere in the burbs.


But that presents an interesting chicken-or-egg question that I failed to touch on in my egregiously long post above:  Would those guys even be around to live and work in the 'burbs if we didn't have a viable downtown?  Again, I wish I could find that post that Steve Lackmeyer made that says he wouldn't want to live in an OKC without MAPS in its history.  Surely it's all speculation, but Mayor Cornett isn't be Belle of the Ball whenever he travels because we have such great suburbs!

----------


## betts

I'm the only one who made that statement so I can't speak for anyone else.  All I'm saying is that, for Oklahoma City, we've got enough land.  If people want to live further out, they can be the next Edmond.  And, I don't like wasting water for massive manicured lawns and I hate people putting fertilizer and pesticides on those massive lawns, to keep them artificially green and weed free, at the expense of our water supply, beneficial insects and children.  If people want to live way out, but within the existing city limits, that's their choice.  I think the city was dumb to get this large, land mass wise, but that's a done deal unless they want to start deannexing.

----------


## betts

> Maybe we should change gears for awhile.  What if there was a MAPS for Suburbs, what would be on the list?


Parks and sidewalks.  Maybe if there were great parks, people would be satisfied with less land.  I like Chicago size lots: 25 feet wide with an alley and a small front and back yard.

----------


## Just the facts

> Parks and sidewalks.  Maybe if there were great parks, people would be satisfied with less land.  I like Chicago size lots: 25 feet wide with an alley and a small front and back yard.


Stay with me on this...

How many parks, where would you put them, and how big would they be?

How many miles of sidewalks, where would you put them, and who would use them?

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

What would you think about funding a 'transfer of development rights' program using a MAPS style tax?

http://www.farmlandinfo.org/document...S_TDR_1-01.pdf

----------


## Just the facts

LOL - no, but it won't take long to realize that when you spread projects across 650 sq miles you are going to need a lot more money to make any kind of impact and a lot of places aren't going to get anything.

----------


## hoya

In OKC, suburbia pays for most things because our downtown used to look like this:



A downtown with zero people, zero shopping, zero tax base is not going to do the heavy lifting, economically.  _We let our downtown die._  MAPS is about bringing it back to life.  So yes, it's going to focus disproportionately on downtown.  But we've seen billions of dollars of investment come out of that initial $100M or so that we put in.  You don't get that same sort of economic growth if you're investing that money out in the suburbs.

In general. this:



is going to generate more revenue, more tax dollars, and more economic growth, than this:



The issue in OKC is that we basically have about 10 blocks of the first picture and 600 square miles of the second.  So as a total, yes, the majority of OKC's tax revenue and economic development will come from the suburbs.  That's what happens when your city is basically all suburb.  

But let's look at the larger question.  _Why are we seeing such growth downtown?_  The answer is because it's easier to create a concentration of activity in a more dense area.  I can walk around Bricktown and eat at 20 different restaurants.  I can do the same in Midwest City on Air Depot, if I'm willing to get in my car and drive a mile and a half.  But that doesn't generate the same type of development or economic growth.

----------


## warreng88

> Maybe we should change gears for awhile.  What if there was a MAPS for Suburbs, what would be on the list?


I would think the same thing we are doing in Maps 3 plus a little more. More sidewalks, more trails, more community centers, then add to that renovation of parks and and upgrading mass transit in general whether it be the bus system, commuter rail, express bus lines, extension of the street car line, etc. Roads and traffic in general can be handled by bonds. The problem that you run into when you try to a Suburb Maps is who gets what. When MAPS 3 came up and there was talk of a new convention center, there were only a handful of places it could go to serve downtown the best. The Union Commons was a no-brainer. I guess we will probably end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring consultants to find out where the most rooftops are and where the most people without cars are to determine where the bus lines should run. Then which parks are in need of upgrades and which one has the most homes around it.

----------


## Geographer

I believe it was Jeff Speck who said "you start with downtown because it's everyone's space" (paraphrasing).

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Maybe we should change gears for awhile.  What if there was a MAPS for Suburbs, what would be on the list?


*Street cars for the core areas
*redesigning the service roads to make them either a 2 or 3 lane, each way, one way and add "Texas" turnarounds with dual left turns, dedicated right turn lanes at all intersections
*install "smart" traffic lights making them synchronized
*do traffic studies and determine what roads need to be widened to 6 lanes(for example, I believe Second St. in Edmond needs to be widened)
*Add bike lanes in various locations and build an expansive bike trail network
*BURY THE UTILITY LINES!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALL OF THEM lol
*add sidewalks to every road
*give incentives to neighborhoods to build stone or brick walls along neighborhoods that front streets
*work with OKC to build a light-rail through out the entire metro
*expand bus services
*add a bike sharing program in the cores and through-out college areas

Those are just a few to name

Also, it would be nice if the city would lessen the parking requirements

Oh, and to add to that list: Add more parks and integrate them with the trail network I listed

----------


## Just the facts

> I would think the same thing we are doing in Maps 3 plus a little more. More sidewalks, more trails, more community centers, then add to that renovation of parks and and upgrading mass transit in general whether it be the bus system, commuter rail, express bus lines, extension of the street car line, etc. Roads and traffic in general can be handled by bonds. The problem that you run into when you try to a Suburb Maps is who gets what. When MAPS 3 came up and there was talk of a new convention center, there were only a handful of places it could go to serve downtown the best. The Union Commons was a no-brainer. I guess we will probably end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring consultants to find out where the most rooftops are and where the most people without cars are to determine where the bus lines should run. Then which parks are in need of upgrades and which one has the most homes around it.


I excluded mass transit since those by definition don't work in suburbia, and would just bring people downtown anyhow.  How many miles of sidewalks do you think should be included in MAPS for Suburbia and who is going to use them?

----------


## Geographer

> *give incentives to neighborhoods to build stone or brick walls along neighborhoods that front streets


why this?

----------


## Just the facts

> *Street cars for the core areas
> *redesigning the service roads to make them either a 2 or 3 lane, each way, one way and add "Texas" turnarounds with dual left turns, dedicated right turn lanes at all intersections
> *install "smart" traffic lights making them synchronized
> *do traffic studies and determine what roads need to be widened to 6 lanes(for example, I believe Second St. in Edmond needs to be widened)
> *Add bike lanes in various locations and build an expansive bike trail network
> *BURY THE UTILITY LINES!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALL OF THEM lol
> *add sidewalks to every road
> *give incentives to neighborhoods to build stone or brick walls along neighborhoods that front streets
> *work with OKC to build a light-rail through out the entire metro
> ...


So you are thinking a $5 billion MAPS tax?

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> why this?


I just think it looks better than the crappy wood fences that line a bunch of Edmond streets. Obviously, it wouldn't be a priority and if there was a (M)SAPs, it wouldn't make it. Just a thought though.  :Smile:

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> So you are thinking a $5 billion MAPS tax?


Probably, sound good?  :Wink: 

On edit, it might even be a little more than 5 billion if EVERYTHING on my list were to happen. Those are just a few ideas. I wouldn't expect everything on that list to happen.

The three main things I would want is 

*Street car
*Light-rail
*Redesigning of the service roads, well the ones in Edmond anyways.

Also, another cool thing that I would add to the "general" list would be landscaping our highways. Esp. the circles in the cloverleafs and the medians.

----------


## warreng88

> I excluded mass transit since those by definition don't work in suburbia, and would just bring people downtown anyhow.  How many miles of sidewalks do you think should be included in MAPS for Suburbia and who is going to use them?


The other thing to create would be several bus terminals around the metro so people don't have to take the bus five miles out of their way downtown to go 10 miles in the same direction they came from. I would think one strategically placed in every quadrant (NE, NW, SE, SW) would be sufficient for now.

Not really sure of the mileage, but I would put at least a five foot sidewalk around every major square mile (i.e. 10, 23, 36, etc and Penn, May, MacArthur, etc) extending south, north, west and east to the city limits. Then, ideally, a sidewalk on at least one side of the street every other block. So, between 10 and 23 there would be one on 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23. I skipped 17 and 18 because 16 and 19 are more traveled. I live on NW 21st street and from May to Penn there is maybe a quarter mile of sidewalk. This is not great for someone who likes to run in the morning like me.

----------


## warreng88

The other thing I would add is technology to make mass transit easier to understand. I live at 21st and May and work at Britton and May. I cannot for the life of me figure out how I could take the bus to work. So, create a database where you enter your current location, where you want to go and what time you need to leave or what time you need to be at your destination. The database will spit out multiple options you can take and how much it will cost. It would also tell you what time you will be stopping at what location and when to switch over to another line number.

----------


## mkjeeves

Good thoughts. I would like to see a city push with vision, planning, education, funding (full, matching or seed), to facilitate local ownership and centralized neighborhood redevelopment of areas like the Plaza District, only scattered across the metro where we have similar issues they did and that downtown did before we started. That done in concert with what you just mentioned. We don't need an arena, a canal, ballpark etc at every node.

----------


## betts

> The other thing I would add is technology to make mass transit easier to understand. I live at 21st and May and work at Britton and May. I cannot for the life of me figure out how I could take the bus to work. So, create a database where you enter your current location, where you want to go and what time you need to leave or what time you need to be at your destination. The database will spit out multiple options you can take and how much it will cost. It would also tell you what time you will be stopping at what location and when to switch over to another line number.


You just need us to go to a grid and have bus GPS so you can see where the bus is. We've made riding the bus unnecessarily difficult with our crazy routes.

----------


## Just the facts

So in summary we want to turn urban sprawl into T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5.

----------


## mkjeeves

> So in summary we want to turn urban sprawl into T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5.


You could deannex me and we'll use the money locally instead of sending it downtown. Actually, Bethany would like to have us. I'm urban Bethany more than suburban OKC. Most people in the metro can say the same, closer to some town that's been around since the beginning than OKC downtown.

----------


## mkjeeves

I drove down there and wrote them out a check the other day for a tornado shelter permit!

----------


## hoya

I think there are a few things that should happen if the suburbs want to duplicate the success of MAPS.  The most important part of MAPS was that it was a showing of faith by the people of this city that they weren't going to let downtown rot.  They believed in the city enough to invest in it.  That gave investors confidence to build.

Steps to revitalize the suburbs in the same way we revitalized downtown:

1) Urban Growth Boundary
This is simple.  Values of your current home in the suburb are going to go down if people can move 5 miles out and build your neighborhood, but newer, in a farmer's field for less money.  That's just the way it will be.  People won't move into a neighborhood of 10 year old homes, they'll move into the 1 year old homes and will drive the extra two minutes.  Unfortunately this dramatically increases our infrastructure costs.  We have to put in more water pipes, put in more roads, extend where our school buses run, extend police and fire protection, etc.  It also decreases your existing home values, which hurts your resale value and hurts our schools.  So let's not do that anymore.  We put in an Urban Growth Boundary (i.e., "no new housing developments past X street") and new development won't stop, it will just turn inward.  When the guy who would be buying a $200K house up on NW 180th instead buys one in an existing neighborhood in the city, it makes that neighborhood better.  

2) Zoning Changes
Now let's focus that new development.  Right now we have mile after mile of houses, with gas stations and fast food places on the major mile streets.  It's like it was put there by a guy with a big stamp.  In large part that's because of our zoning laws and because we use the automobile as our sole source of transportation.  We should encourage mixed use developments within neighborhoods, and not just on the major mile streets.  We drastically reduce required parking spaces in commercial developments, even eliminating them entirely in our neighborhood arera.  Now, this in and of itself won't change anything.  But like the Urban Growth Boundary, it allows the kinds of changes we want and sets the stage for the sort of development we want to see.  

3) Commuter Rail
We need a way to get around without taking the car everywhere.  The creation of a commuter rail system that lets you get to most places in the city will tremendously increase the value of land near those rail stops.  It will spur development in the area, and with our new, better zoning requirements, people will be able to take advantage of the proximity of mass transit to build to a higher density.

4) More Parks and Sidewalks
I won't mind a smaller yard if I have a nice park across the street from my house.  It doesn't have to be a huge city park, but a few acres that are maintained and well managed can really increase the value of homes nearby.  More sidewalks increase walkability, allow more more foot traffic, etc.


--

At the end of the day, in our suburbs we want to encourage 1) fun things to do, 2) that are easy to get to, 3) that encourage people to have pride in their community and stay there.  Commuter rail can encourage development of little "town square" style areas.  I should be able to get off the train at pretty much any given location and have three or four places to eat, a small grocery store, a drug store, maybe a small movie theater, things like that.



Now, no one is going to come through and bulldoze 600 square miles of suburb and rebuild into these nice little urban neighborhoods with cafes and bistros and hipsters walking their little dogs in the dog park.  That's not gonna happen.  If you live in a neighborhood that was built 5 years ago, with no sidewalks and no parks, 3000 sq ft houses sitting on two acres apiece, then your life is gonna remain basically unchanged.  The problem is that that's exactly what people are complaining about.  "There's nothing cool in my neighborhood.  I don't have any neat restaurants or a cool river walk."  You need density to have that stuff.  What we would see is gradual development and change.  Our neighborhoods would be better because they would follow for a more economically successful model.

Midwest City just invested a butt-ton of money to try and make a development like this on 29th street.  The only problem is they had to put in huge parking lots because the only way to get there is by car.  You have a rail line that runs right beside the area and you get a bunch of potential customers who can suddenly walk to it.

I am not saying that you can't still live in your suburb that has nothing but houses and has no sidewalks.  That's what some people really want.  They want to come home, park in their garage, and shut out the concerns of the world.  That's fine.  Just understand, that's _exactly_ what keeps the cool stuff from being in your area.

----------


## Snowman

> If you live in a neighborhood that was built 5 years ago, with no sidewalks and no parks, ...


Kind of a moot point but as of at least fifteen to twenty years ago new houses have to have sidewalks and there has to be a certain area of amenity space and items based on the developments size.

----------


## krisb

> The talk about Shadid and possibly wanting to take the city down a path where less is invested in downtown and more is invested in more suburban areas got me thinking.  If there was to be a MAPS for suburbia what would you like to see?  I am calling suburbia anything north and west of I-44, east of I-35, or south of I-40.


Where do you get the idea that Shadid wants to invest more in suburban areas? He is the only councilman challenging the city's long policy of subsidizing suburban sprawl and street widening in the outlying areas. He may not be in favor of big business controlling downtown development, but he is the strongest advocate for urban issues on the horseshoe. He attends ULI and CNU meetings, invites national urban planners to public symposiums, and represents OKC's most diverse, historic, urban neighborhoods. He is one of few civic leaders in Oklahoma City who speaks the language of "walkability" and "placemaking." Just thought I would make that clear.

----------


## soonerguru

> Where do you get the idea that Shadid wants to invest more in suburban areas? He is the only councilman challenging the city's long policy of subsidizing suburban sprawl and street widening in the outlying areas. He may not be in favor of big business controlling downtown development, but he is the strongest advocate for urban issues on the horseshoe. He attends ULI and CNU meetings, invites national urban planners to public symposiums, and represents OKC's most diverse, historic, urban neighborhoods. He is one of few civic leaders in Oklahoma City who speaks the language of "walkability" and "placemaking." Just thought I would make that clear.


Shadid is not in favor of any development so far. He has proposed no downtown development and has opposed or criticized every downtown development that has come to pass so far. Can you name a single downtown development that Shadid has supported? Of course not, because no such project exists. Instead, what you're left with is complaints about process and any and all people involved.

I know you like the guy but square your fondness with facts: Shadid is a professional "a-gain-er."

----------


## Just the facts

Shadid needs to make up his mind.  He says he is for walkability and Urbanism, but does he actually mean it or are those just buzz words to get elected?  Like Soonerguru pointed out, where are his ideas, plans, or vision?  So far all he has done is preach Urbanism on Sunday morning and party like its 1999 every other day of the week by opposing every attempt at actually doing something and trying to kill our only funding mechanism to do it in the process.  We need more than townhall meetings that only point out what we already know and saying the word 'bus' as if we are trained to start salivating at the meer mention of it.

We have 'need to' covered.  We need someone to assist with 'how to' so someday we can get to 'how did'.

----------


## mkjeeves

> <snip>"There's nothing cool in my neighborhood.  I don't have any neat restaurants or a cool river walk."  You need density to have that stuff.


Optionally, as with our downtown, freight-car loads of cash from the burbs.

But I do agree with a lot of what you have said in this and other posts in theory. What I proposed was facilitating that happening in other parts of the city where it was both wanted, needed for redevelopment, and as part of a larger plan that took into account mass-trans, parks and other civic improvements, not just happenstance. Seems like a no brainer for new development requirements and as Snowman pointed out, new development requirements have changed to include a bit of it.

----------


## bchris02

> I just think it looks better than the crappy wood fences that line a bunch of Edmond streets. Obviously, it wouldn't be a priority and if there was a (M)SAPs, it wouldn't make it. Just a thought though.


More and more subdivisions in this area are starting to get brick and/or stone boundary fences.  They are all over NW OKC and I'm starting to see them more in Edmond. I agree the wood ones look terrible especially if they aren't maintained.

I would like to see stricter building codes requiring construction built in suburban areas to be more aesthetically pleasing.  There is a HUGE difference between the aesthetic quality of new construction in Edmond city limits vs OKC city limits.

----------


## hoya

> Optionally, as with our downtown, freight-car loads of cash from the burbs.
> 
> But I do agree with a lot of what you have said in this and other posts in theory. What I proposed was facilitating that happening in other parts of the city where it was both wanted, needed for redevelopment, and as part of a larger plan that took into account mass-trans, parks and other civic improvements, not just happenstance. Seems like a no brainer for new development requirements and as Snowman pointed out, new development requirements have changed to include a bit of it.


Lots of cash won't give you what you are looking for without density.

----------


## mkjeeves

> Lots of cash won't give you what you are looking for without density.


There was no density in downtown when we started. There's still not much. That remains the point. (And topic to a large degree.)

----------


## Teo9969

Well, mkjeeves, I think you hit the jackpot right here:




> You could deannex me and we'll use the money locally instead of sending it downtown. Actually, Bethany would like to have us. I'm urban Bethany more than suburban OKC. Most people in the metro can say the same, closer to some town that's been around since the beginning than OKC downtown.


If OKC would sell land (proportionally business/residence/vacant) to Bethany, Warr Acres, Del/Midwest City, and Mustang, I think OKC might find the answer to some of it's 650 square miles of problems.

Here's the real problem I see with your argument, jeeves. Your definition of "suburban" is effectively NW OKC. It is simply disingenuous to label the Ford Center a downtown project. It was placed where it was not because it needed to be downtown, but because it needed to be in the center of the city along with the other major MAPS projects, which just so happens to be downtown. Investments in amenities at NW122nd/Penn and SE89th/Sunnylane is an investment into 1990s OKC.

Would you have in anyway supported a project that put the Ford Center (or a similarly sized project) in a place like I-240/Shields? I'm going to go ahead and guess not, because even though it's in suburbia, it's not in your suburbia.

JTF is right: When we actually start talking about the "investments" in suburbia that are unfairly being left off the ballot we realize that we either have to discriminate against certain sections of town, or we have to spend an unholy amount of *public* money to build a bunch of stuff that won't get used anyway (seriously...who is going to really use a sidewalk @ 39th and MacArthur?). How a city full of conservatives has been duped into the government trap of urban sprawl is beyond me. 

Addressing the only list that seems to have really been given about what maybe we would include in a MAPS for non-DT OKC




> *Street cars for the core areas
> *If by core areas you mean anything outside of the "loop" then this is wasted money. Buses.*
> 
> *redesigning the service roads to make them either a 2 or 3 lane, each way, one way and add "Texas" turnarounds with dual left turns, dedicated right turn lanes at all intersections
> *install "smart" traffic lights making them synchronized
> *do traffic studies and determine what roads need to be widened to 6 lanes(for example, I believe Second St. in Edmond needs to be widened)
> *Streets tend to be addressed with Bond issues, and that should probably stay that way. I don't have a problem with any of these suggestions, just that MAPS is not the vehicle (ba-dum-chhh) for that investment. We *have* to raise the taxes in OKC to address the roads.*
> 
> *Add bike lanes in various locations and build an expansive bike trail network
> ...

----------


## mkjeeves

Sell it? You just admitted the burbs have value. That's why the city won't. They need the taxes and want the control. As such, they have obligations to the residents who live there and not just to use them for other ends.

We most assuredly have those like you who see any spending in the burbs as worthless.  Lets see how much further you can get the bus down the road in the direction you want to go with that attitude when the majority of OKC residents don't live or work downtown but still vote.

And a side note on sidewalks not in downtown...it's kind of cruel joke to force builders to put them in if they aren't needed isn't it? I bet you support that even though you see no need for them.

----------


## catch22

> Sell it? You just admitted the burbs have value. That's why the city won't. They need the taxes and want the control. As such, they have obligations to the residents who live there and not just to use them for other ends.
> 
> We most assuredly have those like you who see any spending in the burbs as worthless.  Lets see how much further you can get the bus down the road with that attitude when the majority of the residents don't live or work downtown but still vote.


They have value but we can't afford to maintain that value. Sure I just bought a 95,000 dollar car with borrowed money. I can't afford to maintain the value of it.

----------


## mkjeeves

Bullfeathers.

Deannex me, please.

----------


## Just the facts

> How a city full of conservatives has been duped into the government trap of urban sprawl is beyond me.


As a flag flying tea party person myself, I can't figure this out either.  It drives me crazy.

----------


## mkjeeves

MAPS tax and spend is about as far from conservatism as one can get.

----------


## Just the facts

How do you figure that, unless you have a cartoon view of conservatism?  Even the founding fathers had taxes that paid for the public realm.  The difference is, they got their money's worth.  I suggest everyone should read The Geography of Nowhere by James Kunstler.  If you don't want to read the whole book try just the first 5 chapters.

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0671888250

----------


## Geographer

> How do you figure that, unless you have a cartoon view of conservatism?  Even the founding fathers had taxes that paid for the public realm.  The difference is, they got their money's worth.  I suggest everyone should read The Geography of Nowhere by James Kunstler.  If you don't want to read the whole book try just the first 5 chapters.
> 
> The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America&#39;s Man-Made Landscape: James Howard Kunstler: 9780671888251: Amazon.com: Books


Fantastic book....his TED talk is rather amusing and informational as well.

----------


## mkjeeves

Not everyone shares your view. The end is not near. We'll be fine. I'll pass...

However, in critiquing The Long Emergency, journalist Chris Hayes claims that while Kunstler makes valid points about the consequences of peak oil, he undermines his credibility with rhetoric and perceived misanthropy.[10] Ezra Klein, writing for The American Prospect, notes that Kunstler lacks credentials as an oil expert, and claims that his work "definitely has a crazy-guy-on-Venice feel to it."[11] Joseph Romm, a climate change expert and Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, has stated his belief that accelerating shifts toward renewable energy will maintain suburban lifestyles and that, contrary to Kunstler's arguments, "suburbia won’t be destroyed by peak oil."[12]

Charles Bensinger, co-founder of Renewable Energy Partners of New Mexico, describes Kunstler's views as "fashionably fear-mongering" and uninformed regarding the potential of renewable energy resources to eliminate the need for fossil fuels.[13] 

wikipedia

----------


## Just the facts

> Fantastic book....his TED talk is rather amusing and informational as well.


I might as well post it since you mentioned it.

Caution - some foul language.

----------


## mkjeeves

Sure. Go ahead and derail the thread into new urbanism drivel like you do on just about every thread. Might as well.

----------


## Snowman

> Not everyone shares your view. The end is not near. We'll be fine. I'll pass...
> 
> However, in critiquing The Long Emergency, journalist Chris Hayes claims that while Kunstler makes valid points about the consequences of peak oil, he undermines his credibility with rhetoric and perceived misanthropy.[10] Ezra Klein, writing for The American Prospect, notes that Kunstler lacks credentials as an oil expert, and claims that his work "definitely has a crazy-guy-on-Venice feel to it."[11] Joseph Romm, a climate change expert and Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, has stated his belief that accelerating shifts toward renewable energy will maintain suburban lifestyles and that, contrary to Kunstler's arguments, "suburbia wont be destroyed by peak oil."[12]
> 
> Charles Bensinger, co-founder of Renewable Energy Partners of New Mexico, describes Kunstler's views as "fashionably fear-mongering" and uninformed regarding the potential of renewable energy resources to eliminate the need for fossil fuels.[13] 
> 
> wikipedia


Peak oil is not the only problem though, even without that though for several decades it has been a trend that the revenue the suburbs get will not pay off the long term costs of maintaining itself. I expect that if gasoline got expensive enough, then either natural gas or eventually electric vehicles can at least reduce demand for it or longer term even take over. That does nothing to help with the cyclical costs of road, freshwater and sewage system maintenance; along with services like police and emergency medical being higher in suburban areas. Even without all that we have the problem of where the US is at in maintaining it's federal highways, which looks to get worse before it gets better.

----------


## Just the facts

> Sure. Go ahead and derail the thread into new urbanism drivel like you do on just about every thread. Might as well.


I'm not derailing it.  I asked what ideas people wanted for suburbia and everyone responded with making it more dense, defining public space better, increasing walkability, and improving mass transit.  That IS new urbanism.  Not one person suggested more auto-based sprawl.  Are you suggesting more auto based sprawl?

----------


## Just the facts

Perhaps this is what projects should be included in MAPS for Suburbia to generate more sprawl

1)  Metered entrance ramps to freeways
2)  Carpool lanes (to include alternative fuel vehicles)
3)  Funding for strip shopping centers
4)  Sprawl over-lay district mandating larger parking spaces to fit SUVs easier and larger yards.
5)  Creating flyovers at major intersections (especially along NW Exp.)
6)  Removal of tolls from urban freeways.
7)  Park and ride lots/stations.

----------


## Dubya61

> Sure. Go ahead and derail the thread into new urbanism drivel like you do on just about every thread. Might as well.


Doesn't the title just sort of invite a new urbanism comment?
Frank Burns:  I don't have to stand around here and take this kind of abuse!
Hawkeye:  Sure, you do, Frank.  You invite abuse.  It would be rude to not stand around and take it.

----------


## Teo9969

> Sell it? You just admitted the burbs have value. That's why the city won't. They need the taxes and want the control. As such, they have obligations to the residents who live there and not just to use them for other ends.
> 
> We most assuredly have those like you who see any spending in the burbs as worthless.  Lets see how much further you can get the bus down the road in the direction you want to go with that attitude when the majority of OKC residents don't live or work downtown but still vote.
> 
> And a side note on sidewalks not in downtown...it's kind of cruel joke to force builders to put them in if they aren't needed isn't it? I bet you support that even though you see no need for them.


I'm not so sure you actually read my post. I said these exact words: "seriously...who is going to really use a sidewalk @ 39th and MacArthur?" and reaffirmed the position saying these exact words: "And like I said above...sidewalks at 39th and MacArthur is money just as well thrown into a bon fire".

I also never said that spending money in the burbs is worthless. I think you missed my point entirely. My point was that:

1. Locating major amenities downtown is the only way to give fair treatment to *all* of the suburbs. It is, as I said before, disingenuous to label The Park, The Convention Center, The Ford Center, The Bricktown Ballpark, Civic Center and several other projects as downtown projects. They're not. They're city projects placed in the most strategic location for ALL suburbanites.

2. Investing in the amenities for which MAPS is utilized and in the areas that we are talking about is often wasting money. There are some great projects and ideas that could be geared toward the suburbs, and 4 of those were listed above by Plutonic Panda. I've certainly never said anything close to "We most assuredly have those like you who see any spending in the burbs as worthless." ... But even then, tell me, how excited would *you* be about an extensive, reliable bus system for your area, or a quality commuter rail network that extended to 39th and Rockwell? And would you and a majority of the people you know use it?

3. I should have defined what I meant by proportional: We set a value on the businesses, the residential areas and the vacant areas and the proportions should be such that for every valuable business that is sold to Bethany (and yes, there are valuable businesses in the suburbs, something I never dismissed) Bethany has to agree to buy an equal value of the residential areas and an equal value of vacant areas. But the catch is that Bethany would need to pay the same cost per-square-foot for all of the area, and the value of the area, as you have said, probably ought to be determined by the "business land".

----------


## mkjeeves

> I'm not so sure you actually read my post. I said these exact words: "seriously...who is going to really use a sidewalk @ 39th and MacArthur?" and reaffirmed the position saying these exact words: "And like I said above...sidewalks at 39th and MacArthur is money just as well thrown into a bon fire".


Some people have no idea what they are talking about. (I sure don't want them making decisions about my neighborhood, or for anyone else for that matter.) 39th and Mac is Warr Acres. Here's a photo anyway looking south at that intersection from 42nd street. The other two photos are in OKC limits south of there around 30-32nd, one looking north and one looking south from the same street.

----------


## Just the facts

I need a reset.

What would be the goal of MAPS for Suburbia, to make it more walkable or to make it more sprawling?

----------


## bradh

I don't know if Lake Hefner is considered suburbia, but it's where I live, and I'd rather have MAPS projects focus on centralized efforts that bring the whole metro together.

----------


## mkjeeves

> I don't know if Lake Hefner is considered suburbia, but it's where I live, and I'd rather have MAPS projects focus on centralized efforts that bring the whole metro together.


No MAPS for Kids and you don't care for that trail system eh?

----------


## bradh

> No MAPS for Kids and you don't care for that trail system eh?


I said focus on, not totally dedicated.

I wasn't around for MAPS for Kids, and honestly the trail system doesn't do much for me, but my family has taken much more advantage of downtown located MAPS projects.

----------


## bradh

nm

----------


## mkjeeves

> I said focus on, not totally dedicated.
> 
> I wasn't around for MAPS for Kids, and honestly the trail system doesn't do much for me, but my family has taken much more advantage of downtown located MAPS projects.


I get you on the trails. I don't use them. But they have vastly improved parts of town and there are lots of people who use them. (Don't think they were totally funded by MAPS, but extensions were at least. Can't remember how the initial funding happened.) I don't have kids in school either but we needed maps for kids. I've been to enjoy all the downtown amenities but they aren't on my regular schedule of places to visit and things to do. The opposite is more likely, I do my best to stay away from downtown whenever possible, usually heading to the outdoors non-built environment if given the choice. However, I voted for all the maps initiatives.

If we finish what we voted on and do more major projects, what other major projects do we need to focus on downtown that are worth a city wide sales tax?

----------


## warreng88

> If we finish what we voted on and do more major projects, what other major projects do we need to focus on downtown that are worth a city wide sales tax?


Here is an entire thread dedicated to Maps IV ideas (Good God, I am starting to sound like metro...):

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...7-maps-iv.html

----------


## mkjeeves

I asked the suburbanite for his opinion. Maybe he has an answer?

I know what the NU groupthinkers want to the exclusion of all else.

----------


## Geographer

I've got an idea for a "MAPS for the Suburbs".  I've recently heard talk and complaints from people that the parks aren't "natural" enough.  Too many synchronized planting of trees (too patterned)...baseball diamonds, etc.  I've heard people say that they want a more natural environment to explore....instead of razing a forest to construct a park, use the existing urban forest as the park.

I think it's a cool idea...I don't know how this works or functions in implementation though.

----------


## bradh

> I get you on the trails. I don't use them. But they have vastly improved parts of town and there are lots of people who use them. (Don't think they were totally funded by MAPS, but extensions were at least. Can't remember how the initial funding happened.) I don't have kids in school either but we needed maps for kids. I've been to enjoy all the downtown amenities but they aren't on my regular schedule of places to visit and things to do. The opposite is more likely, I do my best to stay away from downtown whenever possible, usually heading to the outdoors non-built environment if given the choice. However, I voted for all the maps initiatives.
> 
> If we finish what we voted on and do more major projects, what other major projects do we need to focus on downtown that are worth a city wide sales tax?


I'm not really sure.  I just think that if you start planning MAPS projects scattered around the metro, the likelihood of usage by everyone goes down.  If you want to do MAPS for Suburbia, figure out a way to get people from the outskirts into town easier (commuter buses or rail).  I think you have fewer people complain about a downtown focus, than if you started building more projects on one side of town, which would piss off the opposite side of town.

----------


## mkjeeves

Having spent 10 minutes over coffee thinking about what I'd support in new downtown projects, the only thing that comes to mind would be I *might* consider saving Stage Center if a plan were floated on how and what to do with it.

----------


## Geographer

> Edit: In Google Maps, it doesn't look like the green space I'm point out is a part of Whispering Heights.  I just don't know.   Also, I'd point out that it is right behind the dog park so it is nice that dog owners can go to the dog park and let their dogs off the leash then put them back on leash and take them for a run... all right there.


So am I supposed to be looking at Whispering Heights Park? Or somewhere else? haha

----------


## mkjeeves

> Whispering Heights Park


gotta get to work. I'll check it out later. However, I was in the burbs (up Penn to Danforth and beyond) last evening looking at all the joggers in suburbia using the sidewalks. (Yep, they have some.) I thought people in the burbs were all fat, lazy and only used their cars when they aren't on the couch. Who would have thought?

----------


## Geographer

> Well, the trails surround Whispering Heights.  It just isn't the usual green like a park is on the map.  Does that make sense?


Yeah that makes sense, I just wanted to make sure I was looking at the right thing.  I think a "MAPS for Suburban Forests" would be awesome.  I see where suburban-ites would be complaining about the lack of a canopy in many parks since most suburban parks are softball/baseball/soccer fields.  There's not a whole lot of natural parks around, other than the trail that's just north of Lake Hefner (the bluff creek park I think).

Let's save those trees! hah

----------


## Geographer

> gotta get to work. I'll check it out later. However, I was in the burbs (up Penn to Danforth and beyond) last evening looking at all the joggers in suburbia using the sidewalks. (Yep, they have some.) I thought people in the burbs were all fat, lazy and only used their cars when they aren't on the couch. Who would have thought?


I certainly do not think that all peeps in the burbs are fat/lazy etc.

I'm not entirely sure how to say this, so bear with me.  There's a difference between using a sidewalk strictly for jogging and exercising, and using a sidewalk to run an errand down the street or go to work.  You have to take extra time out of your day after you've commuted to/from work to use those sidewalks to exercise versus a more regular use for running errands/working. 

I'm not sure if I articulated my thoughts well enough here haha.

----------


## Just the facts

One thing which would be a good project is to 'daylight' the creeks that have been covered over, restore public ownership of waterways, and create creek banks that are transect zone appropriate.  Turning our natural waterways into drainage ditches and culverts was a big mistake which was made worse by allowing people to put public creeks in their backyards.

----------


## mkjeeves

> I certainly do not think that all peeps in the burbs are fat/lazy etc.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure how to say this, so bear with me.  There's a difference between using a sidewalk strictly for jogging and exercising, and using a sidewalk to run an errand down the street or go to work.  You have to take extra time out of your day after you've commuted to/from work to use those sidewalks to exercise versus a more regular use for running errands/working. 
> 
> I'm not sure if I articulated my thoughts well enough here haha.


Only if you set the bar at need versus want (quality of life.) If that's the case, there is no argument for most of the downtown maps projects like the ballpark, central park, arena, canal, and on and on and on.

Even with that, the downtown sidewalks probably get equal use of need vs want, visiting entertainment venues, lunch, taking a break from work, exercise etc. as opposed to need, getting to work from where you parked the car you drove in from the burbs. It would be hard to say.


(I think I'm up a creek on meeting my bid deadlines. Backing away from the keyboard now...)

----------


## mkjeeves

> You mean projects *located* downtown.   
> 
> Lol, sorry. I'm just having too much fun with this.


Right. Just like projects located in the burbs. The street runs both directions. (Now that we changed some.)

All Burb spending is downtown spending! We are all the same city! (That's not any more true or believable than when it's said the other way around.)

----------


## mkjeeves

If that's going to be the equation always. You need to deannex me. I want my neighborhood, the immediate area I live in, work in and own property in, to have the best quality of life me and my neighbors can afford. I'm willing to pay taxes to get that. You are willing to take my money, say it will be better spent if we do an ROI and spend it downtown instead. That's not acceptable to me.

It was to the point I've supported MAPS in the past. You have a much harder sell going forward. Probably no sale. I can't imagine what the argument would be for " all downtown spending is OKC spending."

----------


## mkjeeves

Right. They passed. I voted for them. Maybe you want to re-read the first post of this topic again? We're talking about what is next.

----------


## warreng88

> If that's going to be the equation always. You need to deannex me. I want my neighborhood, the immediate area I live in, work in and own property in, to have the best quality of life me and my neighbors can afford. I'm willing to pay taxes to get that. You are willing to take my money, say it will be better spent if we do an ROI and spend it downtown instead. That's not acceptable to me.


I will never understand the "if it doesn't benefit me directly, I am against it" mentality. I live around NW 21st and May. I do not live downtown and I don't consider myself to live in the suburbs, but MAPS has benefitted me directly. I have multiple friends who have moved back to OKC because they got a job with a company here that wouldn't be here had it not been for MAPS. Two of my neighbors bought houses because they had a job that moved them here. They are fixing up those houses and because of that, my property value is going up. I don't enjoy every aspect of MAPS, but I fully support it because they make our city a better place to live.

----------


## Geographer

> If that's going to be the equation always. You need to deannex me. I want my neighborhood, the immediate area I live in, work in and own property in, to have the best quality of life me and my neighbors can afford. I'm willing to pay taxes to get that. You are willing to take my money, say it will be better spent if we do an ROI and spend it downtown instead. That's not acceptable to me.
> 
> It was to the point I've supported MAPS in the past. You have a much harder sell going forward. Probably no sale. I can't imagine what the argument would be for " all downtown spending is OKC spending."


C'mon man.  I could say the same thing....why should I be taxed to support road expansion north of the Kilpatrick turnpike when my street hasn't been re-surfaced in 20 years?

It goes both ways.  Cities have to make the choice, because in reality, you aren't going to see equal investment of public money across the board.  That's just reality.

----------


## Geographer

> Gotcha. 
> 
> Then I suspect we do agree.  I want MAPS IV to be more "spread out".  I think livability is important everywhere.  
> 
> Christopher Leinberger spoke at the Placemaking Conference about the need for 10-12 WalkUPs (Walkable, urban places) scattered around the city.  This doesn't mean tall buildings.  This just means places with enhanced quality of life, amenities, and services.   This is the MAPS for Districts I was talking about.  I think we should define where those could/should be and invest heavily in them during the next 10 years.


Wouldn't the neighborhood business zoning category be a great tool to utilize creating "neighborhood plaza districts" in our low density residential neighborhoods?  :Smile:

----------


## Just the facts

retro-fitting suburbia

----------


## mkjeeves

> I will never understand the "if it doesn't benefit me directly, I am against it" mentality. I live around NW 21st and May. I do not live downtown and I don't consider myself to live in the suburbs, but MAPS has benefitted me directly. I have multiple friends who have moved back to OKC because they got a job with a company here that wouldn't be here had it not been for MAPS. Two of my neighbors bought houses because they had a job that moved them here. They are fixing up those houses and because of that, my property value is going up. I don't enjoy every aspect of MAPS, but I fully support it because they make our city a better place to live.


That's not what I said. You know those missing sidewalk photos I posted upthread, I believe a lot of that was probably from kids walking to school. I watch people walking up and down council all day, not jogging for fun and fitness, walking to and from whatever they do with themselves, getting on the bus etc., on uneven ground, wet grass, in the mud and so on. (Lets don't even mention handicap issues.)

I've supported MAPS all the way. I supported the Ballpark, Arena, Convention Center, Canal, Downtown Library, Central Park etc. If the plan moving forward is to continue to build similar to a Ballpark, Arena, Convention Center, Canal, Downtown Library, Central Park, and not address the issues like above...enough is enough. We did that. It's time to move on with other issues before we do more of dumping money in downtown because of some fuzzy ROI math that doesn't take into account Quality of Day to Day Life elsewhere. 

As has been pointed out, we have and we are to some extent. The last MAPS projects have included other city wide issues. 

So some of this fun banter is directed at the more theoretical, suburbia/NU argument and the idea that all spending, MAPS and/or discretionary, inferred if not outright mentioned, should be done downtown.

----------


## Dubya61

Wow.  Either the light just went off in my head, and I think I really _GET_ what y'all are saying, or the thread just took the best possible turn and there's finally some agreement here.  Here's a recap of what finally tripped where I think the next MAPS needs to be.



> But not all investments belong downtown.  The Adventure District is a good example.  I think we should definitely be doing more out there.  I'm glad to see the investments at the zoo lately and get to do more.  I think the Adventure District is one of those areas that isn't well supported as far as municipal services and infrastructure.  It is incredibly auto-dependent and transit is mostly invisible.  Going west to the Western museum picking up the softball complex and the the formal Adventure District needs to be much better defined and would benefit greatly from a focused economic development effort. 
> ...
> I'm looking forward to more diverse projects.  I'd love to see a MAPS for the Districts.  Solve our districts biggest problems and watch them all benefit.  MAPS for Transit would be another promising opportunity to get capital funding for major one time costs like bus shelters.





> You are willing to take my money, say it will be better spent if we do an ROI and spend it downtown instead. That's not acceptable to me.





> I want MAPS IV to be more "spread out".  I think livability is important everywhere.
> 
> Christopher Leinberger spoke at the Placemaking Conference about the need for 10-12 WalkUPs (Walkable, urban places) scattered around the city.  This doesn't mean tall buildings.  This just means places with enhanced quality of life, amenities, and services.   This is the MAPS for Districts I was talking about.  I think we should define where those could/should be and invest heavily in them during the next 10 years.





> Wouldn't the neighborhood business zoning category be a great tool to utilize creating "neighborhood plaza districts" in our low density residential neighborhoods?


I think it would be really cool if there were a way to tie in an RTA with the next MAPS, and use the Districts and WalkUPs to focus on places that need a town square.  Further, encourage the colleague suburbs (MWC, Del City, Norman, Edmond, Yukon, Mustang, Shawnee, etc -- basically all the ACOG guys to get on board and do the same:  Find a spot where you can create a vibrant town square / TOD / shopping/living/recreating district and really give the RTA a super shot in the arm for success.  I recently posted in another thread that ...



> I spoke with a former mayor of one of the in-close 'burbs recently and asked him what would make his city contribute to a rail-based connection to Bricktown / CBD.  He told me that there was no good reason for him to contribute to locals to find an easier way to spend money outside of his taxable base (or words to that effect).  If I read him right, he was saying that it would cause his municipality to lose sales tax revenue.


I don't know the deal that OKC wanted with his city, but it sure seemed to him like something that wouldn't provide a good ROI.


> Which begs the question - what kind of hell hole was he mayor of that would cause the population to flee with the first cheap way out? .  You should ask the former Mayor how he feels about roads connecting to his town from other areas.
> Of course, his attitude is no different from many of the suburbs around Salt Lake City who had the same short-sighted mentality.  Then they found out that no one wanted to move to or shop in their town because it didn't have regional transit.  Now they are standing in line to get rail service.


In fact, after talking with him, he might be very short-sighted, but I think he was trying to get his city to the point where people wanted to shop there and wanted more time to get it really rolling before lighting up the exit door.  I'm sure you're right, JTF, in that he probably didn't realized any and all of his citizens already had streets and highways to leave on.



> That's exactly right.  When DC installed their Metro subway system, the Georgetown area of the city told them they didn't want it.  They didn't want the riff-raff having an easy way into their area of town.  Now they'd love to get service there, but it would be too expensive to do at this point.
> I live in MWC, and I'm quite familiar with where the train tracks run in that area.  You'd be looking at two great locations for a rail stop.  The first is at Reno and Sooner Rd.  There's a whole lot of nothing at that intersection right now.  It would be easy to put a station there.  The land around it, dominated by an Anthony's and a strip mall, would go up in value fairly quickly.  With decent zoning and a good growth plan you could turn it from a neglected area into a thriving shopping area.  The second place is on Air Depot in what is currently a Golden Corral parking lot.  Midwest City's most heavily travelled road could get a sizeable amount of foot traffic, which would increase the density of an already successful restaurant corridor.
> The places where these rail stops are built draw development.  They increase property values.  It becomes not just a place to get on the train, but a destination.  People who get off the plane at Will Rogers never have to rent a car.  When they _don't_ rent a car, they _will_ stay at a hotel on the rail line.  They will eat at restaurants within easy walking distance.  Those locations become highly valuable, especially if you steer new construction away from huge parking lots and towards nice sidewalks and urban amenities.
> Edit: Imagine if each stop had its own tiny Bricktown.  Not a copy of Bricktown, but a Main Street-styled development for a block or two in all directions.  Think people in Midwest City, or Edmond, or Norman might like that?


I initially wanted to edit all but the last paragraph out of hoyasooner's post for brevity, but it all plays into my point (and, I think, yours, mkjeeves):  I think we've done the right thing with Bricktown, CBD, Fairgrounds, River/Adrenaline district, etc.  Now, it's time to duplicate that success on a smaller scale around the metro.  I think we need to get an RTA going and really rethink our metro routes and find a way to build a little town center in various places (and alert the ACOG colleagues that that's the direction OKC is taking, a smart non-OKC municipality would embrace the RTA and maybe institute a little MAPS of their own to vitalize / re-vitalize this new portal to their city.
THAT's what I want from the next MAPS:  Placemaking wherever it can yield good results, but also placemaking that looks forward to RTA tie-in.

BTW, I'm not a lock-step "New Urbanist" (that I can see).  I just want the best possible OKC that I can have access to.
In disclosure, I live in the city limits, don't live downtown and don't want to.  If I had my way, I'd live outside the city limits but have easy access to all of OKC (CBD, Bricktown, Adventure District, Adrenaline/Riverfront District, Malls, Capitol Hill, etc.).  On the Transect scale I'm a T5.5.
JTF:  You don't need to need to tell me how my desire for a park and ride (unstated in this post, bur still very real) is screwed up.  I know it.  Feel free to (and I hope you do) use any response you wish to give as a platform for your displeasure at my desire for a park and ride option.

----------


## warreng88

> That's not what I said.


This is exactly what you said: 




> I want my neighborhood, the immediate area I live in, work in and own property in, to have the best quality of life me and my neighbors can afford. I'm willing to pay taxes to get that. You are willing to take my money, say it will be better spent if we do an ROI and spend it downtown instead. That's not acceptable to me.


You want the money for your immediate area. You don't want to pay money for something to be done downtown. How else should I read that? 

I run about twice a week from May to Penn and back, two miles round trip. There is about a quarter mile total of sidewalks I can run on and the other times, I run in the street. I would love nothing more than to have a sidewalk that went all the way down and back so I could feel a little safer, but I am not going to vote against a future MAPS tax because there aren't enough sidewalks in my immediate neighborhood.

----------


## mkjeeves

> This is exactly what you said: 
> 
> 
> *
> You want the money for your immediate area. You don't want to pay money for something to be done downtown. How else should I read that? 
> *
> I run about twice a week from May to Penn and back, two miles round trip. There is about a quarter mile total of sidewalks I can run on and the other times, I run in the street. I would love nothing more than to have a sidewalk that went all the way down and back so I could feel a little safer, but I am not going to vote against a future MAPS tax because there aren't enough sidewalks in my immediate neighborhood.


By reading it again because that's not what I said. You can misstate it again and it still won't be what I said. Here's a reading comprehension question...Did I vote for any of the downtown maps projects?

----------


## Geographer

I think creating "village/town squares" would be the logical focus for a Suburb MAPS project.  Increasing the number of local "places" would most definitely be a positive for improving suburban areas.  Who wouldn't want a neighborhood plaza district in their neighborhood?  :Wink:

----------


## betts

> Gotcha. 
> 
> Then I suspect we do agree.  I want MAPS IV to be more "spread out".  I think livability is important everywhere.  
> 
> Christopher Leinberger spoke at the Placemaking Conference about the need for 10-12 WalkUPs (Walkable, urban places) scattered around the city.  This doesn't mean tall buildings.  This just means places with enhanced quality of life, amenities, and services.   This is the MAPS for Districts I was talking about.  I think we should define where those could/should be and invest heavily in them during the next 10 years.


The Plaza District and Uptown 23rd are showing how it's done.  Anyplace we've got an old mini "downtown" works.  A couple that easily come to mind are Capitol Hill and the 36th - 39th and Penn-Villa area.  Britton is another possibility although I think it would be more difficult.  Sure there are lots I've never noticed or have never been.

----------


## mkjeeves

> I think creating "village/town squares" would be the logical focus for a Suburb MAPS project.  Increasing the number of local "places" would most definitely be a positive for improving suburban areas.  Who wouldn't want a neighborhood plaza district in their neighborhood?


That's what I said (or attempted to say) as part of my list for suburbia about 4 pages ago. Glad we are finding some agreement.

----------


## Just the facts

Good stuff Dubya61, but I am going to take you up on your offer at the end.  I think there is some misunderstanding on the 'park and ride' concept.  I suspect what you are envisioning is more the Walk-up Sid mentioned and not a true park and ride with nothing around it except a parking lot.  I don't think we can afford to spend money on a system that only transports people in the AM and PM when that same money could be used to not only so that, but provide a town center environment for people who want to live in a traditional small town with a Main St.  Imagine being able to live within 1/2 mile of a TOD development in Choctaw and walk/ride a bike (heck - even drive if you want) to the train station and 20 minutes later be in downtown OKC AND have that same station provide services and activities the rest of the time when you don't want to go downtown.  People from other parts of the metro might even take the opportunity to visit Choctaw Town Square (not the one with a Wal-Mart) on Saturday, or even on a Friday night.  This might even allow locals to establish businesses and develop their own local economy.

----------


## warreng88

> By reading it again because that's not what I said. You can misstate it again and it still won't be what I said.


Ok, then tell me where I am wrong.




> Here's a reading comprehension question...Did I vote for any of the downtown maps projects?


Yes you did.




> I want my neighborhood, the immediate area I live in, work in and own property in, to have the best quality of life me and my neighbors can afford. I'm willing to pay taxes to get that.


You want the money for your immediate area and you are willing to pay taxes to get that. Is this a wrong paraphrase?




> You are willing to take my money, say it will be better spent if we do an ROI and spend it downtown instead. That's not acceptable to me.


You don't want to pay money for something to be done downtown instead of where you live, that is unacceptable to you and you do not want your money to go to that. Is this a wrong paraphrase?

----------


## mkjeeves

> Ok, then tell me where I am wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did.
> 
> 
> 
> You want the money for your immediate area and you are willing to pay taxes to get that. Is this a wrong paraphrase?
> ...


Okay. One more time........I VOTED FOR MAPS ONE. THERE WAS NO SPENDING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IN MAPS ONE. Got it?

I also voted for the other maps projects (for the umpteenth time.)

----------


## warreng88

> Okay. One more time........I VOTED FOR MAPS ONE. THERE WAS NO SPENDING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IN MAPS ONE. Got it?
> 
> I also voted for the other maps projects (for the umpteenth time.)


I understand that, I get it, now let me ask you this: what about going forward? Are you going to support a MAPS tax if it does not include your immediate area?

----------


## mkjeeves

What's in it?

----------


## warreng88

> What's in it?


Let's go with an extension of the convention center ($200 million), Streetcar expansion ($200 million), Commuter rail lines ($125 million), outdoor football/soccer stadium ($100 million), bus line additions/upgrades ($100 million) and $175 million for various other things (wellness centers, upgrading parks AROUND THE METRO, sidewalks and trails.)

----------


## warreng88

> Okay. One more time........I VOTED FOR MAPS ONE. THERE WAS NO SPENDING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IN MAPS ONE. Got it?


Maybe we are talking about different things. I am talking about future MAPS projects, not past MAPS projects. Does that clear things up at all? Does that make my assumptions and summaries correct?

----------


## mkjeeves

I already said this morning I might support saving Stage Center. You must have missed that. It's not only not in my neighborhood...it's downtown!

----------


## warreng88

> Hmm, I might vote no. :-). CC, Stadium, and additional bus lines. You don't pay for bus lines with a temp tax. I know you said upgrades too. Perhaps just "Transit Upgrades" with 200m earmarked for Streetcar expansion.


Yeah, the bus thing was more for better bus stops around the metro, base technology and maybe several more bus stations so you don't have to go downtown to transfer way up north. Oh and the actual cost of the buses. Obviously the upkeep and operating costs would have to find some other sort of revenue.

----------


## mkjeeves

Line item:

Let's go with an extension of the convention center ($200 million) Probably not. 

Streetcar expansion ($200 million) Probably not. Need to see what happens with what we started and that will be awhile. 

Commuter rail lines ($125 million) Need more info, not "give us some money and we'll spend it." I doubt that's enough money to do much. I do generally support rail.

outdoor football/soccer stadium ($100 million) No.

bus line additions/upgrades ($100 million) Maybe. Need more info. See rail comments.

and $175 million for various other things (wellness centers, upgrading parks AROUND THE METRO, sidewalks and trails.) Likely. Depending on details.

Total package. I'd think long and hard before a yes vote. Probably "No"

----------


## warreng88

> Line item:
> 
> Let's go with an extension of the convention center ($200 million) Probably not. 
> 
> Streetcar expansion ($200 million) Probably not. Need to see what happens with what we started and that will be awhile. 
> 
> Commuter rail lines ($125 million) Need more info, not "give us some money and we'll spend it." I doubt that's enough money to do much. I do generally support rail. *Rail line from the northern most OKC point to the southern most OKC point hugging I-35.*
> 
> outdoor football/soccer stadium ($100 million) No.
> ...


So, let's say everything in MAPS 3 is done and all of it comes in as promised and on budget (probably not going to happen, but let's just assume). If all the things listed above were lumped together in one vote and the vote listed specific items, but you had to vote yes on everything to get it, how would you vote?

----------


## mkjeeves

I added that at the end while you were working on that.

----------


## warreng88

> Total package. I'd think long and hard before a yes vote. Probably "No"


Which proves my point. You said you would support commuter rail, bus lines and things that are in the outlying areas of town, but won't support streetcar an outdoor stadium and other things having to do with downtown except for Stage Center. I live 15 minutes from downtown but would support things going on to make our city a better place to live, work and play. Getting one penny out of one dollar is not going to do anything great for me, but it will do great things for our city.

Did you read post 158? I was never talking about past MAPS projects, I was talking about future MAPS projects.

----------


## mkjeeves

> Which proves my point. You said you would support commuter rail, bus lines and things that are in the outlying areas of town, but won't support streetcar an outdoor stadium and other things having to do with downtown except for Stage Center. I live 15 minutes from downtown but would support things going on to make our city a better place to live, work and play. Getting one penny out of one dollar is not going to do anything great for me, but it will do great things for our city.
> 
> Did you read post 158? I was never talking about past MAPS projects, I was talking about future MAPS projects.


Since when are bus lines and rail not related to downtown? Where's that hub again? Point not made because it isn't valid and is pretty much irrelevant anyway.

----------


## bradh

I love sports and all, but we absolutely do NOT need a football/soccer stadium.  We don't need (won't ever get) NFL and if we don't have MLS then a sub league to MLS doesn't need it's own stadium when we have facilities in place to support them.

----------


## mkjeeves

amen. You never said you were going to put it downtown. I don't want it no matter where you put it.

----------


## warreng88

> Since when are bus lines and rail not related to downtown? Where's that hub again? Point not made because it isn't valid and is pretty much irrelevant anyway.


The buses logically would not be just for downtown, since downtown already is where most of the buses go. The rail lines logically would not be downtown, they would be for outlying areas to travel.

Whatever. I am done with this thread.

----------


## mkjeeves

Coming back to re-read parts that I skimmed, sorry for the going down rabbit holes...




> Gotcha. 
> 
> Then I suspect we do agree.  I want MAPS IV to be more "spread out".  I think livability is important everywhere.  
> 
> Christopher Leinberger spoke at the Placemaking Conference about the need for 10-12 WalkUPs (Walkable, urban places) scattered around the city.  This doesn't mean tall buildings.  This just means places with enhanced quality of life, amenities, and services.   This is the MAPS for Districts I was talking about.  I think we should define where those could/should be and invest heavily in them during the next 10 years.


I said upthread in response to comments about masstrans:






> Good thoughts. I would like to see a city push with vision, planning, education, funding (full, matching or seed), to facilitate local ownership and centralized neighborhood redevelopment of areas like the Plaza District, only scattered across the metro where we have similar issues they did and that downtown did before we started. That done in concert with what you just mentioned. We don't need an arena, a canal, ballpark etc at every node.


So yeah. We're headed in the right direction towards agreement, that we need that and they need it to be connected by whatever masstrans we have. It needs to happen together in a coordinated effort IMO.

----------


## Kokopelli

> I love sports and all, but we absolutely do NOT need a football/soccer stadium.  We don't need (won't ever get) NFL and if we don't have MLS then a sub league to MLS doesn't need it's own stadium when we have facilities in place to support them.


by the time Maps IV rolls around(2020), we should know whether OKC will be a MSL or NASL town. Totally agree with your thoughts on the NFL.

----------


## Larry OKC

> So, let's say everything in MAPS 3 is done and all of it comes in as promised and on budget (probably not going to happen, but let's just assume). If all the things listed above were lumped together in one vote and the vote listed specific items, but you had to vote yes on everything to get it, how would you vote?


NO. Even if I approved of most to every item in the list (as I did with MAPS 3), I would have to vote no because it against the State constitution to have an all-or-nothing vote like that. If City leadership really wants it, they need to go about it the right way. the legal way.

While not in favor of yet another tax supported/paid for pro sports endeavor, why not the NFL? We had  proposals for that years ago (was defeated at the polls). If we could supported it back then, we could certainly do it now I would think???

Also, the same thought of we won't ever get a NBA team here didn't work out to be true either.

----------


## bradh

the NFL plays a different game.  I find it hilarious that you're against another MAPS but would support a tax supported NFL stadium.  The costs of that stadium alone would be more than any MAPS campaign ever was.  

Small market and NFL just don't go together like the NBA.  It's not a fair comparison.

----------


## Just the facts

I am actually having hard time believing 2 things.

1)  Anyone thinks OKC can financially support an NFL team
2)  Anyone would want an NFL team in OKC.

NFL arrest since 2000 through June 26, 2013 (Since then another NFL player was arrested for attempted murder)

Team # of Arrests Since 2000 
Minnesota Vikings 40 
Cincinnati Bengals 39 
Denver Broncos 35 
Tennessee Titans 33 
Miami Dolphins 28 
Jacksonville Jaguars 27 
Kansas City Chiefs 27 
Tampa Bay Buccaneers 26 
San Diego Chargers 25 
Cleveland Browns 25 
Indianapolis Colts 23 
Chicago Bears 23 
Seattle Seahawks 20 
New Orleans Saints 20 
Washington Redskins 18 
Oakland Raiders 18 
Green Bay Packers 17 
Carolina Panthers 17 
Pittsburgh Steelers 17 
Atlanta Falcons 16 
Baltimore Ravens 17 
Buffalo Bills 14 
Detroit Lions 15 
New England Patriots 14 
Dallas Cowboys 13 
New York Giants 12 
San Francisco 49ers 12 
Arizona Cardinals 11 
New York Jets 11 
Philadelphia Eagles 10 
Houston Texans 9 
St Louis Rams 8 
Total 640

----------


## bradh

I love football with a passion, but it's just foolish to assume OKC could support NFL, or that the NFL would even bat an eye at OKC.

----------


## betts

OKC could and would support the NFL.  It's just 8 games a year and people here are mad about football.  The games are on a different day than college football.  The NFL has revenue sharing that allows smaller markets to succeed.  But, I doubt Jerry Jones wants us to have a team, and we'd be in line behind bigger cities such as LA, San Antonio, maybe Portland.

----------


## Snowman

> Shows you how much I know about NFL.  Only 8 home games?  That seems ridiculously low.  Are the stadiums used for a lot of other things?  For the cost of building a several hundred million dollar stadium, how do they make money?


They do have ridiculously low utilized. I am not sure if the two preseason games count much, some do college games as well. If the stadium is designed for it they can hold soccer games with little change to the layout (but most of the soccer teams prefer a nice smaller arena if one is available or can get one built). Concerts, really large speeches on rarer occasions. Apparently a lot of weddings of die-hard fans happen at them as well. LA was proposing using one they are/were considering building for additional convention center space, since it is next to there convention center and would have a retractable roof.

----------


## Snowman

> Good information, thanks.  Still doesn't sound like a stadium has a lot of built in ROI potential.  Or are all of these varied events that profitable?


In NY, LA, Chicago probably, the next ten by population maybe. I doubt the rest of the cities would clear the value of a couple of games with the rest of the years events. Plus it is hard to say if the events could not have been held somewhere else in the city that cost less if the stadium was not already available.

----------


## hoya

If you were going to build a stadium, you have to do it smart.

First, the chances of us getting MLS far outweigh the chances of us getting the NFL.  So you build it to fit both soccer and football.  Start out with a 25K seat soccer stadium that has the ability to be expanded higher.  Maybe increase it to 50K or so and host a college bowl game or something, the Devon Energy Bowl.  In 2030 or so OKC will be well established as a pro town with 20+ years of support for the Thunder.  MLS will increase in popularity as time goes on, so getting one of those teams would be fairly solid (though clearly not as good as getting the NFL).  The city flirts with whichever team is unhappy at the time.  Jerry Jones is dead by then.  You wait for the right time and maybe pass MAPS for Football if the pieces start to fall into place.

The NFL in OKC is not a guarantee by any means, and it certainly won't happen soon.  But 20 years is a long time and if we keep on our current course, the city will be a lot bigger by then.

----------


## Snowman

a 25K or 50K seat arena is not likely to get a bowl. Most are in pro stadiums, a few are in large college stadiums (which a ton of college stadiums are larger than pro stadiums since they are not bound by the blackout rule which kicks in if 80% or 90% of the stadium is not full). Plus 50K for one bowl is even worse utilization than a normal pro stadium and you only need like 60K to get into the minimum requirements for a pro stadium anyway so why ever have an intermediate step at 50K

----------


## hoya

Bowl games actually don't have great attendance.  Bowls are private businesses.  I can start the Hoyasooner Backyard Bowl and teams can play in my yard if I can convince two teams to come here.  I'll give all the players a bowl package including a coke, a peanut butter sandwich, and they can take turns playing Angry Birds on my phone.

The thing with building a stadium is you have to have a use for it if you don't get the NFL.  You don't want to invest so much money that you can never be profitable if they don't come.  Start with something that can be easily upgraded and expanded.  Build good "bones" for the stadium, get a paying tenant like a soccer team, and then be ready to spend a lot of money if you get a legit shot at the biggest of the big boys.

The thing about Major League Soccer is that it appeals to an untapped market.  We have a lot of Hispanics in this city that generally don't follow the NBA or OU football.  That's good because you're not asking the same people to fork over money for season tickets for multiple pro leagues.  A significant portion of the fans for the OKC Thunder are going to be different than the fans for FC OKC United, or whatever they end up being called.

----------


## Just the facts

> Shows you how much I know about NFL.  Only 8 home games?  That seems ridiculously low.  Are the stadiums used for a lot of other things?  For the cost of building a several hundred million dollar stadium, how do they make money?


During the season the stadiums aren't used for much because the field can't be tampered with too much.

Between now and Jan 2, 2017 Cowboy stadium will host just 22 events that are not Cowboy games.  Most are college football games.  4 year and 22 non-Cowboy events.

Events

Here in Jax the usage rate is even lower.  Between now and Feb 2014 there will just be 3 non-NFL activities.

concert calendar in jacksonville flJaxEvents.com

----------


## Geographer

Any MLS team in OKC should undoubtably be called the OKC Lightning. Thunder and Lightning baby! And of course, any goal will be called a lightning strike  :Smile:

----------


## Snowman

> During the season the stadiums aren't used for much because the field can't be tampered with too much.
> 
> Between now and Jan 2, 2017 Cowboy stadium will host just 22 events that are not Cowboy games.  Most are college football games.  4 year and 22 non-Cowboy events.
> 
> Events
> 
> Here in Jax the usage rate is even lower.  Between now and Feb 2014 there will just be 3 non-NFL activities.
> 
> concert calendar in jacksonville flJaxEvents.com


Several of them (especially the indoor ones) can strip the feilds artificial turf down to a concrete floor or re-install it in less than a day, though probably would schedule most of the events which would need that in the off season to minimize labor costs

----------


## Larry OKC

> the NFL plays a different game.  I find it hilarious that you're against another MAPS but would support a tax supported NFL stadium.  The costs of that stadium alone would be more than any MAPS campaign ever was.  
> 
> Small market and NFL just don't go together like the NBA.  It's not a fair comparison.


You can stop laughing. Go back and reread my post. I would NOT support a tax supported NFL stadium. My point was the folks that are saying we couldn't get an NFL team are probably the same ones that doubted we could get the NBA.

Also, while I have never voted for any of the various MAPS, at least with the last round it had nothing to do with the projects but the illegal all-or-nothing Ballot and the spin, half-truths and in some cases out-right lies being told by the Mayor & the Chamber during the campaign just to get it passed.





> I am actually having hard time believing 2 things.
> 
> 1)  Anyone thinks OKC can financially support an NFL team
> 2)  Anyone would want an NFL team in OKC.
> 
> NFL arrest since 2000 through June 26, 2013 (Since then another NFL player was arrested for attempted murder)
> ... 
> Total 640


While high, that _IS_ over a 13 year span (the most recent list I saw mentioned 28(?) arrests for various offenses (some of which charges were dropped) since the Super Bowl, which works out to less than 1 player per team..but the year is young).

How do other pro-sports compare during the same time period? At the time we were trying to get the NBA, there was a _perception_ of NBA players being nothing but thugs.

----------


## bradh

> some cases out-right lies being told by the Mayor & the Chamber during the campaign just to get it passed.


and what lies would those be?

----------


## betts

Green Bay, New Orleans and Buffalo have teams.  The NFL has such equitable revenue sharing and such a large television contract that its easy to support a team.  And Oklahoma is full of people who love football. The issue of whether we should build a stadium is unrelated to whether we could support an NFL team, because we could.

----------


## Geographer

> Green Bay, New Orleans and Buffalo have teams.  The NFL has such equitable revenue sharing and such a large television contract that its easy to support a team.  And Oklahoma is full of people who love football. The issue of whether we should build a stadium is unrelated to whether we could support an NFL team, because we could.



Buffalo and Green Bay are not large college football markets, such as Oklahoma City.  I know that New Orleans boasts a sizeable LSU fanbase, but the Saints have historically been there. I don't think a new NFL team in OKC would garner the same support.

----------


## Larry OKC

> and what lies would those be?


They are too numerous to go into detail here (and don't further derailing the thread), but it began with the Ballot format (the Mayors office and the Mayor) stated that the ballot would conform to the law/we would be voting on items individually instead of an all-or-nothing ballot.





> Buffalo and Green Bay are not large college football markets, such as Oklahoma City.  I know that New Orleans boasts a sizeable LSU fanbase, but the Saints have historically been there. I don't think a new NFL team in OKC would garner the same support.


As others have pointed out, they wouldn't really be competing with each other. granted there would be some bleed-off from Okies that follow the Chiefs and the Cowboys, but we had similar situation with the NBA

----------


## hoya

I have no doubt that we would provide enough fan support to have a successful team.  That isn't an issue.  The issues are politics and timing.  The NFL doesn't want to put a team in another small city.  The fact that OKC could support an NFL team means only that we are one of 100+ cities that could do the same.  The NFL gets to choose whichever city they want.

Getting an NFL team will require the same sort of machinations that went into getting the Thunder.  I don't mean a hurricane, but we would have to swoop in and court a team that is unhappy with their current city.  Understand that the giant in the room is L.A.  They basically have the right of first refusal.  No one is going to come here when they could instead go there.  The advantage we have is that L.A. really doesn't care that much.

Again, I think in 20 years this might be viable.

----------


## Just the facts

I guess there is this assumption that city X having a NFL team means City X team is doing well financially.  That great revenue sharing plan isn't there because the teams are each pulling their own weight.  I am sure the last thing the NFL wants to do is add more weight to the cart.  Jacksonville should be the poster child for why cities should NOT want the NFL.  We simply can't afford it and it is draining resources from the community at an alarming rate.  We are closing libraries and spending money on building swimming pools for the luxury suites at the stadium - all under the guise that the pools inside the stadium will draw more tourist.  We have our priorities way way way out of whack.

Jaguars, city agree to $63 million in stadium improvements | Sports - Home

Six Jacksonville libraries could shutter under plan to find $2.4 million in cuts

----------


## BoulderSooner

> They are too numerous to go into detail here (and don't further derailing the thread), but it began with the Ballot format (the Mayors office and the Mayor) stated that the ballot would conform to the law/we would be voting on items individually instead of an all-or-nothing ballot.


how did the ballot not conform to the law??

----------


## mkjeeves

> I guess there is this assumption that city X having a NFL team means City X team is doing well financially.  That great revenue sharing plan isn't there because the teams are each pulling their own weight.  I am sure the last thing the NFL wants to do is add more weight to the cart.  Jacksonville should be the poster child for why cities should NOT want the NFL.  We simply can't afford it and it is draining resources from the community.  We are closing libraries and spending money on building swimming pools for the luxury suites at the stadium - all under the guise that the pools inside the stadium will draw more tourist.  We have our priorities way way way out of whack.
> 
> Jaguars, city agree to $63 million in stadium improvements | Sports - Home
> 
> Six Jacksonville libraries could shutter under plan to find $2.4 million in cuts


Shazam. We're almost on the same page. Here's how I see it. Maybe we can afford it and maybe it will pay back some many distant years after we build it. (Or not.) Lets assume it would. Based on the MAPS model it would require X sales tax increase over so many years to raise some money. We can't double and triple the tax and we can only get so many MAPS proposals done over a period of time. (If we ever get another one done.) There is a limit to what the populace can and will afford to pony up, even if it's a long term loan. I believe it is irresponsible to use those opportunities to build another canal, arena, ballpark, central park, convention center *until* we address some other issues. You don't go buy another set of season tickets to a ballgame when the porch is falling off the house and the roof is leaking. It's time to focus on the rest of the house.

----------


## Spartan

An NFL team is a horrible idea.

----------


## bchris02

> I have no doubt that we would provide enough fan support to have a successful team.  That isn't an issue.  The issues are politics and timing.  The NFL doesn't want to put a team in another small city.  The fact that OKC could support an NFL team means only that we are one of 100+ cities that could do the same.  The NFL gets to choose whichever city they want.
> 
> Getting an NFL team will require the same sort of machinations that went into getting the Thunder.  I don't mean a hurricane, but we would have to swoop in and court a team that is unhappy with their current city.  Understand that the giant in the room is L.A.  They basically have the right of first refusal.  No one is going to come here when they could instead go there.  The advantage we have is that L.A. really doesn't care that much.
> 
> Again, I think in 20 years this might be viable.


I agree.  I have talked about this recently and I want to say I don't think OKC is ready for an NFL team in 2013.  In 2023 though, unless something happens that halts the progress of the city, I think it might be feasible then.

----------


## Spartan

An NFL team is a horrible idea.

This reminds me of the kind of stuff we talked about when I was a teenager and we had no real clear idea or identity of a success recipe for OKC. We have that now.

These tropes, primarily just throwing generic darts at a dartboard, are tone deaf to where OKC is headed, what we have now, and what is working. Sorry to be negative but I can't help but cringe when someone moves here for Carolina and says we need wider highways and NFL.

We need transit, historic preservation, economic development, and continued growth on the riverfront. OKC is coming into its own in spectacular fashion without any new highways and just focusing on the Thunder.

----------


## hoya

An NFL team is a great idea if we actually pull it off.  It gives OKC more visibility than even the Thunder.  There are a host of developments we need to do first.  Right now we are the kid who is about to head off to college, dreaming about the cool car we're gonna have once we get that high paying job.  There's a lot that has to happen before we get there, but there's no harm dreaming, and there's a very real chance it happens some day.

----------


## bluedogok

> I'm the only one who made that statement so I can't speak for anyone else.  All I'm saying is that, for Oklahoma City, we've got enough land.  If people want to live further out, they can be the next Edmond.  And, I don't like wasting water for massive manicured lawns and I hate people putting fertilizer and pesticides on those massive lawns, to keep them artificially green and weed free, at the expense of our water supply, beneficial insects and children.  If people want to live way out, but within the existing city limits, that's their choice.  I think the city was dumb to get this large, land mass wise, but that's a done deal unless they want to start deannexing.


If you start de-annexing there is nothing really to stop developers from building more out there and cities like Edmond scooping them up creating more sprawl. The reason why OKC annexed so much land was watershed and to prevent the suburbs from boxing them in like Dallas. Stricter development standards in the city limits will just push development further out where there are fewer hurdles, this has been happening in Austin as prices keep going up and the city council keeps demanding more and more. Why build in Austin if you can build in Pflugerville and make more money by cheaper land costs and less city requirements.




> I love football with a passion, but it's just foolish to assume OKC could support NFL, or that the NFL would even bat an eye at OKC.


There would be two teams in LA before there is one in OKC.




> Shows you how much I know about NFL.  Only 8 home games?  That seems ridiculously low.  Are the stadiums used for a lot of other things?  For the cost of building a several hundred million dollar stadium, how do they make money?


Some facilities have a much higher utilization rate, domes or retractable roof stadiums typically have even more events there. Most of the World Cup level matches are held at the football stadiums instead of the MLS stadiums. JerryWorld wants too much for other events and it is too big for many of them, I think Texas Stadium had more events even with the hole in the roof and no A/C. Reliant Stadium in Houston has more events, the Houston Stock Show & Rodeo is about two weeks of use, there is usually a Supercross event there every year and they also have the adjacent Reliant Convention space and for large conventions they use the stadium. Here at Mile High the Broncos have the 10 games (8 regular season, 2 pre-season) and playoff games. For other football games the large classes high school finals and the CU-CSU game, the Outlaws (National Lacrosse League) and some of the national soccer games are held there (a CONCACAF match with the US and Mexico playing other teams will be there) and they have a few concerts a year and a couple of fund raising runs end there as well. I think Lucas Oil Field in Indianapolis is one of the most utilized. The Rapids started playing there before Dick's Sporting Goods Park was built in Commerce City.




> Green Bay, New Orleans and Buffalo have teams.  The NFL has such equitable revenue sharing and such a large television contract that its easy to support a team.  And Oklahoma is full of people who love football. The issue of whether we should build a stadium is unrelated to whether we could support an NFL team, because we could.


It is a different world now than at the beginnings of the NFL or AFL when teams sold for $10,000, if any of those cities were trying to get a new team or relocation now they would have no shot at getting them, New Orleans would be the only one to have a very slim chance. Buffalo (originally an AFL team) is rumored every year to be moving to Toronto, they already play some games at the SkyDome (now called Rogers Center). Green Bay is municipally owned to keep them there and they are the only team allowed to do that because they were around long before the NFL and was one of the founders of the NFL.

Look at the top 20-30 television markets, that is where the NFL is going to concentrate in filling in the gaps at the top before looking at the markets below 31. The NFL makes the bulk of their revenue from television rights, look for a team in London, San Antonio and possibly Mexico City (after one or two in LA) before OKC. Owners look to the corporate money that buys most of the tickets and suites, not fans. OKC doesn't have the corporate base necessary to support the NBA and the NFL, Kansas City struggles to support on the corporate side of things the two teams (Chiefs and Royals) that they have. OKC would have to push into the top 20 TV markets and have a much larger corporate base to get a shot.

----------


## hoya

The NFL isn't seriously considering expanding.  Not considering it beyond water cooler kicking around ideas talk.  They make a ton of money and they don't want to dilute it.  But like I said, 20 years is a long time.  Everyone laughs at Tulsa for talking about the 2024 Olympics, and rightly so.  But the 2052 Olympics?  Almost 40 years from now?  Hell, it might be possible.

To get an NFL team OKC has to 1) continue to grow and improve its image, 2) support the Thunder like nobody's business, and 3) be ready to shank a bitch when the moment is right to steal that team.

Let's say that in 15 years, Jerry Jones dies (he'd be 85).  The Dallas Cowboys are bought by someone without as much clout.  The Thunder have won two NBA Championships and are well loved.  Kevin Durant has retired.  The OKC metro area has hit just over 2 million people (we're currently growing at about 3.5%, if we keep it up for 15 years that's where we'll be).  MAPS 4 has built a multi-use stadium that meets minimum NFL standards.  Los Angeles continues to not build a stadium or pay attention.  A certain OKC oilman is getting that itch.  And we'll say that... the Tennessee Titans are unhappy.

Is it a guarantee that we get a team?  Oh of course not.  You can't guarantee things like that.  Any one of a number of factors could go wrong.  That's why I propose building any stadium with the ability to double as a MLS field.  I think our chances of getting a team there are substantially higher.  It is a sport that will grow in popularity.  But the surest way to never get an NFL team is to not be prepared when one comes available.  It will be a small window, you have to be ready.

----------


## soonerguru

I have been very critical of OKC's annexation of outlying areas for years. However, I was forced to confront the alternative on a recent trip to Atlanta. The devil we know may be worse than the one we don't. Here's why.

Atlanta is composed of more than 20 distinct city governments. Their traffic situation is a nightmare. And yet, they cannot get meaningful support to expand transit because to do so would require all of these bedroom communities to join up. They can't and won't. 

Imagine the nightmare OKC would have if all of the money was outside city boundaries, and we could not vote for solutions to problems facing our city.

I came away from the visit to Atlanta convinced that our way is better than theirs.

----------


## Just the facts

Soonerguru, like you I am rethinking the whole de-annexation strategy myself.  I think I would prefer the City identifies areas we don't want developed (farmland, grasslands, wildlife areas, key watersheds, wetlands, etc) and either buy the land out-right or purchase the development rights from the current owners.  Then implement a fast track system for urban in-fill projects and new higher density transect based requirements for greenfield projects.

----------


## CaptDave

> Soonerguru, like you I am rethinking the whole de-annexation strategy myself.  I think I would prefer the City identifies areas we don't want developed (farmland, grasslands, wildlife areas, key watersheds, wetlands, etc) and either buy the land out-right or purchase the development rights from the current owners.  Then implement a fast track system for urban in-fill projects and new higher density transect based requirements for greenfield projects.


That could work, but it would take a disciplined city government that would support the Planning Department when they deny Developer 'X' or 'Y's request to build another subdivision on farmland in violation of the overall plan. I suppose marginally controlled chaos is better than municipal land grab chaos though.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

> Soonerguru, like you I am rethinking the whole de-annexation strategy myself.  I think I would prefer the City identifies areas we don't want developed (farmland, grasslands, wildlife areas, key watersheds, wetlands, etc) and either buy the land out-right or purchase the development rights from the current owners.  Then implement a fast track system for urban in-fill projects and new higher density transect based requirements for greenfield projects.


Basically an Urban Growth Boundary.

----------


## Geographer

> Basically an Urban Growth Boundary.



There you go. UGB's aren't bad at all if you sell it on infrastructure costs.  I wouldn't be surprised to see an "infrastructure growth boundary" anytime soon...so if people WANT to develop those areas, they'll have to pay for more of the costs to do so.

----------


## Snowman

> There you go. UGB's aren't bad at all if you sell it on infrastructure costs.  I wouldn't be surprised to see an "infrastructure growth boundary" anytime soon...so if people WANT to develop those areas, they'll have to pay for more of the costs to do so.


A lot of times the initial infrastructure is payed by developers, sometimes there is incentives. The perpetual maintenance and service costs are the big hit to the city.

----------


## Just the facts

> Basically an Urban Growth Boundary.


Sort of - but opposite.  Instead of drawing a circle around where you want growth to occur, you draw it around where you don't want it to occur.  The purchase of development rights and the land itself could be funded by the MAPS for Suburbia tax.

----------


## Midtowner

> Maybe we should change gears for awhile.  What if there was a MAPS for Suburbs, what would be on the list?


I'm not sure after the MAPS III fiasco that I could support a suburban MAPS.  It'd have to be another "give us some money and we might do these things" sort of vote and at this point, I'm on the fence as to whether the "trust us" approach is ever going to work again considering the statements of some individuals around the shoe.  

These folks need to take a step back and understand that the public is very much in tune with their public statements and this MAPS brand is very much in jeopardy.  

A Constitutional MAPS for suburbia ballot would have to give the public a clear yes or no vote on each project.  I can't see northsiders voting for cool toys for southsiders or vice-versa, so that's not going to work.  What will and has worked is the city doing what it says it's going to do and building projects for all of OKC, not the wards individually.

----------


## Just the facts

No doubt Midtowner.  The MAPS brand may very well be dead unless they change the format and who know if people will go for ward specific projects.  I doubt there will be anymore blank checks made out to 'Trust Us'.

----------


## Kokopelli

The  big ticket needs of the city in general will probably continue to do dominate future MAPS. Considering that it would be 2020 before the next MAPS vote I could easily see these items included;

A. 75m for Velodrome, would like to see an earlier start for this even if it meant starting with outdoor track.

B. 100 to 200m for a stadium; if soccer is successful

C. 500m for new arena (2027 opening) New twist here; the NBA doesnt have a Hall of Fame Museum yet - being in the middle of the country OKC would be  perfect location for the *NBA Hall of Fame*.

D. if conventions are successful could see addition to or improvements on new convention center. 

E. 100m in additional improvements to River are ie; expansion of channel in both directions as well as additions to existing facilities

F. 250m   No question that mass transit including more streetcars, light rail services and improvement for the bus systems is critical and more needs to be done. But I believe we need to find dedicated revenue for mass transit.

Additionally can see value in a Bible museum even if the Green family finds a larger metro area to build a main museum. OKC would make a excellent satellite location

----------


## Just the facts

> C. 500m for new arena (2027 opening) New twist here; the NBA doesn’t have a Hall of Fame Museum yet - being in the middle of the country OKC would be  perfect location for the *NBA Hall of Fame*.


The NFL doesn't have a Hall of Fame either.  However, there is a Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, MA and a Pro Football Fall of Fame in Canton, OH.

----------


## Kokopelli

> The NFL doesn't have a Hall of Fame either.  However, there is a Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, MA and a Pro Football Fall of Fame in Canton, OH.


Ok, I might have missed it on that part but I could still see OKC being ready for a new arena. Also one of the frequent comments I hear during NBA games is that it would be nice to have a separate Pro Basketball Hall of Fame.

----------


## Just the facts

I guess there is actually nothing stopping anyone from opening a Hall of Fame in anything.  If it came down to it I could open a Cowboy Hall of Fame in my garage - in fact - I just did.  The cast of City Slickers are my first inductees.

----------


## Snowman

> I guess there is actually nothing stopping anyone from opening a Hall of Fame in anything.  If it came down to it I could open a Cowboy Hall of Fame in my garage - in fact - I just did.  The cast of City Slickers are my first inductees.


It probably would have to be a more generic Basketball/Football/Hockey Hall of Fame though, NBA/NFL/NHL no doubt would not allow use of their trademark without authorization.

----------


## Midtowner

Y'all look a little desperate trying to make up a sports hall of fame.  We've got some good stuff and we have other good stuff in the works.  Let's see if we can't get some revenue set aside for the Native American Cultural Center before folks start talking about what's next.

----------


## Kokopelli

> Y'all look a little desperate trying to make up a sports hall of fame.  We've got some good stuff and we have other good stuff in the works.  Let's see if we can't get some revenue set aside for the Native American Cultural Center before folks start talking about what's next.


I agree whole heartily that we need to get the American Indian Culture Center finished. On the other hand this thread, like many on this board, is a speculative thread.

----------


## Midtowner

It's silly.  It reminds me of a time when a couple of members/former members were promoting the idea of some sort of giant 18-story oil derrick tower downtown.  We've got stuff, let's make the stuff we have now work and let's develop the stuff in the pipeline.  What we don't need is another Federal Marshals Memorial.

----------


## Kokopelli

> It's silly.  It reminds me of a time when a couple of members/former members were promoting the idea of some sort of giant 18-story oil derrick tower downtown.  We've got stuff, let's make the stuff we have now work and let's develop the stuff in the pipeline.  What we don't need is another Federal Marshals Memorial.


Midtowner, without a doubt you are the rudest, most arrogant, antagonistic  poster I have ever encountered on a message board. Originally I was just going to blow off your rude comment and chalk it up as a lack off class on your part. 
But the truth is when you resort to passive aggressive ridicule in an attempt to make your point it is obvious you dont respect the opinions of others. At that point you quit being a debater and become simply a  bully and bullies  regardless of how classless they are dont deserve free passes.

So with my apologies to Pete and the rest of the board. Mr. Bully, here is a silly yet highly valid idea for you.  Divert some of that water  you like to suggest using on ban days ( another arrogant antagonistic post of yours) and instead of watering your lawn treat yourself to an enema. Perhaps then you wouldnt be so uptight and mean spirited.

----------


## Bellaboo

> It's silly.  It reminds me of a time when a couple of members/former members were promoting the idea of some sort of giant 18-story oil derrick tower downtown.  We've got stuff, let's make the stuff we have now work and let's develop the stuff in the pipeline.  What we don't need is another *Federal Marshals Memorial*.


Ft Smith is doing that one...

----------


## Midtowner

> But the truth is when you resort to passive aggressive ridicule in an attempt to make your point it is obvious you don’t respect the opinions of others.


You're coming from the standpoint that all opinions are worthy of respect.  Sorry, there is such a thing as a dumb opinion.  If you think an 18-story monument of an oil derrick with an observation deck is a good idea for OKC, I think that's a really dumb idea.  Just as if you want to prattle and whine about professional public officials utilizing storage rights just in case a multi-year drought continued with the aim of keeping the water supply safe for hundreds of thousands of Oklahomans, I also think it's a silly conversation.




> So with my apologies to Pete and the rest of the board. Mr. Bully, here is a silly yet highly valid idea for you.  Divert some of that water  you like to suggest using on ban days ( another arrogant antagonistic post of yours) and instead of watering your lawn treat yourself to an enema. Perhaps then you wouldn’t be so uptight and mean spirited.


I don't recall watering the lawn on off days.  Not on purpose anyway.  Of course, I also work hard on having a nice green lawn which is something I'm entitled to do as an inhabitant of OKC suburbia.

----------


## Midtowner

> Ft Smith is doing that one...


We already did and then abandoned it.

http://danieldemoss.com/post/1906155...-oklahoma-city

----------


## Kokopelli

> I don't recall watering the lawn on off days.  Not on purpose anyway.  Of course, I also work hard on having a nice green lawn which is something I'm entitled to do as an inhabitant of OKC suburbia.


So treat yourself to that enema on an on day.

----------


## Midtowner

What are you even talking about?  Totally out of the blue, here you are suggesting I insert and/or remove things from my lower digestive system.  Completely bizarre.  Anyone ever tell you that you have some rather strange obsessions?  I'm not even sure exactly what you're all butthurt (see what I did there?) about.  Of course then I search your forum posts and see talk of wind turbine ferris wheels and other such oddities.  It stands to reason you're a one of those internet cranks I've read about.

----------


## Kokopelli

Ill just stand pat with my original comment that, without a doubt you are the rudest, most arrogant, antagonistic poster I have ever encountered on a message board. And that is  my last comment on the subject.

----------


## Pete

Wow, this has gone way off track.

I'm going to close this thread and ask that in the future more respect is shown one another.

Thanks.

----------


## Pete

Wow, this has gone way off track.

I'm going to close this thread and ask that in the future more respect is shown one another.

Thanks.

----------

