# OKCpedia > General Real Estate Topics >  Re-urbanizing Downtown

## Just the facts

Since the same theme seems to run across several downtown projects I thought it would be more efficient to keep the discussion in its own thread.  Over the last several years it seemed that OKC was making great strides in creating mixed-use neighborhoods.  Neighborhoods like Deep Deuce and Midtown have started to fill-in and districts like Bricktown have started to add significant residential components as it transitions to an actual neighborhood.  However, downtown seems to be regressing into a true business district where everything is geared to office workers from 9-5 M-F.  Considering the massive public investment in downtown it seems to be a large waste of money.

Even with a residential component and elementary school (that now appears to be woefully misplaced just 1 year after opening) there is not any reason for residents to frequent MBG.  The core of downtown is becoming an off-hours no-mans land in the heart of everything and it is really disappointing.  While the City attempts to re-vitalize Park with retail, downtowns major employers are ensuring that their employees never set foot on a downtown sidewalk.  They arrive on an elevated roadway, park in an on-site garage, and get to their office using a skywalk.  This robs downtown retailers of their primary customer base - hence why downtown already has 30,000 employees and virtually zero retail.

The people who do end up moving into the Clayco residential towers will mostly go to Film Row for entertainment, dining, and eventually retail because there is simply no space for that being created around MBG.  In another thread I asked people to envision if they want MBG to become more like Rittenhouse Sq or Love Park.  I think without a doubt people would prefer Rittenhouse Sq, but OKC is ensuring we end up with Love Park.  Trust me, a 'Love Park' in the heart of downtown is NOT going to attract new companies and people to the area.

----------


## Teo9969

If the base of the Clayco development is accessible and inviting to an average pedestrian, then all will be okay.

Basically here's how I see it, the box from Sheridan North to 5th, and from Walker East to EK Gaylord is simply lost for at least the next 20 years…we may as well forget about that area being a 24 hour hub.

If however, the Clayco proposal includes park-front restaurant/retail, and maintains pedestrian interest along Reno and Sheridan, and if we don't totally *@#%-up the cox site and put an arena there, we have a chance to have the Sheridan+Reno spine from the Bricktown past the Intermodal Hub all the way to Classen via Film Row. If we get all of that correct, who really cares about the CBD? Let it remain a 9-5, M-F abyss.

If we want good urbanism to win out, we need to not try and win every battle at the loss of the war. We need to find a way right now to make sure the Cox site is perfect. We need to put pressure on city leaders to grant the TIF proposal only at the behest of Park front Retail/Restaurant at the Clayco site, and push for plans on the Convention center to also include park-front points of interest.

----------


## Rover

I think that we are losing sight of the smallness of downtown.  We act like these are greatly detached areas.  Midtown to downtown is VERY easily walkable in distance and time.  Midtown to BT/DD.  DD to Film Row.   Bricktown to the Arts District.  In aggregate, it is becoming very mixed use and much more urban.  However, if you want to draw definitive lines around a couple of blocks, it is easy to re-categorize.   EVERY block doesn't have to be mixed use for the area to be mixed use.  The heart of downtown has a number of residential developments already, with the hope of First National Building to become another.  And many more are planned for the Arts District. Clayco offers the opportunity for many more residences.  Just because they might go a block or two west instead of east isn't a failure.   There is already retail...maybe not completely lining the streets, but it exists with hopes and studies going on as to how to attract more as there are more living in the area.  There is hope for bringing visitors to the convention center who must eat and may shop in the areas around MG.  

I think we sometimes focus SO much on the immediate 100 feet that we are not seeing the progress if you look at the 200 square blocks of the entire area. With each addition of density we make the land more valuable.  When the land becomes more valuable, and people exist with the economic wherewithal, then it can mature into a much more urban-like area throughout.

----------


## bchris02

^^^ Right now it still feels like these areas are detached because there are still dilapidated, sketchy areas dividing them where I wouldn't walk by myself at night (SoSA comes to mind).  It won't take much revitalization to bridge the gap and create one contiguous urban core.

As for JTF's question, Oklahoma City is not Portland or Vancouver and never will be.  Corporate interests will likely always come first here.  That isn't a bad thing and OKC isn't the only city where that is the case.  Certain areas will eventually have that walkable, urban feel many desire but the CBD will probably always feel like a corporate campus and the OU Health Sciences center will probably always feel somewhat suburban.  With the political climate in OKC there is little chance of passing the kind of ordinances that would be necessary for JTF's vision to become reality.  Even if it could be done, it would be a ultimately be a development killer in this town.

----------


## Just the facts

I had high hopes for the Cox site but I am already going to chalk that up to a loss.  Just look at the surrounding development already - 4 office building, a convention center, and convention hotel.  There will be zero night and weekend activity surrounding MBG - zero.  One of the most important concepts for public space is time-diversity.  The more hours in a day that people are present the more efficient the area becomes, and efficiency is what drive sustainability.  In fact, the whole idea of urban density is to deliver the people and businesses to create time-diversity.  OKC central business district, which really is just going to a district, won't have any time-diversity, and with it, the number of hours public infrastructure is used will go down.  Couple that with re-directed property taxes and what will surely be an increase in police presence in MBG and that is a recipe for disaster - downtown Philadelphia style.

----------


## Rover

The more high paying, high value jobs that come downtown the more people will want to live and work downtown.  Corporate and community should go together.  The more that want to live downtown the more realistic it is for developers to build the kinds of structures and amenities that make the area more urban.  They are all mutually advantageous.  Corporations want the areas around their work places to be desirable.

----------


## boitoirich

I wonder why downtown has been slow to see any mixed-use developments _beyond_ the retail podium + office or residential combination. The residential population of downtown is minuscule, so it would be nice to see some mixed office/residential developments. 

Another deficiency is the prevalence of superblocks. Devon's campus, Century Center, the MBG, Cox Convention Center, Chesapeake Energy Arena, and the Maps 3 convention center block clustered together are impediments to a rich, human scale environment. It will be nice to see the Cox block broken up and redeveloped.

There is no attention to how downtown flows into its surrounding neighborhoods. The transitions only make sense from the inside of an automobile, but as a pedestrian the movement from Automobile Alley, Midtown, Deep Deuce, and Bricktown is jarring. Smarter infill and an improved pedestrian environment would go a long way to improving this. 

That's all I've got so far.

----------


## Rover

> There is no attention to how downtown flows into its surrounding neighborhoods. The transitions only make sense from the inside of an automobile, but as a pedestrian the movement from Automobile Alley, Midtown, Deep Deuce, and Bricktown is jarring. Smarter infill and an improved pedestrian environment would go a long way to improving this. 
> 
> That's all I've got so far.


I can easily walk/bike between the areas.  If someone doesn't walk from DD or BT to Film Row or Midtown, it is because they don't really want to walk or bike.  A car is NOT needed.

----------


## bchris02

> I can easily walk/bike between the areas.  If someone doesn't walk from DD or BT to Film Row or Midtown, it is because they don't really want to walk or bike.  A car is NOT needed.


True, but you have to admit, some of the areas aren't lighted very well, have sidewalks in pretty bad shape, and feel uninviting especially to someone unfamiliar with the area.  I don't think this will be a problem in 5-10 years as long as the bottom doesn't completely fall out of the local economy.

----------


## AP

> True, but you have to admit, some of the areas aren't lighted very well, have sidewalks in pretty bad shape, and feel uninviting especially to someone unfamiliar with the area.  I don't think this will be a problem in 5-10 years as long as the bottom doesn't completely fall out of the local economy.


Rover doesn't have to admit anything. If he can do it, by God, everyone else can. We're all just a bunch of wusses who don't want to walk.

----------


## boitoirich

I park once and walk everywhere. That would include going from the Boathouse District for play to Midtown for a sip. Walking _can be done_, but it is not always pleasant or enriching to do so. This is especially true of the areas immediately adjacent to the CBD. Who enjoys crossing EKG to get to a Thunder game? How fun is it to walk from Level to Red Prime? Want to shop in AA then go to the Skirvin for brunch? That walk should knock your socks off. It doesn't come close. We're big league now -- and growing up fast -- so we can begin to think of ways to improve the presentation of our city.

----------


## Urbanized

> I can easily walk/bike between the areas.  If someone doesn't walk from DD or BT to Film Row or Midtown, it is because they don't really want to walk or bike.  A car is NOT needed.


This is one of the reasons I think the word "walkable" is misleading. You CAN walk here, but why would you want to? "Walkability" is not the same thing as ACCESSIBILITY. For a place to be truly walkable you have to WANT to walk there. The environment should ENCOURAGE walking, not merely enable it. It should be interesting, engaging. It should lead you from place to place. The problem is that when we plop down a bland/blank block or two - of parking, windowless walls, berms or whatever - in between truly vibrant and engaging areas we limit the possibilities of those disparate areas/districts working together to create a sum greater than the parts. We create barriers that might not be physical but are real nonetheless.

----------


## Rover

> Rover doesn't have to admit anything. If he can do it, by God, everyone else can. We're all just a bunch of wusses who don't want to walk.


I have spent many, many years in many of the most urban cities in the world.  They don't all have pristine sidewalks and postcard image streets.  Yet people walk.  I hear a lot of excuses on this site.  So yes, if at my age I can and do navigate in lots of urban areas and go much farther in them, then I think that the young urbanites inhabiting our downtown can easily navigate without cars.  When I was in NYC for the fall, I averaged about 8 miles a day.  Think about how far and how many times you could traverse downtown areas every day if you are willing to walk 8 miles a day.  DD to Automobile Alley is a snap.  DD to Dust Bowl is a snap. There is no reason not to aggregate these areas when talking about mixed use.

----------


## Urbanized

In "Walkable City," Jeff Speck defines his "General Theory of Walkability" thusly:




> The General Theory of Walkability explains how, to be favored, a walk has to satisfy four main conditions: it must be *useful*, *safe*, *comfortable*, and *interesting*. Each of these qualities is essential and none alone is sufficient. _Useful_ means that most aspects of daily life are located close at hand and organized in a way that walking serves them well. _Safe_ means that the street has been designed to give pedestrians a fighting chance against being hit by automobiles; they must not only be safe but feel safe, which is even tougher to satisfy. _Comfortable_ means that buildings and landscape shape urban streets into ‘outdoor living rooms,’ in contrast to wide-open spaces, which usually fail to attract pedestrians. _Interesting_ means that sidewalks are lined by unique buildings with friendly faces and that signs of humanity abound.

----------


## Teo9969

> I had high hopes for the Cox site *but I am already going to chalk that up to a loss.*  Just look at the surrounding development already - 4 office building, a convention center, and convention hotel.  There will be zero night and weekend activity surrounding MBG - zero.  One of the most important concepts for public space is time-diversity.  The more hours in a day that people are present the more efficient the area becomes, and efficiency is what drive sustainability.  In fact, the whole idea of urban density is to deliver the people and businesses to create time-diversity.  OKC central business district, which really is just going to a district, won't have any time-diversity, and with it, the number of hours public infrastructure is used will go down.  Couple that with re-directed property taxes and what will surely be an increase in police presence in MBG and that is a recipe for disaster - downtown Philadelphia style.


We have, I would assume, at least 5 years before this really becomes a project in question…and you're already giving up?

Here's what we need: We need something like what Andrew (CuatrodeMayo) drew up for the Boulevard Roundabout that never had a chance, and we need to get it out there NOW for the Cox Site, so that people can be informed…so that people can see what a great opportunity is in front of us, and what kind of gem the city can have.

*WE* own that property right now…We didn't own Stage Center, nor Preftakes, nor do we own a lot of places downtown. We need to quit being reactionary to the problems on sites that we really never had/have power over rather than getting out in front of the one's we can change.

I am not qualified by any means to put together a solid plan for the Cox site. I'd absolutely be willing to be involved in discussion, and help generate ideas and plans to present to the community of how to best use the Cox site. I'd be willing to donate money to someone like Andrew who can help put those plans into a comprehensive packet to present to city council, OCURA, NewsOK, OKC Talk, The Chamber of Commerce, etc. 

In reality, there are already groups working toward that. What we need to be discussing in this thread is not how to fix the issues, but how to support the most trustworthy organizations to get out in front of the most important places downtown. It gets no more important than the Cox site… If you want OKC to turn the corner, that's the site to do it with...

----------


## boitoirich

> I have spent many, many years in many of the most urban cities in the world.  They don't all have pristine sidewalks and postcard image streets.  Yet people walk.  I hear a lot of excuses on this site.  So yes, if at my age I can and do navigate in lots of urban areas and go much farther in them, then I think that the young urbanites inhabiting our downtown can easily navigate without cars.  When I was in NYC for the fall, I averaged about 8 miles a day.  Think about how far and how many times you could traverse downtown areas every day if you are willing to walk 8 miles a day.  DD to Automobile Alley is a snap.  DD to Dust Bowl is a snap. There is no reason not to aggregate these areas when talking about mixed use.


So since we're about to be drawn into an unproductive "can vs. want to" aside, I'm from now on ignoring this tangent and hoping the rest of us get back to discussing the topic at hand. How can we re-urbanize downtown for the wusses?

----------


## Teo9969

And for goodness sake, we need to start an earnest discussion on getting laws changed that protect and better serve the city. 

We've only ever complained about tying demolition to building permits but not a single person on this site has brought forth a comprehensive plan or started an earnest discussion toward building such a plan to actually see the law changed.

----------


## Rover

The relevancy is whether you look at about 4-6 square blocks downtown as a singular subject and consider that it must become a mixed use development to be part of the urban experience.  I would argue that we are becoming much more mixed and urbanized if you consider a broader area and not be so focused. To accept that premise of a larger area then one has to accept that the "neighborhood" is bigger than a couple of blocks from your residence and you must be able to transport yourself to other streets to take advantage of normal activities.  That is why what WE consider urban is skewed by our lack of desire to mobilize ourselves on foot the same as real urban area residents do.

----------


## Urbanized

> And for goodness sake, we need to start an earnest discussion on getting laws changed that protect and better serve the city. 
> 
> We've only ever complained about tying demolition to building permits but not a single person on this site has brought forth a comprehensive plan or started an earnest discussion toward building such a plan to actually see the law changed.


I mentioned several weeks ago on this forum that I had been involved in a discussion with actual developers - people who have downtown/urban projects currently underway in OKC - on this topic, and they all seemed to agree that perhaps the most powerful way to accomplish this would be to require some type of performance bond be tied to the plans submitted when applying for demolition. I mentioned the idea, and it wasn't even acknowledged in the thread when I did it. So, I think you're right. In general, this forum tends to be more about the wailing and the gnashing of teeth than it is about action.

----------


## Urbanized

> ...That is why what WE consider urban is skewed by our lack of desire to mobilize ourselves on foot the same as real urban area residents do.


I disagree with this, Rover. We all like to believe that we are first and foremost _thinking_ creatures, but much of what we do on a daily basis is instinctive. For instance, we feel exposed and vulnerable when walking past windswept surface parking, and we feel safer walking on wide sidewalks, under a tree canopy, near other people. We like to people watch. We like to look into windows and see activity. THESE are the drivers of pedestrian activity; not JUST the desire to get from one place to the next place. We respond to our built environment, which gives us visual cues about how to act. We might not be conscious of this, but it is an actual, real thing.

So, you can make the case that we are simply a lazier culture here than in other cities - that we lack a true desire to put our money where our mouths are and walk like they do in other cities - but the reality is that we are products of our built environment. If we change the way our environment tells us to behave, we will behave differently. It really IS that simple.

----------


## Teo9969

> I mentioned several weeks ago on this forum that I had been involved in a discussion with actual developers - people who have downtown/urban projects currently underway in OKC - on this topic, and they all seemed to agree that perhaps the most powerful way to accomplish this would be to require some type of performance bond be tied to the plans submitted when applying for demolition. I mentioned the idea, and it wasn't even acknowledged in the thread when I did it. So, I think you're right. In general, this forum tends to be more about the wailing and the gnashing of teeth than it is about action.


So let's find a way to get away from just being about wailing and gnashing of teeth.

How can we help move that theme forward, both here on the forum, and more importantly, in the real world?

----------


## Urbanized

> So let's find a way to get away from just being about wailing and gnashing of teeth.
> 
> How can we help move that theme forward, both here on the forum, and more importantly, in the real world?


Seems like the most appropriate place to start would be with City Councilors, who are dependent upon votes from their constituents.

----------


## Just the facts

If only Rover used the same logic on skybridges and the underground.

MBG was to be the center piece of downtown OKC.  It was the place where people were going to gather and enjoy all the benefits of civic life.  It was going to have restaurants open after 2PM, and it was where children were going to play.  If that was the goal then at some point OKC leaders have to realize that doesn't just happen by accident.  You can't surround it with parking garages, convention centers, and office towers, and then expect people to come to it.  No where in the world is that happening.  Rover's idea that you can lump all of downtown OKC and adjacent neighborhoods into the same bucket and call it mixed-use just doesn't work.  If that logic is used lets just lump all of metro-OKC together and call it all mixed-use.  The urban core of OKC is made up of multiple districts, neighborhoods, and corridors and each one needs to be as diverse as possible.

The pedestrian-shed is typically 1/4 mile in radius.  If there are not people living in this radius people will not walk to the center on a regular basis and if the core of downtown can't compete with the adjacent neighborhood cores then we can write downtown off as being a 24/7 hub no matter how cool the Oklahomans video board is.  The Clayco residential buildings will fall within the Film Row pedestrian shed which already offers more the downtown OKC does from a pedestrian perspective.

----------


## Teo9969

> Seems like the most appropriate place to start would be with City Councilors, who are dependent upon votes from their constituents.


But what does that conversation look like? What's the verbiage we should use? What major points do we need to make? What powers do they have that we can encourage them to exert in order to start the ball rolling?

What other organizations have like-minded goals that we could write to, work with, get educated by that would help us get to where we want to go?

----------


## PhiAlpha

> If only Rover used the same logic on skybridges and the underground.
> 
> MBG was to be the center piece of downtown OKC.  It was the place where people were going to gather and enjoy all the benefits of civic life.  It was going to have restaurants open after 2PM, and it was where children were going to play.  If that was the goal then at some point OKC leaders have to realize that doesn't just happen by accident.  You can't surround it with parking garages, convention centers, and office towers, and then expect people to come to it.


Have you been to the Myriad Gardens since it was redone? It is heavily used daily, has two restaurants within it's boundaries that are open until 7 PM and 10 PM (that are often crowded); has Flint on it's NE corner that has a patio and is open until 12AM some nights along with the Colcord Hotel which houses people 24/7, has Devon across the street and it's employees that frequent the park during lunch hours and after work, has two play areas that are frequented by children both from the elementary school (that is all of a block away) and elsewhere; hosts concerts and events that are extremely well attended during the warmer months; right now is filled with popup shops, an ice skating rink, and a carousel that are frequently used; and is across the street from the ford center that draws people there 41+ days per year for thunder games and many more nights for other events. 

Also, it is hardly going to be "surrounded" by parking garages. Who cares if a parking garage fronts Sheridan if the street level includes retail and restaurants? The corner of Sheridan and Walker will be an office building that apparently is supposed to have retail on the first level...facing the park. Similarly, who cares if office towers front the west side of the park if there is retail on the first level, as proposed, and two large residential towers directly behind them? The convention center will front part of the south side, but so will a large hotel that could potentially have retail on the first level. The Cox site presents an opportunity to tie MGB into everything else, and contrary to your opinion, it is ridiculous to believe it is already a lost cause.

I generally appreciate and agree with a lot of your comments on urbanism (though I think some are far too extreme), but your assertion that MBG is not being used as intended or living up to it's potential is way off. I don't know if it's the fact that you don't live here or aren't paying attention but you seem really disconnect from what is actually happening at MBG. There ARE many people using MBG at all hours of the day NOW and that is with much less retail and residential then what will "surround" the park in the next few years.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Rover doesn't have to admit anything. If he can do it, by God, everyone else can. We're all just a bunch of wusses who don't want to walk.


Not trying to be argumentative here, but do you really feel uncomfortable walking from DD or Midtown to Downtown or vice versa?  I walk it. I've been with friends walking it. I know a few people who walk it. No complaints from anyone.

----------


## bchris02

The fact that JTF doesn't live in OKC really does show when he tries to say that MBG doesn't have anything going on.  There is always a lot going on every time I am down there, and that is without the Clayco development, the convention center, and the Cox block in place.

----------


## Just the facts

Yes I have been MBG since it re-opened.  Who cares if parking garages front the park so long as retail lines the sidewalk?  As Jane Jacobs wrote in Death and Life of the Great American City, public spaces need residential fronting them to create a level of safety.  If people don't feel safe they won't go there.  By placing residential along the park, and putting parking in the center of the block, it produces what she dubbed 'eyes on the street'.  Crime studies have shown that people don't even need to be present to discourage criminal activity.  Just the possibility that someone could look out their window is enough to discourage criminal activity.  That will never happen with a parking garage, an office the closes down at 5PM or even a restaurant that close at 10PM.  Criminals don't operate at night because they just aren't morning people.  They operate at night because there are fewer people watching.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> If only Rover used the same logic on skybridges and the underground.
> 
> MBG was to be the center piece of downtown OKC.  It was the place where people were going to gather and enjoy all the benefits of civic life.  It was going to have restaurants open after 2PM, and it was where children were going to play.  If that was the goal then at some point OKC leaders have to realize that doesn't just happen by accident.  You can't surround it with parking garages, convention centers, and office towers, and then expect people to come to it.  No where in the world is that happening.  Rover's idea that you can lump all of downtown OKC and adjacent neighborhoods into the same bucket and call it mixed-use just doesn't work.  If that logic is used lets just lump all of metro-OKC together and call it all mixed-use.  The urban core of OKC is made up of multiple districts, neighborhoods, and corridors and each one needs to be as diverse as possible.
> 
> The pedestrian-shed is typically 1/4 mile in radius.  If there are not people living in this radius people will not walk to the center on a regular basis and if the core of downtown can't compete with the adjacent neighborhood cores then we can write downtown off as being a 24/7 hub no matter how cool the Oklahomans video board is.  The Clayco residential buildings will fall within the Film Row pedestrian shed which already offers more the downtown OKC does from a pedestrian perspective.


it is the center piece of downtown right now .. with a blank wall to the east empty lots to the south and empty buildings and lots to the west .....    amazing    it is full about every night .. and with the new construction it will be even more activated ..  how is that possible? 

because most of what you post are total generalities that don't apply 100% to okc .. and the environment and realities that exist here.

----------


## heyerdahl

Here's an interactive slider showing the 'deurbanizing' of downtown from 1954. Amazing what was lost:

60 Years of Urban Change: Oklahoma and Texas | The Institute for Quality Communities

----------


## bchris02

> Yes I have been MBG since it re-opened.  Who cares if parking garages front the park so long as retail lines the sidewalk?  As Jane Jacobs wrote in Death and Life of the Great American City, public spaces need residential fronting them to create a level of safety.  If people don't feel safe they won't go there.  By placing residential along the park, and putting parking in the center of the block, it produces what she dubbed 'eyes on the street'.  Crime studies have shown that people don't even need to be present to discourage criminal activity.  Just the possibility that someone could look out their window is enough to discourage criminal activity.  That will never happen with a parking garage, an office the closes down at 5PM or even a restaurant that close at 10PM.  Criminals don't operate at night because they just aren't morning people.  They operate at night because there are fewer people watching.


Why do you keep saying parking garages are going to front the park?  You know that isn't the case.  Parking garages a block away catty-cornered is NOT fronting the park.  You are simply jumping into hyperbole to advance an agenda.

----------


## PhiAlpha

> Yes I have been MBG since it re-opened.  Who cares if parking garages front the park so long as retail lines the sidewalk?  As Jane Jacobs wrote in Death and Life of the Great American City, public spaces need residential fronting them to create a level of safety.  If people don't feel safe they won't go there.  By placing residential along the park, and putting parking in the center of the block, it produces what she dubbed 'eyes on the street'.  Crime studies have shown that people don't even need to be present to discourage criminal activity.  Just the possibility that someone could look out their window is enough to discourage criminal activity.  That will never happen with a parking garage, an office the closes down at 5PM or even a restaurant that close at 10PM.  Criminals don't operate at night because they just aren't morning people.  They operate at night because there are fewer people watching.


Where will parking garages "front" the park?

Also, I have trouble believing residential not immediately fronting the park will create a situation where people don't feel safe and therefore, don't go there. How do you explain people frequenting it at all hours of the night right now with nothing but an empty lots on the south and west sides (or up until a few months ago, empty lots and an empty stage center surrounded by homeless people). Would it be better if the residential buildings fronted the park? Sure, but placing them an extra 200 feet west hardly dooms it to becoming the massive failure you keep describing.

----------


## Anonymous.

> Not trying to be argumentative here, but do you really feel uncomfortable walking from DD or Midtown to Downtown or vice versa?  I walk it. I've been with friends walking it. I know a few people who walk it. No complaints from anyone.



I think he is more referring to the fact that generally people in the OKC metro do not want to walk. I know multiple people who live in DD and _drive_ to work in the CBD. It is actually ridiculous. 

OKC has to lose the mindset of 'everything vehicles' before we get true urbanism. It is just how it is. Babysteps.

----------


## PhiAlpha

> Why do you keep saying parking garages are going to front the park?  You know that isn't the case.  Parking garages a block away catty-cornered is NOT fronting the park.  You are simply jumping into hyperbole to advance an agenda.


Not even catty-cornered. There will be an office building with street-level retail on the corner of Hudson and Sheridan.

----------


## bchris02

> Not even catty-cornered. There will be an office building with street-level retail on the corner of Hudson and Sheridan.


Correct.  It's a block away catty-cornered.  It should barely be visible if at all from the park.

----------


## Just the facts

If you look at the site plan for Clayco the frontage along MBG (starting at Sheridan) goes parking garage, office building, parking garage, skybridge, parking garage, office building, parking garage.  There is as much parking garage over-looking the park as there is office building.

----------


## AP

> I know multiple people who live in DD and _drive_ to work in the CBD. It is actually ridiculous.


So do I and I will never understand.

----------


## Anonymous.

JTF, you mentioned something in this thread that I had not actually considered with tons of thought... If I had to choose the current most walkable/bikeable place in OKC in terms of actual infrastructure (crosswalks, sidewalk quality, trashcans, bikeracks, etc.) The answer is by far and gone, Film Row. The Clayco block will help liven this area up and hopefully spill business into the district.

----------


## Just the facts

> Originally Posted by Anonymous.
> 
> 
> I think he is more referring to the fact that generally people in the OKC metro do not want to walk. I know multiple people who live in DD and _drive_ to work in the CBD. It is actually ridiculous. 
> 
> OKC has to lose the mindset of 'everything vehicles' before we get true urbanism. It is just how it is. Babysteps.
> 
> 
> So do I and I will never understand.


I'm trying to tell you why.  It's not a mystery.  You have to build a place people want to walk in and there are very basic and well known ways to do it - and OKC ISN'T doing it.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

> Here's an interactive slider showing the 'deurbanizing' of downtown from 1954. Amazing what was lost:
> 
> 60 Years of Urban Change: Oklahoma and Texas | The Institute for Quality Communities


This makes my stomach churn...

----------


## bchris02

> I'm trying to tell you why.  It's not a mystery.  You have to build a place people want to walk in and there are very basic and well known ways to do it - and OKC ISN'T doing it.


Your problem, Kerry, is you see everything in terms of ideals and theory when there are other factors at play in reality.  It's not much different from the way ODOT engineers only consider number of cars moving in and out of downtown or retailers look at OKC's spread out wealth and opt for Tulsa instead, considering no other factors.  It would be much more constructive if you would back off your hand-lined dogma and try to understand OKC, the culture here, and consider how best to fit urbanism into that culture in a way that will be accepted and embraced by the people in this city.

----------


## hfry

Your constant fabrication of "facts" is growing quite annoying. 
Yes, there is a slim piece of the parking garage that sits back from the back but it is hardly fronting it. Clayco has 2 office buildings fronting the park plain and simple, if you want to argue for a parking garage fronting it you can't omit that the residential towers will be able to see the park on their most north and south corners which would then agree with your cliched, over exhausted rhetoric you keep spewing on every thread possible. 
And just as Bchris stated and you promptly blew you, the park is well used, it always has something going on right now with people from every shape of life enjoying it. Would residential immediately fronting it help? Of course it would and no one would argue with you but you can't keep twisting facts however it suits you and I think that despite the fact that it has the tallest tower in Oklahoma fronting it, the blank walls of the cox center, and hole in the ground of what was stage center and massive parking lots where I40 used to be, its doing quite well to be constantly full and constantly used.

----------


## Just the facts

I guess then if you guy are happy with the direction the core of downtown is taking there isn't much left to talk about.  Enjoy your new city.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Here's an interactive slider showing the 'deurbanizing' of downtown from 1954. Amazing what was lost:
> 
> 60 Years of Urban Change: Oklahoma and Texas | The Institute for Quality Communities


I actually prefer the newer downtowns.

----------


## PhiAlpha

> I guess then if you guy are happy with the direction the core of downtown is taking there isn't much left to talk about.  Enjoy your new city.


How can we not be generally "happy" with the direction of it? Overall, things are going great! Could they be better, sure, but there is no urban disaster occurring here. It is not going to be the perfect paradise of urbanism, but things are moving in the right direction. The two most recently announced developments got much of the equation correct with retail spaces pushed up to and fronting the streets, that's more than can be said of the Devon Tower. It would be better if they would keep more of the historic urban fabric in place, but unless a miracle occurs, that doesn't seem to be in the cards. The Clayco proposal includes a lot of residential and with the Dowell Center and First National sitting empty right now, more could be on the way right in the middle of the core. 

Our main argument was that despite what you seem to think, MBG is currently vibrant at all hours of the day even with all the factors working against it. It will be better, not worse off when these new developments are complete, even with residential sitting 200 feet back instead fronting it.

----------


## hoya

The truth is that while the ClayCo developments and the new Preftakes building are not perfect, they will add substantially to the appeal of Oklahoma City.  They're both fairly wasteful when it comes to how they use their space (all 4 ClayCo buildings could go on the Stage Center block with no problems).  But they also represent a new stage of investment in OKC by out of state companies.  It's another step towards where we want to be.  I'm not entirely pleased with how everything went, but it's much better than it not happening at all.

----------


## PhiAlpha

> This makes my stomach churn...


The destruction of Main, Sheridan, California, and Reno and the CCC's domination of the south side of DT really stand out...

----------


## BoulderSooner

> I guess then if you guy are happy with the direction the core of downtown is taking there isn't much left to talk about.  Enjoy your new city.


Thanks we will

----------


## no1cub17

Wow - both sides need a chill pill methinks. JTF is spot on with quite a lot. OKC has a looooooooong way to go, and sadly probably will never be as urban and walkable as Center City Philadelphia. If we could shrink EKG, Broadway, Sheridan, etc to 1/3 their current size, that would help a great deal, but then people would whine about where to park! A prime example of how far we have to go - read the most recent interview published in the Daily Disappointment re: Fassler Hall - one of the first questions asked is "what about the parking". As long as we let parking haunt us, it's going to haunt us. A fundamental change in our mindset is needed and we're a long ways off from that. There is no parking shortage in downtown, only a shortage of usable transit options. But what so many here don't seem to get is that fundamentally, downtowns and walkable districts (not even going to say urban here because something can be "walkable" without being "urban" - go to any small town in Japan for example) are built around the person, not the car - so that means no 6 lane roads dividing buildings (hello HSC) which sit empty for 95% of the day.

Which reminds me - why, when you're walking up Broadway in AA, don't the walk signs automatically turn to walk when the traffic lights turn green? That is so stupid it boggles my mind. Not only that but when you get to a "stop" signal and push the button to cross - even if the traffic light is green, it won't change to walk. So frustrating!

----------


## boitoirich

I understand what everyone's saying here. I just want to come to JTF's defense a little bit. We absolutely need people just like him to keep a watchful eye and to advocate for the best city we can have. What he is saying has been said by many others in the OGE thread and Preftakes Block thread, especially about the prominence of the parking garages. Why wouldn't these garages go underground? That would actually be a better use of TIF money. We'd get more ready-to-develop land next to the park, and a more attractive public environment. 

Besides, this thread is about urbanizing downtown. Could we get back to ways of doing that?

----------


## Pete

> It's another one of those things OKC does and I don't see it elsewhere. Which always makes me wonder, why would someone do that on purpose?


It's pretty much the same in most places in Southern California.

One of the reasons is because if someone doesn't push the button, the light is shorter.  In other words, pushing the walk button and getting the little white man means extending the time the corresponding traffic signal stays green to allow pedestrians plenty of time to make the crossing.

And, if the traffic signal is already green when you push the button, they make you wait for the next green cycle so you get that extra time.

I think this is all pretty common when you are dealing with wide streets to cross.   I've seen it a bunch of places, but not so much in dense, urban cities.

----------


## Jersey Boss

I remember seeing an article similar to this one a year or two ago.

Many Crosswalk Signal Buttons Don't Do Anything Anymore


Today I found out many crosswalk signal buttons actually don’t do anything when you press them.  They are only there to give you something to press, called “placebo buttons”.
In New York City, for instance, an estimated 90% of these pedestrian crossing buttons do nothing.  You’ll find the same trend in most major cities, particularly in the United States.  The reason why is that allowing people to manually override set traffic timers can severely disrupt traffic.  Instead, modern computerized systems are used to help maximize throughput in intersections, including factoring in pedestrian crossings automatically.

As the director of engineering at the Boston Transportation Department, John DeBenedictis states, “It’s a numbers game. We know that there are going to be pedestrians at virtually every single cycle during the day (at certain intersections).” So the buttons are disabled to let the system dictate the most efficient way to time things in the intersection.

In some cases, certain buttons actually do something specific times of the day, while other times they are ignored by the traffic system, generally during peak traffic times.

----------


## Snowman

> even if the traffic light is green, it won't change to walk. So frustrating


From what I have heard, the push buttons do not actually effect when you get the walk signal, what  they do is make the next time the walk could start in the cycle it holds the traffic that will cross that walk longer, to give the pedestrian plenty of time to cross.




> Which always makes me wonder, why would someone do that on purpose?


It seems like one of those things imported from the suburbs, possibly out of uniformity in the type of signals they have to maintain. It is something that makes sense more for the intersection at say 63rd and Meridian, where you rarely have some one cross and when you do they have to traverse across at five lanes of traffic. Several of our downtown streets are nearly that wide but have people crossing much of the day.

----------


## Just the facts

> I'm not entirely pleased with how everything went, but it's much better than it not happening at all.


I guess this is the crux of the matter.  I'm not saying don't do anything' I'm saying do it better.  On a scale from crappy to awesome we still have far too many people whose level of acceptance is way down on the crappy side.  If crappy urbanism makes people happy then they shouldn't be surprised when they get crappy urbanism.  I'm not going to apologize because my standards are higher than Bouldersooner or Rovers (in fact, I take a little pride in that).

As for the preservation of the Hotel Black, bus station, and AutoHotel - I am not a historic preservationist, I am a good urbanism preservationist and both the Clayco and Preftakes projects are bad urbanism.  There are some very easy ways to make both of these projects good urbanism.

Clayco:  Place all 5 buildings on the Stage Center site.  The two residential towers and hotel should front Hudson, one office tower should front Sheridan and the second should front a reconnected California Ave (giving both of them prestigious addresses).  Most of the ground floors on Sheridan, California, and Hudson should be retail/restaurant.  The parking garage can either go underground or sandwiched in between the buildings like it is now but just build it higher.  If they don't want to drive around all day in the garage make two entrances, one that goes to the first 5 levels of parking and second ramp that connects directly to the 6th floor (airports all over the world already do this).

Preftakes:  Move the tower to the Carpenter Sq site and use the foot-print of the existing surface lots to build the parking garage.  As suggested already, make one entrance for the first 5 floors of parking and a ramp that goes directly to the 6th floor.  Redo the AutoHotel and use it for Executive and VIP parking.   Lose the skywalks (which should be outright banned).

It is a freaking crying shame that an internet loudmouth can come up with these easy solution but billion dollar companies with paid professionals can't.  The only conclusion is that they aren't even trying.

----------


## hfry

^^^ Now that is great practical solution. The more I look at these designs I feel like they are designing the towers for out in the suburbs where you don't want to be to close to your neighbors and land is plentiful which in downtown is unacceptable.  With Pete's early info that it was going to be located on the Carpenter Sq site, I think that would have been a happy medium for demolishing some historical buildings but why they decided they needed to develop the whole block just makes zero sense.

----------


## no1cub17

Does anyone know - is there someone sitting on an OKC committee somewhere who can bring up JTF's concerns? Just like DD residents were successful in blocking the horrific SpringHill Suites, why can't us denizens do something to keep our downtown urban and not Edmond a la lower bricktown?

----------


## Teo9969

> Does anyone know - is there someone sitting on an OKC committee somewhere who can bring up JTF's concerns? Just like DD residents were successful in blocking the horrific SpringHill Suites, why can't us denizens do something to keep our downtown urban and not Edmond a la lower bricktown?


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

----------


## Just the facts

If it is dollars my solution is cheaper.  It doesn't require demolitions of substantial buildings and makes more efficient use of the land.  If Hotel Black was tuned in to upscale residential those corner units over-looking MBG would go for a serious premium.

----------


## bchris02

> Does anyone know - is there someone sitting on an OKC committee somewhere who can bring up JTF's concerns? Just like DD residents were successful in blocking the horrific SpringHill Suites, why can't us denizens do something to keep our downtown urban and not Edmond a la lower bricktown?


I would hardly consider the Preftakes tower or the Clayco development anything like Lower Bricktown.

----------


## Just the facts

Does anyone know if there is a Black Plan (Figure-Ground Plan) available for the area around downtown OKC?  If one was available I think the poor land-use planning would become very apparent.

----------


## Jim Kyle

> OKC has to lose the mindset of 'everything vehicles' before we get true urbanism. It is just how it is. Babysteps.


Back in 1962, I moved back to OKC after slightly more than two years in Southern California, to take a job editing three trade journals here. One of the other editors at my new job was Tom Kneitel, a long-time resident of NYC who also had just moved to OKC (the publishing company had relocated to OKC at the urging of International Crystal, their major advertiser, which operated from 18-1/2 N Lee).

Our offices were in a basement in the unit block of NW 5 as I recall. Times-Journal was just across the street; they had not yet moved to their later location at NW 6 and Robinson. Tommy and I were both in our early 30s. I was quite happy with driving to work; Tommy, however, had never owned an automobile and had never learned to drive! Living his entire life up to that point in NYC, he hadn't had any need to do so. The subways took him wherever he wanted to go. So when he moved here, he found a small house to rent on Classen Blvd, between NW 48 and 49, just off the old Classen Circle. He picked that because it had a bus stop within half a block, allowing him to ride the bus to work and back. Nothing suitable for him and his wife could be had closer to the CBD, even then.

A childhood bout with polio in the days before Salk's discovery had left Tommy needing to use leg braces to walk. Despite that, he had no problem going anywhere he wanted to, on foot. Several years later, after the publishing company had dispensed with both of us, I visited him back in NYC, and even spent a night in his apartment. He showed me much of lower Manhattan and we sampled the night life of Greenwich Village. I tired out long before he did.

That was, as I said, more than 40 years ago. We're not even up to babysteps yet. Crawling, perhaps, but I wonder if we're even that far along -- and whether we ever will become as urban as the denizens of Manhattan. I suspect we'll be more like Los Angelenos, who live in the birthplace of true sprawl. Out there, I routinely drove 30 miles each way to go home for lunch, and a friend commuted more than 60 miles from the Simi Valley to JPL in Pasadena, every morning...

----------


## Just the facts

It is stories like that Jim that have me wondering if I am just wasting my time here.  Someday I would like to move back to OKC, my whole family lives there, but as I get older (now 45) I am pretty sure I don't want to wait another 20 years just to be able live a lifestyle I can already live in countless cities in the US and even around the world.  There are just too many other options available to spend a lot more of time swimming upstream.

----------


## Jim Kyle

> It is stories like that Jim that have me wondering if I am just wasting my time here.  Someday I would like to move back to OKC, my whole family lives there, but as I get older (now 45) I am pretty sure I don't want to wait another 20 years just to be able live a lifestyle I can already live in countless cities in the US and even around the world.  There are just too many other options available to spend a lot more of time swimming upstream.


It's a matter of what is most important to you, Kerry. For some of us, being close to family and familiar memories outranks questions of city planning. For others, the deciding factor is the general culture of being friendly and outgoing as opposed to the too-frequent image of urban areas as cold and uncaring. Each of us has his (or her) own template for choosing the best place to spend our days.

I've noticed, over the years, that the general culture with regard to what's now called "sprawl" seems to change by 180 degrees when one crosses the Mississippi River (or, in some respects, the Hudson). During my brief stay in the NY area, some of my co-workers crossed three states on their daily commute. Manhattan is an island with very limited surface area. And communication difficulties in the 18th and early 19th centuries forced development of what we now call "urban" living. They had little or no choice.

But we who traveled west found wide open spaces, and were able to expand. Our neighbors, now, were a mile or two away rather than just a few feet distant. The western culture is one of much wider views. "Big Sky" country, not tightly compressed urbanism, seems to be its hallmark.

As I said, each person must make their own decisions about such matters. I, for one, don't consider either viewpoint to be "better" than the other. Both have their advantages, and their disadvantages. I do believe that TPTB in OKC have consistently, over the years, failed to appreciate possible consequences of their decisions, and as a result have destroyed many things that we now regret losing -- and I have no doubt at all that they will continue to do so. While I mourn our losses, I plan to stay right here for the rest of my days, for one simple reason. It's my home.

You're not wasting your time, but your expectations are probably too high. Murphy teaches us that if anything can go wrong, it will. And in politics, any and every decision can easily go wrong... Q.E.D.

----------


## Just the facts

I guess for me it goes way beyond simple 'urban planning' issues.  Sprawl is only made possible by massive government debt and the free flow of oil at below market prices (which involves massive military debt to make possible).  For me good urbanism is as much about good fiscal and economic policy as much as it is about good land-use practice.  When the nations economy was built on 'savings' people couldn't build poor quality construction and spend large amounts of money overcoming distances.  Now things are only built to last as long the loan to build them lasts and everything is built on debt with the assumption that we will all have more money later.  That is not how I want to live.

There are places that exist already that can afford me the lifestyle I am looking for and I don't have to do anything to assist it along other than just show up and fill out a change of address card.  And it's not just me either.  There are millions and millions of much younger people than me looking for the same thing.  I was under the illusion that OKC wanted to attract these people but increasingly I am finding that it was either lips service or OKC Civic leaders really do not know how to do it.  I'll let them in on a little secret - surrounding downtown's premier park with office buildings is not how you do it.

OKC is also in an interesting position that it is full of right-wing tea party types (of which I count myself a member), but have no idea that their sprawling lifestyle is the reason we need the all-powerful federal government we have.  One can't complain about taxes and then continue to drive on roads that cost more than we raise in gasoline taxes.  One can't complain about the EPA and then drive cars that pollute and require oil drilling to even make run.  One can't complain about government debt and then buy houses using an FHA backed loan and the mortgage interest deduction.  Well, one can, but it makes them a first-class hypocrite.

----------


## bchris02

A person needs to live where they can flourish, be it relationally, geographically, culturally, or professionally.  When choosing where to live a person needs to decide what is important to them and what compromises they are willing to make.  If somebody is looking for a vibrant urban utopia, OKC probably isn't the city for them.   In JTF's case, if urban development is a make or break deal for him, unless he wants to come back to OKC and get his hands dirty in city politics to help make a difference, my advice would be that his life would be better spent living somewhere that offered the lifestyle he desires rather than waiting around here for things to change.  Life is too short to live somewhere that makes you miserable.

Of course, if he is willing to compromise on urban vibrancy and wants to move back simply to be closer to family or for a career opportunity, by all means he should consider moving back.  Once again, it's all about priorities and what compromises you are willing to make.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> I guess for me it goes way beyond simple 'urban planning' issues.  Sprawl is only made possible by massive government debt and the free flow of oil at below market prices (which involves massive military debt to make possible).  For me good urbanism is as much about good fiscal and economic policy as much as it is about good land-use practice.  When the nations economy was built on 'savings' people couldn't build poor quality construction and spend large amounts of money overcoming distances.  Now things are only built to last as long the loan to build them lasts and everything is built on debt with the assumption that we will all have more money later.  That is not how I want to live.
> 
> There are places that exist already that can afford me the lifestyle I am looking for and I don't have to do anything to assist it along other than just show up and fill out a change of address card.  And it's not just me either.  There are millions and millions of much younger people than me looking for the same thing.  I was under the illusion that OKC wanted to attract these people but increasingly I am finding that it was either lips service or OKC Civic leaders really do not know how to do it.  I'll let them in on a little secret - surrounding downtown's premier park with office buildings is not how you do it.
> 
> OKC is also in an interesting position that it is full of right-wing tea party types (of which I count myself a member), but have no idea that their sprawling lifestyle is the reason we need the all-powerful federal government we have.  One can't complain about taxes and then continue to drive on roads that cost more than we raise in gasoline taxes.  One can't complain about the EPA and then drive cars that pollute and require oil drilling to even make run.  One can't complain about government debt and then buy houses using an FHA backed loan and the mortgage interest deduction.  Well, one can, but it makes them a first-class hypocrite.


Lots of this is tinfoil hat stuff

----------


## Jim Kyle

> A person needs to live where they can flourish, be it relationally, geographically, culturally, or professionally.  When choosing where to live a person needs to decide what is important to them and what compromises they are willing to make.


I couldn't agree more!

My move to California in late 1959 was prompted entirely by economics. While at the time I was pretty much on the fast track for advancement at OPubCo (among other things I had been given total responsibility for putting out the earliest edition of the Sunday paper, working overnight on Friday night to do so) they were paying me only $95/week and even 55 years ago, that didn't go far toward maintaining five people and three cats. I had to be moonlighting, writing magazine articles about ham radio, to make up the difference.

When RCA Service Company offered me $125/week plus unlimited overtime at time and a half, to join their Atlas Service Project in the San Fernando Valley, it was a no-brainer.

But when I got there, I discovered that the cost of living was so much higher than in OKC that when the promised overtime dried up with loss of the ASP contract, I had to moonlight even more intensely to keep us fed! And when that moonlighting resulted in an offer to move me back to OKC, all expenses paid, with a one-year contract at a much better rate of pay, I jumped at it.

I've been here ever since. As I said, it's my home. I stuck out two years of freelancing after the editorial job went away (it turned out to be almost a Ponzi scheme), then spent 24 years and 7 months with G-E/Homeywell/ControlData/Banctec. I did have to spend several months in New York's Westchester County at the end of the freelancing, where I developed a permanent distaste for the crowded atmosphere, but I don't mind it for those who prefer it. I chose my current location because it was way out in the boondocks; I'm more than a mile from the nearest supermarket, and couldn't survive without a vehicle, but that's just my personal preference. I do wish we had better mass transit, although I'll probably never have occasion to use it myself...

----------


## boitoirich

JTF, if anyone ever says that you aim too high, simply say "Thank you" and keep going. 

.02

----------


## Just the facts

> If somebody is looking for a vibrant *urban utopia*, OKC probably isn't the city for them.


That is an interesting phrase that gets repeated a lot.  There is no such thing as utopia, at least not on Earth.  Utopia means a place with near-perfect qualities.  Even in an ideal urban setting there are still problems, but they aren't the same problems we are dealing with now.

----------


## Just the facts

> Originally Posted by Just the facts
> 
> 
> I guess for me it goes way beyond simple 'urban planning' issues.  Sprawl is only made possible by massive government debt and the free flow of oil at below market prices (which involves massive military debt to make possible).  For me good urbanism is as much about good fiscal and economic policy as much as it is about good land-use practice.  When the nations economy was built on 'savings' people couldn't build poor quality construction and spend large amounts of money overcoming distances.  Now things are only built to last as long the loan to build them lasts and everything is built on debt with the assumption that we will all have more money later.  That is not how I want to live.
> 
> There are places that exist already that can afford me the lifestyle I am looking for and I don't have to do anything to assist it along other than just show up and fill out a change of address card.  And it's not just me either.  There are millions and millions of much younger people than me looking for the same thing.  I was under the illusion that OKC wanted to attract these people but increasingly I am finding that it was either lips service or OKC Civic leaders really do not know how to do it.  I'll let them in on a little secret - surrounding downtown's premier park with office buildings is not how you do it.
> 
> OKC is also in an interesting position that it is full of right-wing tea party types (of which I count myself a member), but have no idea that their sprawling lifestyle is the reason we need the all-powerful federal government we have.  One can't complain about taxes and then continue to drive on roads that cost more than we raise in gasoline taxes.  One can't complain about the EPA and then drive cars that pollute and require oil drilling to even make run.  One can't complain about government debt and then buy houses using an FHA backed loan and the mortgage interest deduction.  Well, one can, but it makes them a first-class hypocrite.
> 
> ...


Which part?

----------


## hoya

It's quite simple.  OKC is the nerdy girl who used to be unpopular and now she's kinda hot.  She isn't used to any attention from guys, and so she has a hard time saying "no".  Our civic movers and shakers cannot say "no" to someone who wants to drop a few hundred million dollars in this city.



"You want to put your tower _where_?  Umm, okay."  It's okay to let Devon do that, because he loves us.


Hopefully, by the end of the film, we'll realize that we can still say no sometimes and we'll be treated with more respect.  But we're not quite there yet.  The ClayCo developments and how we treat their TIF request will give us an idea of how much our self-confidence has grown over the last few years.

----------


## Just the facts

Anyone else think it is kind of fitting that City building on Main St. will be completely surrounded by one residential building and 4 parking garages.  That pretty much sums it up right there.

----------


## bchris02

> It's quite simple.  OKC is the nerdy girl who used to be unpopular and now she's kinda hot.  She isn't used to any attention from guys, and so she has a hard time saying "no".  Our civic movers and shakers cannot say "no" to someone who wants to drop a few hundred million dollars in this city.
> 
> 
> 
> "You want to put your tower _where_?  Umm, okay."  It's okay to let Devon do that, because he loves us.
> 
> 
> Hopefully, by the end of the film, we'll realize that we can still say no sometimes and we'll be treated with more respect.  But we're not quite there yet.  The ClayCo developments and how we treat their TIF request will give us an idea of how much our self-confidence has grown over the last few years.


There is also a danger of civic boosters being _too_ confident, comparing OKC only to its past or Tulsa and not its peer cities.  I question whether or not this city _should_ say no yet, specifically when it comes to the question of the TIF funds for ClayCo.  The development has an intangible benefit of bringing hundreds of high-income people to live downtown.  Those people will spend money downtown and want services downtown and it will be a win win for everyone, with the exception with those who demand perfect urbanism and nothing less.

----------


## Just the facts

> Those people will spend money downtown and want services downtown and it will be a win win for everyone, with the exception with those who demand perfect urbanism and nothing less.


The only thing worse than setting the bar too high is setting it too low and clearing it every time.

----------


## boitoirich

> There is also a danger of civic boosters being _too_ confident, comparing OKC only to its past or Tulsa and not its peer cities.  I question whether or not this city _should_ say no yet, specifically when it comes to the question of the TIF funds for ClayCo.  The development has an intangible benefit of bringing hundreds of high-income people to live downtown.  Those people will spend money downtown and want services downtown and it will be a win win for everyone, with the exception with those who demand perfect urbanism and nothing less.


Read Steve's article. It describes how decisions made during the 1930s redounded to downtown's disadvantage. Choices made in the built environment have multi-decade consequences, and therefore should not be made lightly. This is especially true when asking for significant public assistance. Why should we subsidize lower, less efficient, less attractive land use to that degree? Regardless of what level of esteem anyone has of Oklahoma City, a project demanding this level of TIF funding should be scrutinized and improved.

----------


## Just the facts

> The development has an intangible benefit of bringing hundreds of high-income people to live downtown.  Those people will spend money downtown and want services downtown and it will be a win win for everyone,...


This is kind of the same logic used to promote tax cuts for businesses and the 1%ers.  Just make the rich happy and the rest of us can live off the crumbs and table droppings.  This just in, most of us don't shop at the same places the 1% shop at.  This can't be more evident than the power brokers (LN and crowd) trying to lure Nordstrom's and white-cloth restaurants downtown when 'the people' are asking for a Target and low to moderate priced locally owned diners.  It is two different worlds.

----------


## bchris02

> This is kind of the same logic used to promote tax cuts for businesses and the 1%ers.  Just make the rich happy and the rest of us can live off the crumbs and table droppings.  This just in, most of us don't shop at the same places the 1% shop at.  This can't be more evident than the power brokers (LN and crowd) trying to lure Nordstrom's and white-cloth restaurants downtown when 'the people' are asking for a Target and low to moderate priced locally owned diners.  It is two different worlds.


Who said anybody is trying to lure Nordstrom downtown instead of a Target?  It would be great for downtown to have a quality grocer period but they won't come due to "not enough rooftops."  When people are actually living downtown - which the ClayCo development will bring in by the hundreds - then the grocers will see a market there and will eventually build.  Some people are so blinded by their idealism they lose sight of the way economics works.  

Want a Target?  Downtown OKC has to have the demographics in place to support it and right now it's not there.  Developments like the Clayco development is another stepping stone towards that goal.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Who said anybody is trying to lure Nordstrom downtown instead of a Target?  It would be great for downtown to have a quality grocer period but they won't come due to "not enough rooftops."  When people are actually living downtown - which the ClayCo development will bring in by the hundreds - then the grocers will see a market there and will eventually build.  Some people are so blinded by their idealism they lose sight of the way economics works.  
> 
> Want a Target?  Downtown OKC has to have the demographics in place to support it and right now it's not there.  Developments like the Clayco development is another stepping stone towards that goal.


+1

----------


## Just the facts

> Who said anybody is trying to lure Nordstrom downtown instead of a Target?


Maybe you missed it but in the renderings for Core to Shore they depicted a Nordstrom's and several OKC leaders (both Civic and Elected) expressed that desire.  And if I had a dollar for every time LN said he wanted a fancy restaurant downtown I would be almost as rich as him.

http://newsok.com/development-appear...rticle/5363302

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Maybe you missed it but in the renderings for Core to Shore they depicted a Nordstrom's and several OKC leaders (both Civic and Elected) expressed that desire.


Those renderings are purely fictional and conceptual. Besides, would you rather have a Nordstroms come to Memorial or Penn Square or downtown in Core2Shore where it will it will attract more people.

----------


## boitoirich

Yes, downtown OKC needs rooftops, but we do not need to give away the farm to get there. We also might want to start to develop some standards for the built environment. Having a Nordstroms or Target downtown would be nice, but I'm not willing to give away tons of money to a developer just for getting the ball rolling. Any TIF money needs to be tied to performance and changes to the site plan that add appeal to the city (subducted parking, for example).

----------


## Just the facts

> Those renderings are purely fictional and conceptual. Besides, would you rather have a Nordstroms come to Memorial or Penn Square or downtown in Core2Shore where it will it will attract more people.


If it involved public money I would just as soon a Nordstrom's go to Penn Sq. and save public money for an Urban Target.  Here is the thing though - the renderings don't just happen by accident.

----------


## bchris02

> If it involved public money I would just as soon a Nordstrom's go to Penn Sq. and save public money for an Urban Target.  Here is the thing though - the renderings don't just happen by accident.


I don't think OKC will have any problems attracting a downtown SuperTarget once it has enough population to fit into the formula Target uses, or at least close enough where a small incentive could convince them to pull the trigger. Regardless, I don't understand why you are so put off by the Nordstrom in the conceptual plan for Core2Shore. It's very unlikely to happen and even if it does it will be years after downtown's grocery needs are met.

----------


## Rover

> If it involved public money I would just as soon a Nordstrom's go to Penn Sq. and save public money for an Urban Target.  Here is the thing though - the renderings don't just happen by accident.


It's a class warfare conspiracy to keep the little people down.  Power to the people!!!!  (sorry, you may be too young to remember that chant)   :Smile:

----------


## DenverPoke

Here in Denver we have about 20,000 residents downtown (and rapidly increasing) and another 35,000 or so within a mile and a half and getting a City Target here isn't a certainty. Heck the first of two grocery stores isn't opening until 2016.  I guess my point is it takes a very long time for these things to happen, even if the head count seems to justify it sooner.

----------


## Just the facts

> Here in Denver we have about 20,000 residents downtown (and rapidly increasing) and another 35,000 or so within a mile and a half and getting a City Target here isn't a certainty. Heck the first of two grocery stores isn't opening until 2016.  I guess my point is it takes a very long time for these things to happen, even if the head count seems to justify it sooner.


That is kind of crazy - downtown Jax has 3 grocery stores (Publix, Fresh Market, and Winn-Dixie) plus multiple 7/11's and foodmarts - not to mention all the ethnic and health food stores.

----------


## bchris02

> That is kind of crazy - downtown Jax has 3 grocery stores (Publix, Fresh Market, and Winn-Dixie) plus multiple 7/11's and foodmarts - not to mention all the ethnic and health food stores.


Doing just a quick Google search I find Denver has a Safeway very close to downtown at 20th and Park Ave and a King Soupers at 13th and N Speer.  While they may not have a City Target or a grocer right in their CBD, they are light years ahead of OKC in this department.  Jacksonville has the advantage of being in a state with lax liquor laws and with well-established regional grocers, both things that OKC doesn't have.  It takes a smaller head count to have a grocery store when you can rely on alcohol sales for profit.  The Harris Teeter in downtown Charlotte has a much larger alcohol selection than your typical Harris Teeter does.

OKC needs a quality grocer in its core, period.  It could be in Midtown or even Uptown and would be much welcome.  Having to drive to NW Expressway or S May and SW 104th defeats the purpose of living downtown.  I have made up my mind that I will not consider living downtown until there is a quality grocery store in the core.

----------


## DenverPoke

Yes sorry I didn't mean to imply that one would have to drive 10 miles to find a grocery store in Denver. But if one lives downtown you  aren't walking to any grocery store.  Strangely the two being built downtown (King Soopers and Whole Foods) are going to be less than 3 blocks apart.  

But I do think Denver is a good model for OKC to follow. Both lost a ton of urbanity and wonderful old  building stock during not-so-distant "urban renewal"and have grown organically.  Downtown Denver was a ghost town and had the highest office vacancy in America  in the late 80s and has slowly transformed itself into a very vibrant place and one of the most desired living locations in the country.

----------


## Urbanized

> Yes sorry I didn't mean to imply that one would have to drive 10 miles to find a grocery store in Denver. But if one lives downtown you  aren't walking to any grocery store...


If the rumored grocery store (worst-kept secret in town) arrives where it is supposed to, nobody will be walking to it, either. Well, actually a few hundred will be able to, but many of them will still drive, as will the bulk of downtown residents. Certainly not enough people will walk to make a quality SUPERMARKET viable. The vast majority of customers will still be driving, and THEY are the ones that will make the supermarket work.

There is this sill fantasy that has existed for a while that people downtown will be able to live a Manhattan lifestyle, walking to the market, etc.. Honestly, most of them will probably always drive. People in Manhattan don't walk to supermarkets, they walk to bodegas. The disconnect with reality is sometimes extreme around here.

Right this very moment in time you can live downtown and drive to grocery stores (some are even acceptable) that are closer than what many people in Edmond or Deer Creek or Yukon or Mustang have. It is NOT a currently-unacceptable situation. Can it be greatly improved? Yes. But it shouldn't stop anyone from living downtown, and the fantasy of skipping to the Whole Foods quality supermarket across the street is NEVER going to happen, unless you live in a very specific block of downtown.

----------


## bchris02

> Right this very moment in time you can live downtown and drive to grocery stores (some are even acceptable) that are closer than what many people in Edmond or Deer Creek or Yukon or Mustang have. It is NOT a currently-unacceptable situation. Can it be greatly improved? Yes. But it shouldn't stop anyone from living downtown, and the fantasy of skipping to the Whole Foods quality supermarket across the street is NEVER going to happen, unless you live in a very specific block of downtown.


There is a HUGE gulf between the 18th and Classen Homeland and a Whole Foods quality supermarket.  A lot of people who haven't lived in other cities don't understand how dire the grocery store situation is in OKC.  It's terrible city-wide, with only a handful of stores in the entire metro that are half-way decent at all.  It's especially bad in the urban core.  The Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market at 23rd and Penn would probably be acceptable for most.  If the 18th and Classen Homeland is unacceptable and you don't want to shop at Wal-Mart, then your closest option if you live downtown is the Buy for Less on NW Expressway.  That is unacceptable.

Hopefully the proposed Uptown Grocery at MLK and 23rd happens sooner rather than later (though I think there are some complications with it). While it wouldn't be acceptable as a downtown grocer in other cities because of distance, it will be much closer and more convenient than what is currently available to downtown OKC residents.

----------


## Urbanized

> I have Trader Joe's Metropolitan Market, Safeway, and Bartells all within a few blocks of me in Seattle. 
> 
> Sometimes the disconnect is extreme. But you've got it backwards.


Hmmm, I have it backwards how exactly?

----------


## Urbanized

When I'm saying it "isn't unacceptable," I only mean it is a weak excuse for not living downtown; a red herring. It is no more inconvenient than a lot of other "desirable" parts of the metro. Does that mean that there is not HUGE room for improvement? Of course not.

But the idea that within any of our lifetimes downtown OKC will be replete with NYC-style bodegas every few blocks (the only way everyone living downtown will be able to walk to the grocery) is ludicrous. And the idea that a single great supermarket locating downtown (which will almost certainly happen in the next few years) will create the same walkable result as the bodega solution in Manhattan? Also ludicrous. The vast majority of a downtown supermarket's customers will still be arriving by automobile, now matter how some of us might wish it were different.

I'm mostly just saying the "I'll move downtown when I can walk to a great grocery store" position is a total cop out. If that's your position, you honestly just don't REALLY want to live downtown.

----------


## Urbanized

I don't disagree with that; however don't plan on a downtown supermarket in OKC being built without LOTS of parking, most likely of the surface variety.

And yeah, I DO think some on this board over the years have advanced the fantastical notion of everyone living downtown being able to walk to the grocery. If that ever happens, it will be a generation or two down the road. And "the grocery" will look a lot more like Native Roots or even Walgreens than Whole Foods or Albertson's.

----------


## bchris02

> I don't disagree with that; however don't plan on a downtown supermarket in OKC being built without LOTS of parking, most likely of the surface variety.


As long as it's behind the store rather than in front of it, I don't see an issue with that.

Also, nobody is expecting NYC bodega style grocery shopping here.   It would be nice though to have a quality grocery store closer than a 15 minute drive from Deep Deuce or Midtown.  I think lack of amenities is still a valid reason for choosing the suburbs over downtown in OKC.

All of that said, grocery stores for the most part leave a lot to be desired all over the metro thanks to the fact that OKC lacks a strong, established chain other than Wal-Mart.  There are nice, upscale suburban areas here that are food deserts that would be well served if they were in any other city.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> I don't disagree with that; however don't plan on a downtown supermarket in OKC being built without LOTS of parking, most likely of the surface variety.
> 
> And yeah, I DO think some on this board over the years have advanced the fantastical notion of everyone living downtown being able to walk to the grocery. If that ever happens, it will be a generation or two down the road. And "the grocery" will look a lot more like Native Roots or even Walgreens than Whole Foods or Albertson's.


Hopefully. There will be a 3 or 4 story garage just across the street from the grocery just to the east

----------


## Jim Kyle

> All of that said, grocery stores for the most part leave a lot to be desired all over the metro thanks to the fact that OKC lacks a strong, established chain other than Wal-Mart.  There are nice, upscale suburban areas here that are food deserts that would be well served if they were in any other city.


At one time, we had a number of strong, established chains. Remember that the shopping cart itself was invented right here, by the patriarch of the Goldman clan, which operated Humpty Dumpty. That was the flagship of IGA, the Independent Grocers Association, which united literally scores of locally-owned mom-n-pop supermarkets all over the state. It was actually the marketing branch of one of the major distributors -- I can't remember whether it was Fleming or Scribner's -- but it did impose quite a few standards. When I moved to SoCal in 1959, I was amazed at how much WORSE the stores there were, compared to what I had left behind me here!

In addition to IGA, we had the RedBud stores, which as I recall was a similar organization run by the other distributor. After both distributors went under in the 1980s collapse of our entire economy, Associated Grocers moved into the vacuum and eventually set the standards now being followed by Homeland. Today's distributors seem to concentrate on simply moving product, with no effort to establish standards or chain-like reputations for their clients. Wal-Mart's position is, I believe, largely due to the fact that they are their own distributor and operate independently of their dinosaurish competitors. In days gone by, an IGA logo was pretty much a guarantee of quality...

As I recall, Crescent Market's move from Plaza Court out to Nichols Hills Plaza marked the end of "downtown" grocers. It's been a very long dry spell...

----------


## Urbanized

> ...Also, nobody is expecting NYC bodega style grocery shopping here.   It would be nice though to have a quality grocery store closer than a 15 minute drive from Deep Deuce or Midtown...


No, but over the years a number of people commenting here have openly fantasized about a time when everyone living downtown could walk to the grocery store, without realizing that would require many small groceries rather than one supermarket.

Regarding your comment about the 15 minute drive to a quality grocery store from DD or midtown, that's simply not true. Whole Foods, for instance, is MAYBE 10. Homeland is obviously not optimal, but I'm there once a week or so. Other options exist within that 10 minute circle. Like I said, this is not THAT different from many other "desirable" locations in the metro.

Regarding your routine assertion that grocery shopping in general in OKC leaves much to be desired, you are of course correct, but that isn't relevant to the thread. Actually, it only supports my assertion that the grocery "penalty" associated with living downtown vs the suburbs is an overstatement.

----------


## adaniel

I lived in midtown for 4 years. In that time I NEVER found it to be difficult to go pick up something. I find people who make such claims to obviously have never lived in this area, just going off their own conclusions, which are wrong btw. If you want an easy big-box oriented lifestyle you will not find that in any urban area, period. And it's already been pointed out it's not that far of a drive to any other stores outside the core. Whole Foods and Sprouts were exactly 9 and 12 minutes from my place. CVS, Homeland, and Wal Mart were within 10, really not the end of the world. For comparison's sake, its a 15 minute walk from my friends co-op in Chelsea, NYC to the crappy little Duane Reade where they do their grocery shopping. 

I am not so sure that a large scale grocery store is right around the corner for this area. I look at Uptown/Downtown Dallas, which combined has something like 75K people, and they are just now getting a Whole Foods. There's been a sad little Albertsons on the north side of Uptown, it was at best a half-step up from the 18th St Homeland. Most people I know in Uptown simply drove into other nearby districts or into Highland Park. Another poster pointed out the same thing in Denver. The point being, most big box grocery stores don't have urban environments completely figured out yet.

----------


## Urbanized

Great post, though I do believe we will see a high-quality grocery store downtown or extremely convenient to downtown within the next 5 years or so. Lots of people working hard to make this happen.

----------


## bchris02

> I am not so sure that a large scale grocery store is right around the corner for this area. I look at Uptown/Downtown Dallas, which combined has something like 75K people, and they are just now getting a Whole Foods. There's been a sad little Albertsons on the north side of Uptown, it was at best a half-step up from the 18th St Homeland. Most people I know in Uptown simply drove into other nearby districts or into Highland Park. Another poster pointed out the same thing in Denver. The point being, most big box grocery stores don't have urban environments completely figured out yet.


I disagree with most of this.  I'm not sure about Dallas, but Denver has a couple of quality supermarkets on the perimeter of their downtown, just none in downtown itself.  The NYC example is irrelevant.

Most cities comparable to OKC may not have a supermarket right in their downtowns but they do have a supermarket similar in scale and location to the rumored Midtown grocery store that may arrive within the next 3-5 years.  That grocery store will not only serve the needs of Midtown/Downtown/DD but also the greater core area of OKC.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> I lived in midtown for 4 years. In that time I NEVER found it to be difficult to go pick up something. I find people who make such claims to obviously have never lived in this area, just going off their own conclusions, which are wrong btw. If you want an easy big-box oriented lifestyle you will not find that in any urban area, period. And it's already been pointed out it's not that far of a drive to any other stores outside the core. Whole Foods and Sprouts were exactly 9 and 12 minutes from my place. CVS, Homeland, and Wal Mart were within 10, really not the end of the world. For comparison's sake, its a 15 minute walk from my friends co-op in Chelsea, NYC to the crappy little Duane Reade where they do their grocery shopping. 
> 
> I am not so sure that a large scale grocery store is right around the corner for this area. I look at Uptown/Downtown Dallas, which combined has something like 75K people, and they are just now getting a Whole Foods. There's been a sad little Albertsons on the north side of Uptown, it was at best a half-step up from the 18th St Homeland. Most people I know in Uptown simply drove into other nearby districts or into Highland Park. Another poster pointed out the same thing in Denver. The point being, most big box grocery stores don't have urban environments completely figured out yet.


Why would you expect a city that you criticize for being too car oriented to have grocery stores with a walkable district?

----------


## hoya

As far as re-urbanizing our downtown, we have an awful lot of work to do.  The fact is, we are almost (not entirely) building a downtown from scratch.  There are some old historic buildings there, but there are many more empty spaces.  Half the buildings that are in use are of bad urban design.  And when we started out we had virtually no one living downtown.

We aren't going to be New York City, but nevertheless, my dream would be to have a walkable, urbanized downtown that extends over a large enough area that sheer distance, not blight, makes it difficult to walk from one end to the other.  Let's say it stretched from the river up to 13th, and from I-235 to Penn, with some extensions east of 235 into the HSC, and south of the river to Capitol Hill, Wheeler Park, and Stockyards City.  This is obviously a 30 or 40+ year project.  We'd need dozens of neighborhoods the size of Deep Deuce.

To get that type of density, we are going to have to have a lot of things in place.  Each of these neighborhood areas would need a combination of housing, restaurants, entertainment, schools, jobs, transportation, etc.  Each step along the way will give us a more urban downtown.  I don't think we can just jump there like JTF wants.  If we said "no more parking garages ever" in downtown OKC, we'd have no new skyscrapers ever.  People would build elsewhere.  But huge parking garages will become less important if we get more urban neighborhoods in the immediate area.  People will still generally want to park, but if in 2025 I live in the Wheeler District and can take the streetcar to my job at Devon, then I really don't need a parking space downtown.

It's important to get good mass transit running throughout this city.  Right now you don't have an effective option to get downtown unless you drive.  As much as it irritates me to see comments on Newsok by some guy with a mullet about how he can't park within 10 feet of Zio's for free on a Friday night, it can be very crowded and I understand the frustration of people who aren't used to it.  Good mass transit would let some of those people park in Moore or Midwest City, and leave their cars behind.  I know a park and ride system isn't the ideal solution, but it's significantly better than what we have now.

----------


## Urbanized

Great post, hoya.

----------


## Jim Kyle

Good mass transit is absolutely essential. Without it, all other efforts are doomed to failure. Deterioriation of the original CBD, which in turn led to the Urban Renewal fiasco, can be traced *directly* to the loss of the street-car network during the late 1940s!

Today's Oklahoman has a photo that almost brought tears to my eyes, of the view looking west from Main and Broadway in December of 1937. There's no chance at all that I will live to see the like of that again, and only a slim chance that it will ever come to pass in this city -- but it shows quite clearly what we threw away in the search for a "better" bottom line...

----------


## bchris02

> If I may add to the already great last several posts, just the sheer lack of copious amounts of residential downtown is causing much of the re-urbanization conversation to be incorrectly framed. THE best investment downtown right now, is in my opinion, in dense residential. I can't imagine a better use of funds.


Completely agree with this, which is why I am strongly in support of the Clayco project, even if it means a hefty TIF incentive.  It will be the biggest downtown residential project to date.  The amenities many would like to see here will come when the rooftops are in place.  Certain things such as a 24-hour diner or coffee shop that many wish OKC had cannot be supported by people driving in from the burbs.  They depend on dense neighborhood population.  Deep Deuce has become that kind of neighborhood and Midtown is getting there.  Within a few years they should be major progress on the west side of the CBD with the Clayco, Hall, and 21c Hotel developments along with Film Row.  Each development and redevelopment is another step towards a re-urbanized downtown OKC.

Here are downtown OKC's population statistics compared to peer cities and a few larger and smaller that get brought up frequently on this site.  Wonder why OKC feels more or less vibrant than these places?  Well these numbers are key.

Denver: 80,369
Austin: 64,843
Louisville: 59,789
Indianapolis: 50,349
Richmond: 49,702
Wichita: 39,274
Memphis: 33,418
Charlotte: 33,140
*Oklahoma City: 27,868*
Tulsa: 26,073
Jacksonville: 24,743
Kansas City: 22,122
Birmingham: 20,786
Little Rock: 18,392

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

Jane Jacobs was right | Better! Cities & Towns Online

----------


## Just the facts

> If I may add to the already great last several posts, just the sheer lack of copious amounts of residential downtown is causing much of the re-urbanization conversation to be incorrectly framed. THE best investment downtown right now, is in my opinion, in dense residential. I can't imagine a better use of funds.
> 
> We've got to be able to flip the model from focusing on bringing people to downtown to taking care of those who live, work, and recreate downtown *and are also joined daily by throngs of downtown workers, tourists, and visitors.*


I have been thinking the exact same thing and I think it goes back to what I am going to call the "right-wing mentality" for lack of a better term.  What I mean by that is the people of OKC seem to think the way to prosperity is to incentives business.  When this model is applied to downtown we see incentives for parking garages, jobs, retail, etc... but we got it backwards.  The focus should be on incentivizing people, and then let businesses follow them back downtown.  This is how urban sprawl works and you can only see how successful that has been.  If we got 20,000 people living within 1 mile of MBG the whole downtown retail, grocery store, jobs ,etc debate would just evaporate because businesses would by falling all over each other to provide services to these people.

----------


## bchris02

> I'm very sympathetic to what their proposal is trying to accomplish. I do not believe however that requiring the project to be more urban-friendly is a deal breaker. I think it is simply a matter of publishing form based requirements. Something that most of those cities above us on that list have done. 
> 
> At some point we will do it. But do we do it now or later? I say, do it now. The demand and desire is at the highest it's ever been.


The only way I see the Clayco project getting any better is for the residential to front the park rather than the commercial, but that's highly unlikely.  Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with it from an urban perspective.  The Hines project is another matter.  I agree with you there needs to be higher standards in place.  The ironic thing is the standards are there now but variances are granted for almost anything.

----------


## HOT ROD

If only OKC could build a plaza like this:


pillars by matteroffact, Jeifangbei CBD Chongqing China on Flickr

----------


## HOT ROD

Jeifangbei Skyline from lookout



Chongqing X by Captain Young, on Flickr

----------


## bchris02

OKC needs to do it's riverfront like this.



...with plenty of Plazas like this



....and do it within 5 years!

<sarcasm>

----------


## Jim Kyle

> THE best investment downtown right now, is in my opinion, in dense residential. I can't imagine a better use of funds.


Based partly on a reading of history, and partly on personal experience, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this, Sid.

At the time that photo was made, more than 75 years ago, downtown was a vibrant place. It was still that way when I lived, briefly, in what's now called "Uptown" (300 block of NW 13) some nine years later. At that time, people did live downtown -- but the vast majority of those who lived within a one-mile radius of Main and Broadway were NOT people at the economic level required to support an active CBD. They were, for the most part, folk who could not afford to move out to the suburbs. That early sprawl on the part of the middle and upper class demographic began much earlier, and created what we now know as the Mesta district.

Most of the downtown residential in existence then was destroyed as "blight," and I can testify that much of it deserved that label. Significant parts of those pictured buildings' upper stories could only be compared to NYC tenements. Fully residential areas adjacent to the CBD were, almost all of them, as poorly built and maintained as were Mason's areas in the unit block NW 9, before he brought them back to life.

What kept downtown going all those years was the well-developed mass transit system. In fact, that system is what made OKC itself, not just downtown, grow. Anton Classen and John Shartel built it, starting in 1903, and Classen did so primarily to enable access to his residential developments -- now known as the entire northwest quadrant of OKC.

When their successors decided that the tracks got in the way, and replaced the trolleys and interurbans with buses that never followed reliable schedules, business moved away to get closer to the people with money. Plaza Court was the first suburban shopping center. Midtown (originally known as Uptown) around the Tower theater followed some 20 years later. And an abandoned downtown reached death's door.

Expensive downtown residential, with rents (or payments) in the four-figure range, cannot revive it. Revival needs masses of people, from all walks of life. And most of those people, now, live far from the CBD. That doesn't mean, however, that they don't or won't care for its condition, given good reasons to do so.

The genie cannot be put back in the bottle, Sid. Not everyone is enamored of what some see as the "crowded and impersonal" lifestyle of urban living, and I fear that not enough folk DO prefer it to maintain a truly urban CBD. However, provide the rest of the population a convenient way to participate, and you have some possibility of success. 

Safe and reliable mass transit offers such a solution -- but not if it's restricted to a circle less than two miles in diameter. It must carry folk from NW 50 and Classen, NW 10 and MacArthur, NE 23 and MLK, SW 25 and Robinson, SE 15 and High, and all the other "outlying" areas to be successful -- and that won't happen overnight, if ever...

----------


## bchris02

^^^ I think both Sid and Jim Kyle are right on this.  Dense residential is needed, but it can't be all four-figure condos and apartments.  The middle class needs to get a piece of the pie for it to truly be successful.  Right now there simply aren't a lot of options in downtown OKC.  Question is, is the demand there?  Do most people in OKC prefer the quiet suburban life and if so, are there enough people who would want an urban alternative to support housing on a much larger scale than what the city is currently seeing built?

----------


## Urbanized

It's funny that the perception of those who have never experienced working/living downtown is that it is "crowded and impersonal". I have lived in the distant suburbs (far, far north Edmond and also Norman), in apartments in the far northwest part of OKC, in the closer-in, older suburbs near Nichols Hills, in Gatewood, and finally downtown. I have worked in northwest office buildings and elsewhere, but for most of the past 20 years have worked in some capacity downtown.

When living in the suburbs I generally knew few if any of my neighbors. Like most people I parked in the drive or pulled into a garage and then shut out the would behind me. I stayed indoors or in my back yard, and if I wanted to interact with friends I jumped into the car and drove to visit them.

The closer I moved to downtown, the more casual interactions I had, owing to the more personal (as opposed to impersonal) nature of the built environment. Porches, sidewalks, streets, storefronts, all built to facilitate rather than restrict personal interaction.

And as for work, when I worked up north I was either inside the office, or in my car. ALWAYS in my car. Driving to work. Driving home from work. Driving to meet clients. Driving to lunch.

Working downtown I walk to and from many of these places, and if can almost NEVER do so without running into at least one (or a dozen) people I know. I walk to lunch, I walk to appointments, I walk to the doctor, and nearly always I am presented with a brief opportunity or two to solidify a personal or business relationship with a few words or at the very least a smile and a wave.

Living/working downtown is the closest thing you can find to living in a small town...without actually living in a small town. People who think downtown is impersonal have no idea what they are talking about.

----------


## Jim Kyle

> Living/working downtown is the closest thing you can find to living in a small town...without actually living in a small town. People who think downtown is impersonal have no idea what they are talking about.


It all depends on individual personal experience. As it happens, most of my childhood was spent in a town with population of 5,666 per the 1930 census -- and it proclaimed that count proudly on its "City Limits" signs along Route 66. That qualifies pretty well as a "small town" although Elk City today is much larger than that.

While my father knew lots of folk there, my mother and I had almost no interaction at all. We never knew the names of any of our neighbors. I walked to school, about a half-mile away, starting at the age of six, and got to know a few classmates -- but not very many, because I was being pushed along, skipping a semester at a time. Not until we moved to OKC for a year and a half and I entered Linwood's grade three at the age of seven, did I begin to acquire a few friends (at least one of whom I correspond with to this day).

In contrast, once we moved to OKC for keeps in mid-1946, settling near NW 20 and May, we almost immediately fitted into a pattern of vibrant neighborhood activity. We knew all of those immediately surrounding us, visited across the lawns, and watched out for each other.

The impersonality, or lack of it, is in my opinion determined mostly by the individual and much less by the surroundings. At present, my wife and I are probably the senior members of our neighborhood (which was way out in the boonies when we moved here in 1982). We visit occasionally with our immediate neighbors and two families across the street, but we're somewhat stand-offish with everyone else on the block simply because we tend to keep to ourselves. Thirty years ago, this neighborhood had spontaneous block parties. I don't recall even one, though, in the past couple of decades. Both houses adjoining ours have had multiple owners; at least four for the one on the north, and even more for the one on the south. In times gone by, you seldom encountered that degree of transience in small towns; it's almost typical of urban areas, though.

I feel closer to more of the regulars in this forum, and several others in which I participate, than I do to the people living within a block or two of my home.

It's a hugely complicated equation, involving individual personalities, experience, and economics, on both the macro and micro scales. Reminds me of Mencken's observation that for every problem, there's a simple and obvious solution -- which is always wrong.

----------


## Urbanized

> ...I feel closer to more of the regulars in this forum, and several others in which I participate, than I do to the people living within a block or two of my home.
> 
> It's a hugely complicated equation, involving individual personalities, experience, and economics, on both the macro and micro scales. Reminds me of Mencken's observation that for every problem, there's a simple and obvious solution -- which is always wrong.


There was an interesting book published on this topic a number of years ago: http://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-.../dp/0743203046

And yet Jim, I'll bet only a very few of the people who live downtown feel way you describe feeling in the first paragraph quoted above. During the charettes for the Wheeler District, someone made an interesting comment: they stated that today's generation that is forsaking their parents' suburban leanings and who are repopulating downtown and other areas are doing so for one reason; they crave COMMUNITY. Unfortunately, the same type of experience simply isn't available in the suburbs as we currently know them. I apologize for not remembering the source of the statement, but thought it was a great observation.

----------


## bchris02

I would have to agree with Urbanized on this.  In 2014, suburbia is about you (and your family) living in your own bubble while downtown is more about being part of a community.  The days of the suburban GI-bill subdivisions in which everyone knew their neighbors are long gone.

----------


## Just the facts

> I would have to agree with Urbanized on this.  In 2014, suburbia is about you (and your family) living in your own bubble while downtown is more about being part of a community.  The days of the suburban GI-bill subdivisions in which everyone knew their neighbors are long gone.


I might add, those early days of everyone knowing each other in a subdivision was the result of those very same people moving out of urban areas where they really did know everyone because they lived/worked/shopped in close proximity to each other.  When they moved to suburbia they tried to replicate that social interaction with country clubs, civic groups, bbq gatherings, the Welcome Wagon, etc... but eventually the isolating nature of suburbia won out and the first generation of cul-de-sac kids had no idea of the social interaction they missed out on so they didn't try to replicate it - and became even more isolated.  This trend really continued up until Friends and Seinfeld were created, which showed that living in an urban area could actually be fun and full of community.  People sometimes greatly under-estimate the power of television (for good and bad).

----------


## Mr. Cotter

I think It has way, way less to do with moving from downtown together, than that.

Most of my time living with my parents, from age 8 to 18, was in a suburb of Dallas.  We were the second house in the neighborhood.  The first several years were very communal.  I could still drive through that neighborhood, and tell you the family name of the original owner of most of the houses.  We had block parties, we all spent time at the park (that everyone walked to), everyone had kids that went to the same school, etc.  The neighborhood was close because the shared experience of being in a new neighborhood.  As families moved on, we knew the second and third owners less and less.  The block parties stopped, the kids at the park belonged to the new, younger families.  We all put in a collective effort to know each other at first, and then we didn't.  In dense neighborhoods, you don't have to try as hard.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> It's funny that the perception of those who have never experienced working/living downtown is that it is "crowded and impersonal". I have lived in the distant suburbs (far, far north Edmond and also Norman), in apartments in the far northwest part of OKC, in the closer-in, older suburbs near Nichols Hills, in Gatewood, and finally downtown. I have worked in northwest office buildings and elsewhere, but for most of the past 20 years have worked in some capacity downtown.
> 
> When living in the suburbs I generally knew few if any of my neighbors. Like most people I parked in the drive or pulled into a garage and then shut out the would behind me. I stayed indoors or in my back yard, and if I wanted to interact with friends I jumped into the car and drove to visit them.
> 
> The closer I moved to downtown, the more casual interactions I had, owing to the more personal (as opposed to impersonal) nature of the built environment. Porches, sidewalks, streets, storefronts, all built to facilitate rather than restrict personal interaction.
> 
> And as for work, when I worked up north I was either inside the office, or in my car. ALWAYS in my car. Driving to work. Driving home from work. Driving to meet clients. Driving to lunch.
> 
> Working downtown I walk to and from many of these places, and if can almost NEVER do so without running into at least one (or a dozen) people I know. I walk to lunch, I walk to appointments, I walk to the doctor, and nearly always I am presented with a brief opportunity or two to solidify a personal or business relationship with a few words or at the very least a smile and a wave.
> ...


How true is that for much larger downtowns such as NYC or San Fran?

----------


## bchris02

> How true is that for much larger downtowns such as NYC or San Fran?


I friend I used to have who lived in NYC would tell me that certain parts, such as Brooklyn or Staten Island, have a community experience.  Other places like Manhattan don't as much.

----------


## Urbanized

Depends on which part of Manhattan. The Financial District? It's largely a ghost town at night and on weekends, just like OKC's downtown. Midtown is fairly quiet too. You probably fall into routines where you see the same people at certain lunch counters, bar/grill, library, bookstore, or other places you frequent. You probably see people you interact with professionally, crossing paths on the sidewalk, etc., but there are TONS of people, so it is probably far less pronounced than in OKC.

The Village? SoHo? Other true NEIGHBORHOODS in Manhattan? I'm sure you see people you know all of the time.

----------


## LocoAko

> I have been thinking the exact same thing and I think it goes back to what I am going to call the "right-wing mentality" for lack of a better term.  What I mean by that is the people of OKC seem to think the way to prosperity is to incentives business.  When this model is applied to downtown we see incentives for parking garages, jobs, retail, etc... but we got it backwards.  The focus should be on incentivizing people, and then let businesses follow them back downtown.  This is how urban sprawl works and you can only see how successful that has been.  If we got 20,000 people living within 1 mile of MBG the whole downtown retail, grocery store, jobs ,etc debate would just evaporate because businesses would by falling all over each other to provide services to these people.


I just rewatched "Urbanized" last night for the 3rd or 4th time and the obviousness of focusing on people above all else has never seemed clearer or more important to me. It is amazing what some other cities have done around the world (thinking specifically about the Mayor of Bogota, perhaps my favorite person in the movie).

----------


## Just the facts

> I just rewatched "Urbanized" last night for the 3rd or 4th time and the obviousness of focusing on people above all else has never seemed clearer or more important to me. It is amazing what some other cities have done around the world (thinking specifically about the Mayor of Bogota, perhaps my favorite person in the movie).


That is one of my favorite documentaries and while this is my favorite subject - I had to watch that program no less than 5 time before I finally got "it".  It is one of those programs that revels an increasingly deeper understanding the more you watch it.

Here is the full movie for anyone wanting to watch it:

----------


## Snowman

> That is one of my favorite documentaries and while this is my favorite subject - I had to watch that program no less than 5 time before I finally got "it".  It is one of those programs that revels an increasingly deeper understanding the more you watch it.
> 
> Here is the full movie for anyone wanting to watch it:


If you have Netflix, they have it and in HD.

----------


## traxx

I know this is a thread about re-urbanizing DT, but I just wanted to touch on the suburbs. It's been talked about in this thread about what is lost in the suburbs and that you don't have any community. But it wasn't always that way and it doesn't have to be that way.

Take a virtual stroll through Heritage Hills on Google Streetview. HH was a suburb at one point. Notice all the well kept sidewalks. Notice that the historical houses had front porches and people sat on those porches and used those porches. People walked on the sidewalks. They would walk to the grocery store or wherever they needed because they could and because of necessity. All this contributed to their sense of community. People came in contact with one another and that creates community.

Now drive down a typical suburb street. Even if they have sidewalks, how much are they used? They may be used for walking for pleasure or exercise or by kids. But the neighborhood is disconnected from anywhere that they might need to (or want to) walk. And if there is a grocery store within walking distance, does it feel safe or pleasant to walk there? Or is it a pedestrian hostile environment where the pedestrian has to compete with four lanes of zooming cars?

Also, what does one notice about the houses? Their most prominent feature isn't a friendly looking porch where your neighbors and friends are sitting and relaxing at the end of the day. The most prominent feature is a big garage. Which makes houses appear closed off and unewlcoming. Stroll down this random street. On some of the houses, the garage is all you can see. the entrance is recessed back, away from the street.

Suburban design can be done better. And it should be. There's no reason one can't have a feel and sense of community in the suburbs. The suburbs just have to be designed in a way that encourages community. As it is now, the design discourages community. Good design shouldn't be purely the realm of urban areas.

----------


## Jim Kyle

> mostly[/I] acted as local people movers that brought people in from around the central core and neighborhoods. Not from neighborhoods say out by Quail Springs. 
> 
> I highly doubt that OKC is willing to shift transit investment dollars to providing enhanced service in the core beyond what we've seen with the Streetcar project.


In the years prior to 1947, I rode the trolley to school each morning for a bit more than three months, from NW 13 and Bdwy Place to the old 17th Street Station at NW 17 and Classen.

Before that, back in 1939 or so, we routinely rode it from the 3400 block NW 19 to downtown for shopping or going to a movie. Remember that in those days, Portland was the western city limit and everything to its west was planted in wheat. I think that was a quite comparable situation to neighborhoods near Quail Springs. We even had light rail to El Reno, Guthrie, and Norman.

My wife's grandmother took the trolley and later the bus to work every morning, to sell millinery at Baron's (yes, at Main and Hudson). She had to walk from the 500 block SE 19 over to SW 25 and Robinson to get on. It then trundled around through Packingtown and up Exchange before getting to Main Street.

My point, simply, is that the discarded network DID cover most of the residential area of the city at that time.

But I agree with you that I doubt today's leaders will be willing to make the needed investment...

----------


## hoya

It's going to require a lot more than just one thing.

The early neighborhoods like Deep Deuce and Midtown are just the first step.  People are going to look at those and scrutinize them.  They are going to ask themselves "do I want to live in a place like this?"  I know that's exactly what I'm asking myself now.    Right now I've moved past the stage in my life where I want to live in an apartment.  I'm 36.  I want a home.  I want to own something.  When I look at Deep Deuce I see two places I'd like to live -- the Brownstones and the Hill.  I can currently afford neither of them.  But I do see the beginnings of a lifestyle that I think I could enjoy.

If enough people from enough walks of life think that they would like the type of lifestyle available today in Deep Deuce, then we'll see more urban neighborhoods develop after that.  In 5 years it will be residential development in Automobile Alley.  5 years after that it will be in the Core 2 Shore area.  5 years after that and it will be moving over to the other side of Classen.  The better these developing neighborhoods are, the more people will want to experience that.  Some will be young 20-somethings who eventually settle down and move to the suburbs.  Some will be adults who buy to stay.

Attractions like Fassler Hall are a huge boon to these neighborhoods.  They draw a lot of people who don't live there.  At least a portion of those people will look around and think "it would be cool to live across the street from this place".  And a portion of _those_ people will have the money to actually do it.  It's important to keep developing neat attractions like this because it makes these neighborhoods fun and exciting -- it gives the residents something they can't get in the suburbs.

The streetcar is important because it extends your neighborhood.  If I live in Deep Deuce then it may take me 20 minutes to walk to McNellie's.  If I ride the streetcar I can be there in 5.  If I live at the Edge I can take the streetcar to Native Roots and buy my groceries there.  It makes the amenities that are available in one part of the city available to the others.  This goes towards making all those neighborhoods better, which means more people will want that type of lifestyle.

Skyscrapers are like the Thunder.  They're a big, obvious sign of the economic progress that we're making.  They're a declarative statement about our growth as a city.  They're important, but they also don't necessarily influence our day to day lives that much.  The Thunder have had a huge positive impact for this city, even if the Chesapeake Arena isn't super urban friendly.  Likewise Devon Tower gives a tremendous positive impression.  Towers have an important purpose, but most of the urbanization that affects the lives of our residents has been happening in other areas.

We as a city _should_ draw up a master plan, one that covers everything up to NW Expressway, Penn Square Mall, over to the Zoo, and down to I-240 in the southern part of the city.  As time goes by and strip malls and apartment complexes go through their natural life cycle, one by one they will be torn down and replaced.  If we have a master plan in place and good design standards, the entire central city can gradually reurbanize.  Now that's not going to happen any time soon.  There's probably zero political support for something like this.  And there won't be, not until our current downtown has filled up and is continuing to grow outwards.

At some point, Deep Deuce will be full.  Midtown will be full.  Film Row will not have a single surface lot left available.  Bricktown will be finished.  The Core 2 Shore area will be completely redeveloped.  The area around the Farmers Market building will be a thriving community.  These neighborhoods will have filled up, and will have merged together into one.  Walking through them, you won't be able to tell where one place ends and the other begins.  That is the day we are waiting for.  When that happens, 25 years from now (or whenever), that's when all the development that has been taking place in our current downtown will spill over into other areas.

The best news we have is that our rate of urban development is increasing.  We are getting more announcements, faster and faster.  I don't know how much demand there is for this type of lifestyle in OKC.  But it's a safe bet that there are a lot of people here who aren't even aware that this is a possibility in this town.  The larger and more successful our downtown becomes, the more people will be exposed to it and the more people will want to experience it.

----------


## HOT ROD

You know, after reading some of the recent comments in the 499 Sheridan thread I got to thinking more about OKC's culture and what could be done to change it. What was mentioned were examples of people who would complain about walking a block after finding a parking spot for a venue or those who would insist on moving their car closer to another district (Bricktown) when they'd already parked (in the CBD) but wanted to patronize a restaurant. This got me thinking, what could be done to change or convince people that walking a few blocks is ok; and there are several things that can and need to be done.

1) *create an environment that encourages walking*. This means well LIT sidewalks, with trees (in OKC, this is essential), sitting benches, and transit cutouts/stops. It also means having something to 'see' along the way (such as public art or private investment). Pedestrian-ize the traffic signals - make them slow down traffic in most corridors to encourage critical mass (and let them fully cross). These are all 'simple' ideas that could easily be implemented and is something DowntownOKC and the downtown groups should quickly get behind.

2) *better wayfinding/signage*. So far most of what I've seen has been vehicle oriented, but how about *implementing human scale wayfinding* and/or signage? Perhaps the city could allow new businesses to post signage directing pedestrians to their business for a period of time, sort of an incubator if you will. Vehicular wayfinding identifying the districts and best attractions, pedestrian wayfinding identifying venues and how "close" everything in downtown OKC really is (instead of X miles, convert to XX feet or blocks). Bricktown Canal 2 blocks E, Myriad Gardens 3 blocks S, OKC Memorial 1 block W: all examples of human scale wayfinding.

3) *build density of establishments along the way* - this will take longer to implement in most areas of downtown but I was a little disappointed when nobody responded positively when I mentioned opening up retail fronts in the Santa Fe garage along EKG. I personally think it could be a great revenue source for the city/owner and could provide a more positive urban environment if there were something to see along the way. If businesses were good enough, then folks could even patronize them. But to me, Santa Fe is a missed opportunity in its current state of a mall type interiour only access and should have frontage to at least allow window shopping while walking to/from Bricktown; at minimum. ..

4) *Organize downtown civic groups to "walk-the-city"*. This may be a little out-of-the-box but is a great way to encourage people to get out. OKC has enough downtown organizations now, so why not have a day for each one to have its members get out and walk throughout downtown. This wouldn't be a race but instead an organized walk to patronize businesses and/or educate citizens on what downtown has to offer. This may have a side effect of drawing people out of their cars along the way, to participate. which itself has a domino effect. Here, think bar crawl where a hopping district has so many folks moving that people driving want to park and participate. Not (ONLY) a bar crawl but a downtown OKC crawl... Perhaps a bad example but probably the best example I could think of in relation to OKC's demographic.

5) Likely one of the best thoughts in my mind here - *OKC needs a civic Television/Radio magazine*. Here in Seattle we have 'Evening Magazine' on King 5 Television, which showcases things to do in the PacNW and has the anchors OUT participating in whatever event/venue they cover. OKC should do the same and have it focus on getting out downtown and the inner city. Not only would this be beneficial for businesses downtown but it likely has an 'educational' side effect and greatest opportunity to change OKC culture when a mass audience observes people they admire getting out and patronizing the city. If emphasis could be made on HOW to patronize downtown - Drive (eventually transit in), park the car once, enjoy your venue, and then walk if you want to go somewhere else since downtown is only 1 square mile or so. The host/ess could even 'show' how its done by doing it themself and dressing appropriately for it. 

What I'm thinking here is *a show highlighting* a night out *downtown*, where the young hostess is going to dinner and a movie downtown with her date. They drive to the city from Edmond and park at a garage. He has an umbrella ready and both are dressed nicely to go to Broadway 10 or Red, they go inside and enjoy (showcasing their meal and eating ettiquit), then decide to go to the Harkins for a show or Civic Center (walking from AAlley leaving the car parked), then they get ice cream (somewhere) and hang out in the myriad gardens for a romantic end of the evening with no more mention of their car. ...r

There could be other shows, such as "going to a Thunder game? What to do before/after", "taking transit to downtown and using your feet IN downtown", "Exploring Automobile Alley and Film Row in one trip", "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend - so is downtown's Park Avenue" (showcasing BC Clark and the shoppes in the CBD), "Going DEEP into Deep Deuce", "Hotels, hotels, hotels of Downtown OKC", "Riding the Canal" (urbanized will love this show), "What Is In Downtown?" (this could be a recurring, central theme updated as new businesses open/close), "I'm moving downtown", "My next vacation is, Downtown". You get the idea? 

Over time, these shows would be ingrained into OKC area residents and likely could help motivate or at least show people how to live/participate in the most urban environment of the state. Also, the shows would give area businesses the chance to advertise (which could be cheap if say DOKC purchases 30 second blocks and sold 5 second bits to locals) and the Television station likely may see a ratings benefit as being the LOCAL station (notice King 5's motto). ..

----------


## CaptDave

> Great post, though I do believe we will see a high-quality grocery store downtown or extremely convenient to downtown within the next 5 years or so. Lots of people working hard to make this happen.


Something like this could work in OKC. Price Chopper is a regional chain in upstate NY. This store is in Saratoga Springs with apartments above and a parking structure across the street - and a large movie theater on the corner.

----------


## CaptDave

duplicate - sorry

----------


## bchris02

> Something like this could work in OKC. Price Chopper is a regional chain in upstate NY. This store is in Saratoga Springs with apartments above and a parking structure across the street - and a large movie theater on the corner.


That somewhat reminds me of the way the Harris Teeter in downtown Charlotte is built.   It would be a home run to see a mixed-use residential development like that with a full-service grocery store as part of it around here.

----------

