# Civic Matters > Ask Anything About OKC >  Is Newcastle the next Moore..............

## spursfaninoklahoma

Living in the SW 89th Penn area of town, I just wonder exactly how long before the city starts moving south along the I-44 corridor. Right now the Penn Sw89th area is pretty good but many seem to think in the next 5-10 years this area will diminish greatly, and since Moore has exploded already with the typical "Big Box" retail and Suburbia neighborhoods, I wonder how long before the city decides "wow look at all this land we have here along I-44 between OCCC and Newcastle". Right now you go down I-44 towards Newcastle casino there isn't much but who agree's that in about 5 Years Newcastle will be just another typical over grown suburb that the city ran into....................

----------


## Urbanized

Not sure; I just wanted to post and continue the unrelated-post-icon theme LOL

----------


## G.Walker

No

----------


## Spartan

Doubtful

----------


## Martin

guess i don't understand... the city of moore is completely surrounded by okc on the east and west and norman to the south.  the westernmost boundaries of moore are roughly equivalent to walker avenue, several miles east of i-44. -M

----------


## Spartan

I think people who haven't visited well-built cities, and consequently lack life experiences beyond the suburbs of OKC, tend to dream of more suburban development.

That's just my guess. Otherwise it is completely baffling to me why anybody would dream of sprawl engulfing McClain County.

----------


## mcca7596

> I think people who haven't visited well-built cities, and consequently lack life experiences beyond the suburbs of OKC, tend to dream of more suburban development.
> 
> That's just my guess. Otherwise it is completely baffling to me why anybody would dream of sprawl engulfing McClain County.


like

----------


## bchris02

> I think people who haven't visited well-built cities, and consequently lack life experiences beyond the suburbs of OKC, tend to dream of more suburban development.
> 
> That's just my guess. Otherwise it is completely baffling to me why anybody would dream of sprawl engulfing McClain County.


I see nothing wrong with suburban development if its done with dignity. The suburbs still have their place and always will. Usually suburban development is driven though by something specific such as a sought-after school district. You can see it very clearly when looking at a map of the metro - things developed the way they did because of school district boundaries primarily. Personally I would like to see more infill in OKC before sprawling out to Newcastle or Guthrie. Not just in downtown but in suburban areas also.

----------


## MWCGuy

I would hope that property development companies focus on the already developed areas of South OKC. There are many neighborhoods throughout South OKC that just need a little cleanup and code enforcement to make them as livable as most suburban communities. 

I think the area arounds Southwest Medical Center receive the same type of attention that Midtown around Saint Anthony received/ is currently receiving. If you make the area livable, many of the employees of Southwest Medical Center would probably reside in the area.  The good news is the I-40 realignment and recent improvements to 44th Street between Walker and Blackwelder have brought new life to the area. Tinker Credit Union built a new branch and Buy For Less reopened the vacant Beechlers IGA as a Super Mercado Buy For Less. It's popularity allowed them to expand to 59th and Walker. 

I know there is still plenty of income to be had in that area or Target would have closed the 44th and Western Store along time ago and they would not have added the Fresh Market section to the store that just recently opened. I think things would really take off in that area if Sears, would either close, teardown/rebuild to the vacant North end of the their property or relocate to the new development at Will Rogers Airport.  

The Sears property looks terrible it consist of four buildings in a sea of asphalt. I don't see how they keep the doors open, I have never seen more than a half dozen cars in their parking lot.  If Sears would close that store and tear it down, you could a build a few restaurants, a couple of hotels, maybe even a few retailers. There is plenty of foot traffic in that area as well as vehicle traffic therefore any combination would do well.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

I think Newcastle is going to grow at a pace with Yukon and Mustang in the coming years. I'm sure Newcastle will join the next gen growth of suburbia OKC along with Jones, Guthrie, and El Reno. I personally don't mind seeing the sprawl happen here, in time. As long as we get some decent infill and packing some serious density in the core, it seems alright to me.

----------


## Jeepnokc

> I think people who haven't visited well-built cities, and consequently lack life experiences beyond the suburbs of OKC, tend to dream of more suburban development.
> 
> That's just my guess. Otherwise it is completely baffling to me why anybody would dream of sprawl engulfing McClain County.



If I remember from other posts,you are a younger person.  People go through various life changes.  I have travelled most of this world and have live in numerous cities in various different countries.  I lived in Gatewood and Heritage Hills for about 14 years.  It was nice being downtown and being walking distance or $5.00 cab ride from most anything I wanted to do.  But you know...I got older and had kids and our priorities changed.  We left downtown and built a house on 6 acres in a gated neighborhood near I-44 just the other side of the airport.  I am still barely in OKC. 

I no longer have to pay for private school for my three kids nor do I have to worry about the kids leaving a bicycle outside overnight.  The kids get to go play in the field, chase bugs and get to see deer and turkey in the backyard. They can walk home from the neighbors at night without having to have my wife or I escort them.  I can plant flowers in my garden and they will still be there in the morning.  (we had lots of garden thefts when we lived at NW 21 and  Robinson) My two great danes have lots of room to run and I enjoy sitting on the porch and not having gangbangers driving down Robinson with their bass pumping and rattling my windows.  That is important to me now as well as important to a lot of other people which is why you see people moving out of the inner core.  I would love for the i44 corridor to be built up with a few more shops and local restaurants,  Love the new Crest and glad to see a McDonalds next door because sometimes you just need McDonald French fries.   I would kill for an OnCue and a Target at 104th and I44. 

When the kids grow up and move away to college and we enter a new life phase, my bride and I will probably downsize and probably move back downtown into something with little to no yard and where we can walk to local places.  That's not important to us right now though.  Downtown urban areas work for you and you may stay in that type of setting all your life but that doesn't mean it is for everyone.  I have friends that live in the country that couldn't ever see themselves anywhere near an urban area or suburb and would think that you are crazy for wanting to live downtown.

There is a reason there are 31 flavors at Baskin Robbins.  Just because you prefer one flavor doesn't mean the other people lack life experiences.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> If I remember from other posts,you are a younger person.  People go through various life changes.  I have travelled most of this world and have live in numerous cities in various different countries.  I lived in Gatewood and Heritage Hills for about 14 years.  It was nice being downtown and being walking distance or $5.00 cab ride from most anything I wanted to do.  But you know...I got older and had kids and our priorities changed.  We left downtown and built a house on 6 acres in a gated neighborhood near I-44 just the other side of the airport.  I am still barely in OKC. 
> 
> I no longer have to pay for private school for my three kids nor do I have to worry about the kids leaving a bicycle outside overnight.  The kids get to go play in the field, chase bugs and get to see deer and turkey in the backyard. They can walk home from the neighbors at night without having to have my wife or I escort them.  I can plant flowers in my garden and they will still be there in the morning.  (we had lots of garden thefts when we lived at NW 21 and  Robinson) My two great danes have lots of room to run and I enjoy sitting on the porch and not having gangbangers driving down Robinson with their bass pumping and rattling my windows.  That is important to me now as well as important to a lot of other people which is why you see people moving out of the inner core.  I would love for the i44 corridor to be built up with a few more shops and local restaurants,  Love the new Crest and glad to see a McDonalds next door because sometimes you just need McDonald French fries.   I would kill for an OnCue and a Target at 104th and I44. 
> 
> When the kids grow up and move away to college and we enter a new life phase, my bride and I will probably downsize and probably move back downtown into something with little to no yard and where we can walk to local places.  That's not important to us right now though.  Downtown urban areas work for you and you may stay in that type of setting all your life but that doesn't mean it is for everyone.  I have friends that live in the country that couldn't ever see themselves anywhere near an urban area or suburb and would think that you are crazy for wanting to live downtown.
> 
> There is a reason there are 31 flavors at Baskin Robbins.  Just because you prefer one flavor doesn't mean the other people lack life experiences.


Great post! You are spot one man.

----------


## adaniel

> I think Newcastle is going to grow at a pace with Yukon and Mustang in the coming years. I'm sure Newcastle will join the next gen growth of suburbia OKC along with Jones, Guthrie, and El Reno. I personally don't mind seeing the sprawl happen here, in time. As long as we get some decent infill and packing some serious density in the core, it seems alright to me.


For people to have to move out that far, there will have to be some pull factor (for most places its a good school system). The only two people I know in Newcastle are actively trying to move out, preferably Norman or Moore, because neither care for the school system there. So to answer the original question, no, Newcastle will probably remain a semi-rural exurb for the foreseeable future.

Moore will probably just expand east towards Lake Draper or west of 44. There is plenty of land available for development in Moore, Norman, Deer Creek, and Edmond School districts. Nobody is going to move to a place like, say, Guthrie that is nearly 35 miles from DT OKC, has a so-so school system, and a rather impoverished vibe. El Reno might be different because it is benefiting from all of the oil and gas production in Western Oklahoma. And yes, more people who would have moved in the suburbs in the past are staying in the city. OKC is one of the few cities where the city is growing faster than the metro area.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

My money is on Edmond, Norman, Moore, Yukon, Mustang, Midwest City, and NW and SW OKC seeing strong growth for the next 5 maybe 10 years. Then within the next 5-7 years, growth will really pick up in Guthrie, El Reno, Newcastle, Spencer, Piedmont, and Jones should start to see some real growth. Now, when I say that, I'm not talking Austin style growth here, but some steady strong growth should come.

----------


## metro

> I think people who haven't visited well-built cities, and consequently lack life experiences beyond the suburbs of OKC, tend to dream of more suburban development.
> 
> That's just my guess. Otherwise it is completely baffling to me why anybody would dream of sprawl engulfing McClain County.


In fairness, the OP never said he "wishes" or "dreams" of suburbia growing to Newscastle, he simply was asking if current trends continue IF it will grow that far. No need to be a douchenozzle to the OP just because he has a POV different from yours.

----------


## kbsooner

> If I remember from other posts,you are a younger person.  People go through various life changes.  I have travelled most of this world and have live in numerous cities in various different countries.  I lived in Gatewood and Heritage Hills for about 14 years.  It was nice being downtown and being walking distance or $5.00 cab ride from most anything I wanted to do.  But you know...I got older and had kids and our priorities changed.  We left downtown and built a house on 6 acres in a gated neighborhood near I-44 just the other side of the airport.  I am still barely in OKC. 
> 
> I no longer have to pay for private school for my three kids nor do I have to worry about the kids leaving a bicycle outside overnight.  The kids get to go play in the field, chase bugs and get to see deer and turkey in the backyard. They can walk home from the neighbors at night without having to have my wife or I escort them.  I can plant flowers in my garden and they will still be there in the morning.  (we had lots of garden thefts when we lived at NW 21 and  Robinson) My two great danes have lots of room to run and I enjoy sitting on the porch and not having gangbangers driving down Robinson with their bass pumping and rattling my windows.  That is important to me now as well as important to a lot of other people which is why you see people moving out of the inner core.  I would love for the i44 corridor to be built up with a few more shops and local restaurants,  Love the new Crest and glad to see a McDonalds next door because sometimes you just need McDonald French fries.   I would kill for an OnCue and a Target at 104th and I44. 
> 
> When the kids grow up and move away to college and we enter a new life phase, my bride and I will probably downsize and probably move back downtown into something with little to no yard and where we can walk to local places.  That's not important to us right now though.  Downtown urban areas work for you and you may stay in that type of setting all your life but that doesn't mean it is for everyone.  I have friends that live in the country that couldn't ever see themselves anywhere near an urban area or suburb and would think that you are crazy for wanting to live downtown.
> 
> There is a reason there are 31 flavors at Baskin Robbins.  Just because you prefer one flavor doesn't mean the other people lack life experiences.


I agree with this 100%, looking out and around the airport area ourselves. When our kiddo gets through school, we will be looking to downsize downtown or to campus area in Norman...

----------


## betts

I lived in Deer Creek for 5 years, and moved out there so my kids could experience living closer to nature.  There ended up being a little too much nature for me (snakes and scorpions in the house, possums in the garage and skunks on the porch), all the driving about killed me and the yard work was ghastly.  I had poison ivy more often than not. My kids played with video games and their dollhouse more than they were outside, so I begged my husband to let us move back into the city.  The ranchette phase passed quickly. But maybe I wouldn't have been happy without finding out for myself.  With hindsight, however, you can have it.  I just want the people living on their ranchette to be outside Oklahoma City limits, as we were, and then I agree that people can do what they want.

----------


## Spartan

> If I remember from other posts,you are a younger person.  People go through various life changes.  I have travelled most of this world and have live in numerous cities in various different countries.  I lived in Gatewood and Heritage Hills for about 14 years.  It was nice being downtown and being walking distance or $5.00 cab ride from most anything I wanted to do.  But you know...I got older and had kids and our priorities changed.  We left downtown and built a house on 6 acres in a gated neighborhood near I-44 just the other side of the airport.  I am still barely in OKC. 
> 
> I no longer have to pay for private school for my three kids nor do I have to worry about the kids leaving a bicycle outside overnight.  The kids get to go play in the field, chase bugs and get to see deer and turkey in the backyard. They can walk home from the neighbors at night without having to have my wife or I escort them.  I can plant flowers in my garden and they will still be there in the morning.  (we had lots of garden thefts when we lived at NW 21 and  Robinson) My two great danes have lots of room to run and I enjoy sitting on the porch and not having gangbangers driving down Robinson with their bass pumping and rattling my windows.  That is important to me now as well as important to a lot of other people which is why you see people moving out of the inner core.  I would love for the i44 corridor to be built up with a few more shops and local restaurants,  Love the new Crest and glad to see a McDonalds next door because sometimes you just need McDonald French fries.   I would kill for an OnCue and a Target at 104th and I44. 
> 
> When the kids grow up and move away to college and we enter a new life phase, my bride and I will probably downsize and probably move back downtown into something with little to no yard and where we can walk to local places.  That's not important to us right now though.  Downtown urban areas work for you and you may stay in that type of setting all your life but that doesn't mean it is for everyone.  I have friends that live in the country that couldn't ever see themselves anywhere near an urban area or suburb and would think that you are crazy for wanting to live downtown.
> 
> There is a reason there are 31 flavors at Baskin Robbins.  Just because you prefer one flavor doesn't mean the other people lack life experiences.





> I see nothing wrong with suburban development if its done with dignity. The suburbs still have their place and always will. Usually suburban development is driven though by something specific such as a sought-after school district. You can see it very clearly when looking at a map of the metro - things developed the way they did because of school district boundaries primarily. Personally I would like to see more infill in OKC before sprawling out to Newcastle or Guthrie. Not just in downtown but in suburban areas also.


I think those pushing back against my anti-suburban post need to have some perspective. Why is it that nothing bad can be said about suburban development or else you're painted anti-suburb? I attack urban developments we don't need/want all the time.

I was raised in the suburbs and definitely concede that they have their place for families. That said, hey we've got suburbs! We don't need more. The idea of developing McClain County and Logan County and all of Canadian County is absurd and dangerous. This isn't about creating places to accommodate more families as much as it is about moving existing families out of Moore and NW OKC and further and further out. 

I don't think downtown growth is the least bit threatened by more and more sprawl. It's just the existing sprawl and those suburban communities we already have that really have a vested interest in trying to curtail the insane sprawl cycle. 

Instead of _lusting_ for new sprawl, why don't you go meet your neighbors, and see what you can do to make your existing neighborhood a better community.

----------


## Jeepnokc

> I lived in Deer Creek for 5 years, and moved out there so my kids could experience living closer to nature.  There ended up being a little too much nature for me (snakes and scorpions in the house, possums in the garage and skunks on the porch), all the driving about killed me and the yard work was ghastly.  I had poison ivy more often than not. My kids played with video games and their dollhouse more than they were outside, so I begged my husband to let us move back into the city.  The ranchette phase passed quickly. But maybe I wouldn't have been happy without finding out for myself.  With hindsight, however, you can have it.  I just want the people living on their ranchette to be outside Oklahoma City limits, as we were, and then I agree that people can do what they want.



We looked at Deer Creek ourselves due to the schools but I didn't want all the traffic fights getting into work or anywhere else.  My kids like the video games too but if it is nice out...they get kicked outside like my folks used to do with us.  Sure they whine...but hey, they are outside so I can't hear them (just kidding).  It's funny because we have had two people move out of our neighborhood.  One went further out on more land and more country and the other went closer in to a smaller city lot size neighborhood.  Once again....31 flavors.

Why do you care if inside OKC limits?  Your complaint should be with the city annexing so much property not people buying property and developing into what is financially feasible for that property.  If OKC ever expands to the point that they want to build a skyscraper on my property....I will gladly sell it to them.  The 160 acres that my neighborhood sits on was farmland producing very little revenue for the city.  Now it is 30 homes in the 400-1.2 million dollar range all paying property taxes of which OKC receives 11.43% of.  Oh wait..the infrastructure costs increased.  Every home out here is on a septic, well and has propane.  The only city services we receive are trash, fire and police which other than trash, were constants before our neighborhood was here.  Our roads and streetlights are private for which we pay all upkeep on.  The main road (104th) was rebuilt but that was for FAA access.  Let's look at the increased revenue that is being produced by new businesses going in on the south side due to the increase in people moving to these areas.  The new Crest, Firestone, McDonalds, etc plus any future development at the airport retail strip that is being planned.  All of this generates sales taxes and higher property taxes for the city.  I am sure a lot of the MAPS money came from the memorial road and 1-240 retail corridors.  I didn't get any sidewalks on my street (or any other MAPS improvements) but I am sure enjoying the river improvements, the concerts at the Ford Center, etc that make this city great.  (I am not being sarcastic with that statement)

Cities need strong downtowns and strong suburbs.  The big suburban retail areas contribute a lot of tax revenue.  Downtown areas like bricktown can't thrive without people coming in from the suburban and non inner core areas to spend their money. It is a combination of the suburbs, inner core, and downtown areas that make OKC great.

----------


## Spartan

> It is a combination of the suburbs, inner core, and downtown areas that make OKC great.


Agreed. So, in turn, we owe it to those existing areas that are working hard to make OKC great to plan growth that keeps those areas great as well. We shouldn't be throwing the suburbs we just got done building under the bus already because we are lusting over more sprawl out to Newcastle, Blanchard, and Chickasha.

Have some perspective.

----------


## Jeepnokc

> Agreed. So, in turn, we owe it to those existing areas that are working hard to make OKC great to plan growth that keeps those areas great as well. We shouldn't be throwing the suburbs we just got done building under the bus already because we are lusting over more sprawl out to Newcastle, Blanchard, and Chickasha.
> 
> Have some perspective.


Newcastle is a weird little set up because it really isn't that far down I-44 from the area that I think is going to develop next which is the SW74-SW 104th-119 area of I-44.  A lot of these people travel to the Walmart there in the Tricity because it is nicer and cleaner than I240.  What makes Newcastle weird is that they annexed all the way down to highway nine and all the way over to I35 which is really far from OKC.  As it grows, there is more infill.  Look at the new apts at 104th and May.  Look at all the new neighborhoods within one mile either side of i44 around 104/119/134th.  I think this will continue as even though it is OKC limits....the area is Moore schools.  I am not sure you will see the same growth in Newcastle due to the schools.  I don't know that there is anything wrong with the Newcastle schools, I just have never heard anyone say they moved to Newcastle for the schools.

If OKC really wants to infill the areas north of 89th street, they need to improve their schools.  Families look for affordable housing in the best school district they can afford. Last week in the paper was a story about the OKC elementary teacher that was coldcocked by one of the students and that the teachers can't leave their phones or ipads out on desk as they will be stolen....do you really want to send your kids to that school?  Young people without children aren't necessarily looking to live at sw 44th and shields when they can live in midtown, dd, or downtown.  I have friends that moved from Norman to Heritage Hills because their kids were able to get into the Classen Advanced school.  Think what would happen if Edmond schools took over the north OKC area between I44 and Memorial around i235? That area would explode with nicer higher end neighborhoods.  That close to downtown, memorial road  and good schools...

That is one of the reasons I supported MAPs for kids as the facilities are part of the battle of trying to build a good school district.  I agree with you that it also takes strong neighbors that are willing to get out there and do something and also parents that get involved in their kid's schools.

----------


## Spartan

Right, I hear you on the school districts. Putnam City used to be a great school district. It was thrown under the bus as well by the sprawl cycle.

----------


## bchris02

> I think those pushing back against my anti-suburban post need to have some perspective. Why is it that nothing bad can be said about suburban development or else you're painted anti-suburb? I attack urban developments we don't need/want all the time.
> 
> I was raised in the suburbs and definitely concede that they have their place for families. That said, hey we've got suburbs! We don't need more. The idea of developing McClain County and Logan County and all of Canadian County is absurd and dangerous. This isn't about creating places to accommodate more families as much as it is about moving existing families out of Moore and NW OKC and further and further out. 
> 
> I don't think downtown growth is the least bit threatened by more and more sprawl. It's just the existing sprawl and those suburban communities we already have that really have a vested interest in trying to curtail the insane sprawl cycle. 
> 
> Instead of _lusting_ for new sprawl, why don't you go meet your neighbors, and see what you can do to make your existing neighborhood a better community.


I definitely hear what you are saying. It really isn't so much downtown competing against suburbs, but newer sprawl throwing older sprawl under the bus. Such is the reason Bethany, Warr Acres, and pretty much all of NW OKC west of I-44 and south of NW Expy is rotting from the inside out. While OKC as a whole has improved a lot in the past decade, inner NW OKC has fallen off a cliff. If that trend continues we could end up with a city with a compact, polished downtown surrounded by miles of ghetto on all sides, surrounded by exclusive gated communities on the fringes.

----------


## Spartan

We're already there, except the only difference is that we've built up a buffer zone to the NW comprised of a few miles of historic neighborhoods that are on the upswing. 

The thing is that so many people speak for downtown that when anyone attacks the sprawl cycle it's assumed that they're speaking for downtown. Nobody speaks for the inner ring suburbs that are the real battle ground, and that is the problem. Downtown is and will be fine, that is a completely separate market driven by different demographics.

For example, Cleveland has the First Suburbs Consortium that unites these inner ring burbs (which are mostly 20s-50s era) and amplified their voice, allows them to apply for funds collectively, etc. These are the kind of relationships that OKC needs to build with Bethany, Warr Acres, Nichols Hills, The Village, Del City. It's easier for the Cleveland suburbs because the city is only 400,000 out of 1.5 million in Cuyahoga County, which is comprised of around 50 other communities. The OKC-centricity of Oklahoma County will make that more difficult, but not impossible.

We need strong suburbs that are good places to build families. Building more disposable ones and disposing of the ones we currently have is not the way to go.

----------


## Garin

I can tell you this PB Odom, Russell Clark, Marvin Haworth, JW Mashburn are all buying up land in Newcastle. All of these men have been developing land in Moore and SW Okc. They are out of land in Moore and South Okc. Look for Newcastle in the very near future to blow up into something big. Trust me these men don't just do things on a whim. Not to mention the local Newcastle and Tuttle developers as we'll.

----------


## Spartan

How is there "no land left" in Moore and SW OKC?

----------


## bchris02

> How is there "no land left" in Moore and SW OKC?


I agree.  Just doing a quick Google Maps search shows me there is still a lot that could be developed in SW OKC, Moore, and even far north Norman without extending the sprawl down to Newcastle.  They could also develop out towards Lake Stanley Draper, east of Moore, which is all still in the Moore school district.  I always thought S Sooner Rd, which is four lanes all the way to Norman, would one day be a significant corridor for development.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Right, I hear you on the school districts. Putnam City used to be a great school district. It was thrown under the bus as well by the sprawl cycle.


Spartan, it can easily be turned around with community investment and pride. It has nothing to do with sprawl, rather than people just not caring and lower class folks moving in(well, that is part of the first line).

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> We're already there, except the only difference is that we've built up a buffer zone to the NW comprised of a few miles of historic neighborhoods that are on the upswing. 
> 
> The thing is that so many people speak for downtown that when anyone attacks the sprawl cycle it's assumed that they're speaking for downtown. Nobody speaks for the inner ring suburbs that are the real battle ground, and that is the problem. Downtown is and will be fine, that is a completely separate market driven by different demographics.
> 
> For example, Cleveland has the First Suburbs Consortium that unites these inner ring burbs (which are mostly 20s-50s era) and amplified their voice, allows them to apply for funds collectively, etc. These are the kind of relationships that OKC needs to build with Bethany, Warr Acres, Nichols Hills, The Village, Del City. It's easier for the Cleveland suburbs because the city is only 400,000 out of 1.5 million in Cuyahoga County, which is comprised of around 50 other communities. The OKC-centricity of Oklahoma County will make that more difficult, but not impossible.
> 
> We need strong suburbs that are good places to build families. Building more disposable ones and disposing of the ones we currently have is not the way to go.


Spartan, can you please post pictures of what you think a good suburb is vs. a bad one. . . I am a visual guy. I will gladly do the same if you wish.

----------


## rezman

> I lived in Deer Creek for 5 years, and moved out there so my kids could experience living closer to nature.  There ended up being a little too much nature for me (snakes and scorpions in the house, possums in the garage and skunks on the porch), all the driving about killed me and the yard work was ghastly.  I had poison ivy more often than not. My kids played with video games and their dollhouse more than they were outside, so I begged my husband to let us move back into the city.  The ranchette phase passed quickly. But maybe I wouldn't have been happy without finding out for myself.  With hindsight, however, you can have it.  I just want the people living on their ranchette to be outside Oklahoma City limits, as we were, and then I agree that people can do what they want.


We're doing the same thing. We're on 6 acres in rural eastern OKC, and I love it. In the last ten years, we've worked that place from a scraggly overgrown plot of land into a beautiful home with plenty of room around it. And I love the nature too. Including the group of tarantulas that live in the back yard and come out hunting for bugs and such. ... the scorpions I have to admit I can do without, but I love everything else about the place.

But my son has been out of the house about three years now and my daughter is in high school, and we have just about worn ourselves out taking care of such a big place.  We would also like to have more time to do other things. So we made the decision to put our place on the market and we're down sizing back to city lot in a nice 25 year old addition in Okc.   

Is this a tough decision?... absolutely. There's nothing like not having neighbors right on top of you and all in your business.  


By the way, I have to ask.   What do you mean by   "  I just want the people living on their ranchette to be outside Oklahoma City limits, as we were."  ?

----------


## Just the facts

> Spartan, can you please post pictures of what you think a good suburb is vs. a bad one. . . I am a visual guy. I will gladly do the same if you wish.


This is an area here in Jax called San Marco.  In the early 1900's this area was in the city of South Jacksonville, which before it was incorporated was also called Oklahoma (weird huh).  The place in this picture was built in 1925 and was one of Jacksonville first-ring suburbs.  This is an example of a "good suburb".  For a bad suburb pick any place whose center of commerce is a Walmart.

----------


## Spartan

> Spartan, can you please post pictures of what you think a good suburb is vs. a bad one. . . I am a visual guy. I will gladly do the same if you wish.


Check out Fisher, IN (Indy), Dublin, OH (Cbus), or Cleveland Heights, Lakewood, Shaker Heights, University Heights, (all CLE area old urbanist, transit village burbs) Woodmere, Westlake, or Brecksville (new urbanist CLE burbs). Ill post pics later. 

I think Plano and Denton are doing good stuff compared to any of the other cities around there. Near Houston, Bellaire is a great example of infilling a 1960s era suburb that wasn't uber rich to begin with (which is significant bc obv most quality urbanism follows upper class suburbs, which is a problem I'd concede). The thing though is even OKC's upper class areas aren't all that well planned.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Check out Fisher, IN (Indy), Dublin, OH (Cbus), or Cleveland Heights, Lakewood, Shaker Heights, University Heights, (all CLE area old urbanist, transit village burbs) Woodmere, Westlake, or Brecksville (new urbanist CLE burbs). Ill post pics later. 
> 
> I think Plano and Denton are doing good stuff compared to any of the other cities around there. Near Houston, Bellaire is a great example of infilling a 1960s era suburb that wasn't uber rich to begin with (which is significant bc obv most quality urbanism follows upper class suburbs, which is a problem I'd concede). The thing though is even OKC's upper class areas aren't all that well planned.


I'll check them out later tonight, thanks!  :Smile:

----------


## bchris02

> This is an area here in Jax called San Marco.  In the early 1900's this area was in the city of South Jacksonville, which before it was incorporated was also called Oklahoma (weird huh).  The place in this picture was built in 1925 and was one of Jacksonville first-ring suburbs.  This is an example of a "good suburb".  *For a bad suburb pick any place whose center of commerce is a Walmart.*


Which is most of OKC and its suburbs.  A lot of people give me flack for being anti-Wal-Mart or saying OKC retail has been ruined by them.  However, when you look at the facts you can see where I am coming from.  Most retail development here within the past decade has been anchored by Wal-Mart.  The result has been countless terrible shopping centers and relatively few new retailers entering the market and very poor architectural aesthetics. You won't see development like that picture above in OKC.  Instead, you'll see the Belle Isle Wal-Mart shopping center.  I have NEVER seen Wal-Mart anchor a quality shopping center anywhere I've lived.  That doesn't mean there isn't one out there somewhere, but its a very rare thing. I know that this city, given its size, is capable of better development.

----------


## Garin

> How is there "no land left" in Moore and SW OKC?



The farmers that own the viable land that is left want so much per acre it make the cost for development to high. The reason the rural markets are becoming more popular for the developers is because of the affordable land. I sit on the boards of SWHBA , BASCO, and MHBA so I hear the latest three times a month.

----------


## windowphobe

Just incidentally, the north end of McClain County -- just over the river -- was once actually within OKC city limits.  (Doug Loudenback, who knows more about this than anyone including me, can verify.)  In the process of dropping from 680 to 640 to 621 square miles, this area was shed.

Doug Dawgz Blog: Oklahoma City Area History

----------


## coov23

I think the obvious answer is the Deer Creek/Piedmont area. Those two areas have exploded and there's no sign of change, either.

----------


## Bunty

> My money is on Edmond, Norman, Moore, Yukon, Mustang, Midwest City, and NW and SW OKC seeing strong growth for the next 5 maybe 10 years. Then within the next 5-7 years, growth will really pick up in Guthrie, El Reno, Newcastle, Spencer, Piedmont, and Jones should start to see some real growth. Now, when I say that, I'm not talking Austin style growth here, but some steady strong growth should come.


But Newcastle and Piedmont have already been adding on population like crazy.  Newcastle may surpass Guthrie in population before the 2020 census.  So people shouldn't be surprised about talk Newcastle being the next Moore.

----------


## Bunty

> The farmers that own the viable land that is left want so much per acre it make the cost for development to high. The reason the rural markets are becoming more popular for the developers is because of the affordable land. I sit on the boards of SWHBA , BASCO, and MHBA so I hear the latest three times a month.


Then are farmers doing something to make their land generate some income, like lease it?  They don't have to give up their oil rights when they sell, if they have them.  If I was a land owner I'd me tempted to sell, especially, if I wasn't realizing any income from the land.   However, if you're making more income off your property than you would selling it and putting the money in the bank, I can easily understand the reluctance to sell it.

----------


## Bunty

> Which is most of OKC and its suburbs.  A lot of people give me flack for being anti-Wal-Mart or saying OKC retail has been ruined by them.  However, when you look at the facts you can see where I am coming from.  Most retail development here within the past decade has been anchored by Wal-Mart.  The result has been countless terrible shopping centers and relatively few new retailers entering the market and very poor architectural aesthetics. You won't see development like that picture above in OKC.  Instead, you'll see the Belle Isle Wal-Mart shopping center.  I have NEVER seen Wal-Mart anchor a quality shopping center anywhere I've lived.  That doesn't mean there isn't one out there somewhere, but its a very rare thing. I know that this city, given its size, is capable of better development.


If those cheap, terrible looking shopping centers around Wal-Mart have few, if any, vacancies, then, in my opinion, the economic situation is more good than bad.

----------


## bchris02

> The farmers that own the viable land that is left want so much per acre it make the cost for development to high. The reason the rural markets are becoming more popular for the developers is because of the affordable land. I sit on the boards of SWHBA , BASCO, and MHBA so I hear the latest three times a month.


I guess that makes sense.  Why develop a housing development in South Moore when you can purchase the land at a quarter of the cost down between Newcastle and Tuttle?  As long as people are willing to commute long distances this type of stuff will continue.  OKC is nowhere close to the worst city in the US when it comes to sprawl-per-capita but the abundance of cheap, open land makes it difficult to put a stop to.  I am not sure, but my guess would be that a majority of Central Oklahomans would rather live in a 4500 sq foot McMansion on 5 acres in Newcastle with all the latest appliances than a 1000 sq foot fixer-upper at 23rd and Villa.

----------


## Garin

[QUOTE=Bunty;701169]Then are farmers doing something to make their land generate some income, like lease it?  They don't have to give up their oil rights when they sell, if they have them.  If I was a land owner I'd me tempted to sell, especially, if I wasn't realizing any income from the land.   However, if you're making more income off your property than you would selling it and putting the money in the bank, I can easily understand the reluctance to sell it.[/QUO

The majority of the farmers ( land owners ) have owned most of the land in these areas for like ever. When something does get sold its usually by a handful of certain folks. The still run some cattle, grow some hay , and some frankly have enough money they unless you're willing to price the price they are now asking it will just sit there and pay the property taxes. Newcastle and the tri city area are still for the most part very affordable when buying large chucks of land.

----------


## Garin

> I guess that makes sense.  Why develop a housing development in South Moore when you can purchase the land at a quarter of the cost down between Newcastle and Tuttle?  As long as people are willing to commute long distances this type of stuff will continue.  OKC is nowhere close to the worst city in the US when it comes to sprawl-per-capita but the abundance of cheap, open land makes it difficult to put a stop to.  I am not sure, but my guess would be that a majority of Central Oklahomans would rather live in a 4500 sq foot McMansion on 5 acres in Newcastle with all the latest appliances than a 1000 sq foot fixer-upper at 23rd and Villa.


Q- What is the number one reason that a family has on their mind when looking for a new home ?....... A - School system. You will not find anyone with exception of a few that would trade the perfect brand new house on  23rd and villa versus a fixer upper in Newcastle.  If you're single its a different story,  but not for families its a no brainer .

----------


## Just the facts

> If those cheap, terrible looking shopping centers around Wal-Mart have few, if any, vacancies, then, in my opinion, the economic situation is more good than bad.


The problem is that tax revenue generated by them isn't enough to cover the cost of the infrastructure that has to support them, which is why cities and towns rely on the growth model, and when growth stops (usually because they run out of land) decay sets in.  It's inevitable.  If you lose money in every transaction you can't make up for it in volume.

----------


## crimsoncrazy

> The farmers that own the viable land that is left want so much per acre it make the cost for development to high. The reason the rural markets are becoming more popular for the developers is because of the affordable land. I sit on the boards of SWHBA , BASCO, and MHBA so I hear the latest three times a month.


The owners of the 160 acres that is for sale at 104th and Rockwell are asking for 2 million.  The farm land just on the northwest side of 74th and Rockwell just west of the airport is about to be developed into a housing addition.

----------


## Garin

> The owners of the 160 acres that is for sale at 104th and Rockwell are asking for 2 million.  The farm land just on the northwest side of 74th and Rockwell just west of the airport is about to be developed into a housing addition.


Do the math that is $ 12,500 per acre , 3 times what you can by it for in Newcastle.

----------


## Zuplar

> The owners of the 160 acres that is for sale at 104th and Rockwell are asking for 2 million.  The farm land just on the northwest side of 74th and Rockwell just west of the airport is about to be developed into a housing addition.


A big difference in those 2 you mentioned is school district. One is Moore and the other Western Heights. I'm surprised someone would want to develop in the Western Heights district as the neighborhood over by AWG hasn't done anything and they started that thing years ago.

----------


## Spartan

> Q- What is the number one reason that a family has on their mind when looking for a new home ?....... A - School system. You will not find anyone with exception of a few that would trade the perfect brand new house on  23rd and villa versus a fixer upper in Newcastle.  If you're single its a different story,  but not for families its a no brainer .


I'm just not so sure of how realistic your bombastic assertion here is... You're absolutely right my friend in theory that the school district is the priority w families and why so many inner cities are bursting at the seems with 20-somethings and still losing population.

However, you named specifics. Newcastle v. NW 23rd and Villa (Shepherd?). I think just bout anyone would make the obvious choice there between having your kids grow up modern and cultured v. white trash and sheltered. You could have named Moore Schools or Norman etc, but you named Newcastle, and that is the subject of this thread as well. We are talking McClain County..

And just to anticipate the outrage over calling Newcastle white trash, granted it isn't quite the home of Jason White, it is actually a much more offensive assumption that OCPS schools are all bad (there isn't even competition between Classen SAS and anything south of Memorial Road) which was a foregone conclusion here from Post 1.

Again I can't say enough, when people want these absurd urb v burb comparisons, have some perspective. It isn't all black and white. Its actually all quite gray.

----------


## coov23

Spartan is about as much as an elitist as it comes. You think Piedmont is white trash too? I'm willing to bet you didn't know that Piedmont is ranked very high for its school system. They score leaps and bounds above the national average when it comes to act, sat and national testing. 

But hey, belittle anyone who chooses not to live inside the core of OKC. You've made it known you think the economically deprived city of Cleveland is better than OKC. You live there. Why don't you visit their sites? 

Oh, and before you come at me with the fact I have never lived in other places, let me squash that. I just moved back to OKC after living in Philly for 4 years. We made weekend trips to DC, NYC and Baltimore on a monthly basis.  Spare me your elitist diatribe. It's wearing this board sick.

----------


## ljbab728

> Spartan is about as much as an elitist as it comes. You think Piedmont is white trash too? I'm willing to bet you didn't know that Piedmont is ranked very high for its school system. They score leaps and bounds above the national average when it comes to act, sat and national testing. 
> 
> But hey, belittle anyone who chooses not to live inside the core of OKC. You've made it known you think the economically deprived city of Cleveland is better than OKC. You live there. Why don't you visit their sites? 
> 
> Oh, and before you come at me with the fact I have never lived in other places, let me squash that. I just moved back to OKC after living in Philly for 4 years. We made weekend trips to DC, NYC and Baltimore on a monthly basis.  Spare me your elitist diatribe. It's wearing this board sick.


I don't always agree with Spartan but he makes many very pertinent points about many issues and has been doing so for quite a few years here.  He isn't wearing this board sick.

----------


## Goon

> I don't always agree with Spartan but he makes many very pertinent points about many issues and has been doing so for quite a few years here.  *He isn't wearing this board sick*.


Speaking as a newcomer to the board, I will say reading the elitist trash that litters his sometimes "pertinent points" definitely makes me wary that there is any relevance to be had in his words. Then again, I tend to assume anyone who chooses to categorize an entire group of people as "sheltered white trash" to prove a point instead of using their brain to form a coherent argument is too ignorant to listen to anyway. 

Otherwise, I like this board. Aside from the amazing information, most everyone seems civil and well-reasoned. As for Spartan, every village needs their idiot; who am I to stand in the way of a man whose words beg for the honor?

----------


## Garin

> I'm just not so sure of how realistic your bombastic assertion here is... You're absolutely right my friend in theory that the school district is the priority w families and why so many inner cities are bursting at the seems with 20-somethings and still losing population.
> 
> However, you named specifics. Newcastle v. NW 23rd and Villa (Shepherd?). I think just bout anyone would make the obvious choice there between having your kids grow up modern and cultured v. white trash and sheltered. You could have named Moore Schools or Norman etc, but you named Newcastle, and that is the subject of this thread as well. We are talking McClain County..
> 
> And just to anticipate the outrage over calling Newcastle white trash, granted it isn't quite the home of Jason White, it is actually a much more offensive assumption that OCPS schools are all bad (there isn't even competition between Classen SAS and anything south of Memorial Road) which was a foregone conclusion here from Post 1.
> 
> Again I can't say enough, when people want these absurd urb v burb comparisons, have some perspective. It isn't all black and white. Its actually all quite gray.


I very well could have mentioned Moore or Norman, I was raised in Moore schools and my 3 kids attend them now. Moore does not really have an inner city so to speak and Norman in the same type boat. However that being said i would send my children to the worst Moore or Norman school before ever allowing them to attend an OKC public school.  Newcastle was use Sparti because its in the the title of the thread.   I will never understand why people want to live in the inner city on top of each other. Haven't you ever seen the walking dead the big citys are the first to zombify. I take a nice suburban neighborhood myself with a yard and sidewalks and other kids for mine to play with. You can keep your buses,bike and light rail all to yourself

----------


## Garin

It boils down to school districts when a developer chooses what land he is going to purchase. Plain and simple the wrong school system and you wont be selling any lots. Thats because they are in it to make money not lose.

----------


## Just the facts

I don't think subdivision developers take the local district into account as much as some of you seem to think.  If they did they wouldn't build subdivision where local schools don't even exist.  What the real-estate agent tells you and what the developer builds are two very different things.  I remember when we bought our house, the agent raved about how good the local school was.  Now we have lived here 10 years and we know that was a flat-out lie.  Our builder choose this site because it was 500 acres of cheap contiguous undeveloped land close to existing arterial roads - and that is the only reason.

----------


## Zuplar

> I don't think subdivision developers take the local district into account as much as some of you seem to think.  If they did they wouldn't build subdivision where local schools don't even exist.  What the real-estate agent tells you and what the developer builds are two very different things.  I remember when we bought our house, the agent raved about how good the local school was.  Now we have lived here 10 years and we know that was a flat-out lie.  Our builder choose this site because it was 500 acres of cheap contiguous undeveloped land close to existing arterial roads - and that is the only reason.


What school district do you live in? I also would tend to agree some developers don't even pay attention, but then again those are often the ones that want to make a quick buck.

----------


## Just the facts

> What school district do you live in? I also would tend to agree some developers don't even pay attention, but then again those are often the ones that want to make a quick buck.


I don't live in Oklahoma.  With the decreasing number of people even having school aged children, and the trend suggesting that by 2020 80% of all households won't have kids at all - if developers were factoring in school districts, they won't be for long.

----------


## coov23

> I don't live in Oklahoma.  With the decreasing number of people even having school aged children, and the trend suggesting that by 2020 80% of all households won't have kids at all - if developers were factoring in school districts, they won't be for long.


I'm 30 years old. Everyone of my friends-- including myself and my wife-- have multiple children. My other friends are trying to have kids. I think your "trend" is way off.

----------


## Zuplar

> I'm 30 years old. Everyone of my friends-- including myself and my wife-- have multiple children. My other friends are trying to have kids. I think your "trend" is way off.


It may not be the norm here, but I know around here it seems as though people are having kids later, and instead of having a ton of kids couples are having just one or 2.

I'm personally glad some people don't have kids, because some people aren't fit to have kids.

----------


## Just the facts

> I'm 30 years old. Everyone of my friends-- including myself and my wife-- have multiple children. My other friends are trying to have kids. I think your "trend" is way off.


It's not *my* trend - it comes from the US Census.  I have two kids myself.

U.S. families shift as fewer households include children: Census | Reuters




> While married couples with children were the majority decades ago, now nearly *57 percent of U.S. households are childless*

----------


## adaniel

> It's not *my* trend - it comes from the US Census.  I have two kids myself.
> 
> U.S. families shift as fewer households include children: Census | Reuters


See my reply on this here.

----------


## mkjeeves

> the trend suggesting that by 2020 80% of all households won't have kids at all





> It's not *my* trend - it comes from the US Census.  I have two kids myself.
> 
> U.S. families shift as fewer households include children: Census | Reuters


The article cited doesn't suggest any such thing in that time frame.

The part you snipped was about married couples, which you left off. 

Also says: In 2012, 66 percent of households consisted of two or more people related by birth, marriage or adoption living together, compared with 81 percent in 1970.

20% change over 42 years? So that 66% would be 53% in another 42 years at that rate.

So yeah, there is a trend over many decades of fewer kids and fewer people being married, but nothing earth shattering to happen in a decade and a half.
People are still having kids and more of them are single parents living with them, still in the burbs. An anecdote...three of my closest neighbors in the burbs are single parents living with their kids.

----------


## Just the facts

For the love of Pete - do I have to do everything?




> While married couples with children were the majority decades ago, now nearly 57 percent of U.S. households are childless. In 2012, about 29 percent included childless married couples and nearly 28 percent included people living alone.


Of the 57% of households that are childless - 29% are married couple without kids and 28% are people living alone (by definition - without kids).  29 + 28 = 57.  The other 43% are married people with children, single parent with child, or divorced parent with children.  However, once a child is born it takes at least 18 years for that child to work their way through the statistics.  When the 18 year old drops off one end a new baby would need to be added at the other just for the rate of change to remain constant (because the 18 year old that just dropped off become a single person living alone).  But we know the birthrate is dropping so the rate of change is increasing.  Let me guess - your "20% change over 42 years? So that 66% would be 53% in another 42 years at that rate." didn't take that into account?

----------


## mkjeeves

Show me the math from stats and claims in the article that show 80% of households won't have children by 2020.  

It isn't there. (There's not enough data in the article to nail that down for the group.)

That was your claim, not theirs.

Where they did have enough data, on a different but related point, the change was over 42 years and not significant enough to remotely indicate changes are happening at the pace you claim. That was my point in using it.

----------


## Just the facts

Let me find the 80% number.  I posted it in another thread not long ago.  However, it might have been 2030 not 2020.

On edit

http://saportareport.com/blog/2012/0...-will-develop/




> Arthur “Chris” Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Research Center at the University of Utah who previously had been a professor of planning and public policy at Georgia Tech - See more at: http://saportareport.com/blog/2012/0....gq0WYEva.dpuf
> 
> ...
> 
> And by 2030, only 29 percent of the nation’s households are expected to have children.


He puts it at 29% by 2030 and I said 20% by 2020 (although I am pretty sure I was wrong on the 2020 part).  Anyhow, if helps settle the point I will agree with 29% by 2030.  In 17 years 71% of households will not have children.

So, will Newcastle be the next Moore?  Maybe, but it will take families moving from Moore to make it happen because very little of the 71% will be moving to Newcastle.  Not sure what happens to all the single family homes in Moore though.

----------


## mkjeeves

Here's the census report. The trend you're looking for might be in the data somewhere with some study but I don't think it says what you think it does in the time scale you think.

However, look at page 5. The graph shows something pretty interesting, the percentage of married couples without children has stayed pretty much the same since 1970, about 30% of the total household types. (I would have never guessed that but I'm not sure why.)

What has changed are the other groups. Married with children has gone down, while all the other groups have gone up. Notably would be Other Family Households. By the definitions given, that would be two or more people with one being the householder and the other being a birth or adopted child.

So I buy people are having fewer children (even though I haven't seen the actual stat.) But part of what has happened is we have more single parent households. I think we knew that.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p20-570.pdf

----------


## mkjeeves

If you're looking...I said page 3 originally but it's on page 5! Figure 1.

----------


## Garin

> I don't think subdivision developers take the local district into account as much as some of you seem to think.  If they did they wouldn't build subdivision where local schools don't even exist.  What the real-estate agent tells you and what the developer builds are two very different things.  I remember when we bought our house, the agent raved about how good the local school was.  Now we have lived here 10 years and we know that was a flat-out lie.  Our builder choose this site because it was 500 acres of cheap contiguous undeveloped land close to existing arterial roads - and that is the only reason.



The wrong school district is the death nail for families with children. If you don't have school aged kids it doesn't matter.

----------


## mkjeeves

I see you edited your post. Let's look at it again.

The claim on the new cite:

In 1970, 45 percent of the U.S. households had children. In 2000, that had dropped to 33 percent. And by 2030, only 29 percent of the nation’s households are expected to have children.
So over thirty years from 1970 to 2000 it decreased by a factor of 27%. (33% divided by 45%)

He predicts the next thirty years will show an additional 12% decrease. (29% divided by 33%)

Yep, there's a trend there with some small changes over many decades but nothing remotely at the pace of your original claims. There still will be plenty of people seeking housing in the foreseeable future. We'll hardly notice the difference in our lifetimes if the prediction comes true.

----------


## Just the facts

2030 is 17 years away.

----------


## mkjeeves

> 2030 is 17 years away.


Exactly. It won't be hardly any different than it is now. The end is not near.

----------


## Bunty

> Exactly. It won't be hardly any different than it is now. The end is not near.


And Oklahoma lags national trends.

----------


## LocoAko

> I very well could have mentioned Moore or Norman, I was raised in Moore schools and my 3 kids attend them now. Moore does not really have an inner city so to speak and Norman in the same type boat. However that being said i would send my children to the worst Moore or Norman school before ever allowing them to attend an OKC public school.  Newcastle was use Sparti because its in the the title of the thread.   *I will never understand why people want to live in the inner city on top of each other. Haven't you ever seen the walking dead the big citys are the first to zombify. I take a nice suburban neighborhood myself with a yard and sidewalks and other kids for mine to play with. You can keep your buses,bike and light rail all to yourself*


Sigh.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Sigh.


Pretty sure Garin was being sarcastic.

----------


## catch22

He sounds like the old people who came from Tuttle to OKC city council to speak against the streetcar.

Moving on.

----------


## Garin

> Pretty sure Garin was being sarcastic.



Everything except the zombie part  :Embarrassment:

----------


## Spartan

> I very well could have mentioned Moore or Norman, I was raised in Moore schools and my 3 kids attend them now. Moore does not really have an inner city so to speak and Norman in the same type boat. However that being said i would send my children to the worst Moore or Norman school before ever allowing them to attend an OKC public school.  Newcastle was use Sparti because its in the the title of the thread.   I will never understand why people want to live in the inner city on top of each other. Haven't you ever seen the walking dead the big citys are the first to zombify. I take a nice suburban neighborhood myself with a yard and sidewalks and other kids for mine to play with. You can keep your buses,bike and light rail all to yourself


Being on top of other people isn't that bad.

Besides, I just don't know how families in places not called Oklahoma do it. They must not be real families lol

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Being on top of other people isn't that bad.


Completely subjective. Never in a hundred years would I want to raise a family in an urban environment. Sid, he probably could never see himself living in a suburban neighborhood in Edmond. You, you probably enjoy living in an urban living environment and that's great. Just don't even try to take away providing bus service, building big freeways/tollways, police/fire/medical, sewage and electric services etc, to people who sprawl out just because they don't want to live in a dense area. 




> Besides, I just don't know how families in places not called Oklahoma do it


Won't even mention the fact that Ohio has plenty of suburban communities and I'm sure Cleveland has its fair share of sprawl, but over an ocean away lies South Africa with plenty of suburban communities.




> They must not be real families lol


Has anyone ever insinuated that? I have missed it if that was the case.

----------


## Spartan

> Completely subjective. Never in a hundred years would I want to raise a family in an urban environment. Sid, he probably could never see himself living in a suburban neighborhood in Edmond. You, you probably enjoy living in an urban living environment and that's great. Just don't even try to take away providing bus service, building big freeways/tollways, police/fire/medical, sewage and electric services etc, to people who sprawl out just because they don't want to live in a dense area. 
> 
> Won't even mention the fact that Ohio has plenty of suburban communities and I'm sure Cleveland has its fair share of sprawl, but over an ocean away lies South Africa with plenty of suburban communities.
> 
> Has anyone ever insinuated that? I have missed it if that was the case.


Oh please this thread is all about keeping up with the Joneses in the suburb over

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Oh please this thread is all about keeping up with the Joneses in the suburb over


Not saying I agree with it man, just stating my opinion to your response.

----------


## Goon

> Oh please this thread is all about keeping up with the Joneses in the suburb over


No, but thanks for dropping by to add your patented condesension and limited intellect to an otherwise decent discussion about the development of Moore.

Feel free to go back to your 300 story urban utopia in ...ahem...cleveland and leave us backwoods suburban folk to our rickshaws and stick house single story shanties. Somehow I think we'll manage without you and your "advice"

----------


## Spartan

But this is a forum lolz. If you so badly dislike what others say, it might not be for you. Sorry to spoil your morning lurk.

----------


## Garin

Saying we're trying to keep up with the Joneses is like us saying you're trying to keep up with the jefferson's.

----------


## Spartan

> Saying we're trying to keep up with the Joneses is like us saying you're trying to keep up with the jefferson's.


What exactly do you mean by that?

----------


## Urbanized

Yeah, that was a curious comment..?

----------


## Jersey Boss

> Saying we're trying to keep up with the Joneses is like us saying you're trying to keep up with the jefferson's.


Yeah, I gotta ask as well, what are you saying with that comment?

----------


## ljbab728

It must mean something about "the deluxe apartment in the sky" and "having a piece of the pie".  LOL

----------


## Garin

Ya what he said ^^^^^

----------


## Goon

> But this is a forum lolz. If you so badly dislike what others say, it might not be for you. Sorry to spoil your morning lurk.


And now you've proven my premise. Outstanding.

----------

