# Civic Matters > Suburban & Other OK Communities > Norman >  High Density Living: Norman Edition

## G.Walker

I know this has been discussed on the UNP thread, but I think this topic deserves its own thread:

http://normantranscript.com/headline...alks-in-Norman

----------


## G.Walker

I saw a bid for a 6 story residential development, for 100 units, and associated parking garage, currently in design phase, and estimated start date November 1, 2012.

I just think its really cool how Norman officials are gathering input from the public to proceed with such developments.As a former long time Norman resident, it will be really cool to follow these developments come to fruition, from the design phase to groundbreaking. They just need one good project to get the ball rolling, then they will have these high density units, popping up everywhere, good deal.

----------


## dankrutka

It would be great if there more high density developments started up near campus corner and Main Street to really solodify those as urban environments. I mentioned on another thread that there are a few houses along Boyd (between campus and the Mont) that could be bulldozed for some higher end student living. While a few of those houses have nice character, some are falling apart.

----------


## Spartan

> I saw a bid for a 6 story residential development, for 100 units, and associated parking garage, currently in design phase, and estimated start date November 1, 2012.
> 
> I just think its really cool how Norman officials are gathering input from the public to proceed with such developments.As a former long time Norman resident, it will be really cool to follow these developments come to fruition, from the design phase to groundbreaking. They just need one good project to get the ball rolling, then they will have these high density units, popping up everywhere, good deal.


Either those are huge units or its a pretty thin development. Where exactly is this going in?

The crazy thing is that Lawrence, Manhattan, and Stillwater of all places have already been overtaken by the urban-style student housing craze. Especially Little Apple.

----------


## G.Walker

> Either those are huge units or its a pretty thin development. Where exactly is this going in?
> 
> The crazy thing is that Lawrence, Manhattan, and Stillwater of all places have already been overtaken by the urban-style student housing craze. Especially Little Apple.


It didn't say where, I wonder if they will cater these developments to students or the general public.

----------


## G.Walker

Spartan, I wouldn't be surprised if some of these high density residential developments end up in UNP in Village Center. I just don't think its a coincidence that now all of a sudden the city is getting requests for high density residential ordinances shortly after confirmation that Legacy Park is finally moving forward, and 250,000 sqft of retail is coming. If you remember the first vision of UNP was supposed to be this mixed used mecca.

----------


## ou48A

IMHO there would be some demand for very high end condos near OU (with in easy walking distance) but not too close to the rail road tracks. 
The question is where?

----------


## G.Walker

> IMHO there would be some demand for very high end condos near OU (with in easy walking distance) but not too close to the rail road tracks. 
> The question is where?


I doubt it, most college students can't afford to live in high end condos.

----------


## ou48A

> I doubt it, most college students can't afford to live in high end condos.


I don’t think the demand would be great but I do think there may be a few endowed professors and wealthy OU alumni that might be interested.

----------


## soonerliberal

Not only are there some wealthy alumni and professors who might be interested, but keep in mind that OU has a substantial out of state student population.  Many of these students come from high income households.  There are many parents who might be interested in purchasing an investment property for their kids and to keep after they graduate for various reasons.

----------


## Spartan

> I doubt it, most college students can't afford to live in high end condos.


The Stillwater model that has really taken off (they're going to have four developments like this one soon) is like this:


http://www.stillwaterflats.com/

The Aggieville area of Manhattan has a lot of these kind of developments also.

----------


## ou48A

> Not only are there some wealthy alumni and professors who might be interested, but keep in mind that OU has a substantial out of state student population.  Many of these students come from high income households.  There are many parents who might be interested in purchasing an investment property for their kids and to keep after they graduate for various reasons.


I hadn’t thought about that from that angle but there have normally been some very wealthy students from the Middle East who are enrolled in OU’s energy programs.


There are also a few very wealthy OU alumni that own very nice homes in Norman and only use them on football game weak ends and for a few other events per year.

Several years ago there was talk of high end condos being built south east of the duck pond.
IMHO it would probably be better if they were much closer to the campus corner area.

----------


## Spartan

You guys have pretty much touched on the demographics that the Boyd lofts are targeting. 

I don't think that is the archetypical project we are talking about, however. They need to find a way to make urban-styled housing out of economical, probably prefabricated parts that can be leased around $400-500/mo and compete with all the student housing east of campus. 

I think the key for high-density housing in a college town is economic diversity while maintaining reasonable building standards.

As for the Legacy Park, I drove by the other day and saw it shaping up decently. It looks like the park-frontage is taken up by the nicest looking Discount Tire I have ever seen. I'm going to go ahead and guess there won't be a Discount Tire on the ground floor and housing above the car garage lol.

----------


## Superhyper

Was anyone able to make it to yesterday's meeting? I intended to go but ended up getting sick, so I had to miss it  :Frown:

----------


## kevinpate

> I doubt it, most college students can't afford to live in high end condos.


Broaden your thinking.  Several nice homes in Norman over the years where someone bought the place, parked their college aged child in it, permitted he or she to have a few roommates to assist with or  cover the mortgage, then either sold it or hired a mgmt. firm to continue leasing it out once their babydult graduated or repeated the process with a younger sib.  Done right, it's a far better deal than paying dorm rent or housing for the pride and joy.

----------


## king183

Well, my long-held fears of Norman going down the tubes have picked up renewed energy in the recent weeks. As you all may know, there have recently been several proposals to build high density apartments or condos in Norman.  Since Norman has no high density codes or regulations, the city is beginning discussion on how to form the ordinance to deal with high density development.  At the first few discussions, Norman's liberal core came out against it. It appears they organized their opposition long ago. Some of the reasons they gave would have made some of you die of laughter. One said high density development would ruin privacy because people living in the development would be able to see into everyone's backyards; another said they didn't want Norman to become like New York City.  Norman's core liberals seem to think high density development is a conspiracy by evil, conservative developers. 

To make matters worse, I now see Norman's Tea Party is beginning to organize against it as well.  They claim high density is just a front to implement "Agenda 21."  In Norman, every single thing is a conspiracy to implement Agenda 21 to the Tea Party. 

So, we now have the strange bedfellows scenario playing out, where Tea Party activists join forces with the core liberals to oppose high density development.  It should surprise none of you that they don't understand a thing about high density, pro or con.

----------


## blangtang

Where are these density projects going to be located, I mean are there specific locations?

----------


## king183

> Where are these density projects going to be located, I mean are there specific locations?


There have been multiple proposals, but the only one I know the location of is on Boyd, east of Campus Corner. It would be across from (west of) the Mont, where those old apartments currently stand.  I'll confirm that and get back to you on it. I believe there is also one proposed for downtown Norman.

Edited to correct one of the proposal locations.

----------


## ljbab728

Strange that someone should equate being against high density living with liberals.  I've never heard that before.  That's normally more of a conservative mantra.

----------


## dankrutka

> Strange that someone should equate being against high density living with liberals.  I've never heard that before.  That's normally more of a conservative mantra.


This. This seems like a conservative complaint.

----------


## mcca7596

Echoing the sentiment, never in a million years would I have thought that liberals would think high-density housing was a conservative conspiracy.

----------


## king183

> Strange that someone should equate being against high density living with liberals.  I've never heard that before.  That's normally more of a conservative mantra.


I was very surprised by it myself, yet that's where the majority of the vocal opposition has come from so far.

----------


## venture

I think Norman has to be careful in where they allow these developments. The main objective though should be to establish density in core areas. I would say that Downtown Norman should have priority right now and later the campus area. If anything, permit high density/high rise condos/apartments in downtown and then use it as a launching pad for street car transit system from there to campus. Once Downtown has had time to fill out and redevelop fully, then look at adding additional areas.

----------


## ou48A

It seems logical the demand for high density living would go up as you get closer to campus.
But available land is at a premium.

I would be surprised if OU wouldn’t jump at the opportunity to buy any available property south of Boyd and west of the railroad tracks. OU has demolished several structures on the north east side of campus this spring and summer to add additional parking.
 I’m sure they will eventually build something on this newly cleared land. But OU will likely need new more room in this area.

----------


## ou48A

One of the hot button developments was an apartment complex at NW 36th and Tecumseh. 
It looks like its being opposed by virtually everyone living in that part of town.

----------


## king183

> One of the hot button developments was an apartment complex at NW 36th and Tecumseh. 
> It looks like its being opposed by virtually everyone living in that part of town.


Just so everyone is clear: That complex and the debate surrounding it is separate from the high density issue (the proposed complex isn't high density).

----------


## venture

> Just so everyone is clear: That complex and the debate surrounding it is separate from the high density issue (the proposed complex isn't high density).


Exactly. We are talking high density developments in this thread that Norman doesn't have yet. Let's try not to muddy the discussion that has already been hashed out in other threads. They aren't related.

----------


## Just the facts

> I think Norman has to be careful in where they allow these developments. The main objective though should be to establish density in core areas. I would say that Downtown Norman should have priority right now and later the campus area. If anything, permit high density/high rise condos/apartments in downtown and then use it as a launching pad for street car transit system from there to campus. Once Downtown has had time to fill out and redevelop fully, then look at adding additional areas.


Sounds good to me.  Of course, this is going to require the medium density single family homes around downtown to give way to higher density uses, but that is the way urban development is supposed to work.

----------


## ou48A

> Just so everyone is clear: That complex and the debate surrounding it is separate from the high density issue (the proposed complex isn't high density).



Please explain? I have been told that the developers were pushing the idea that it was of a higher density, thinking that it might help sell the project to certain people who might have influence in the approval process.
Thanks

----------


## Questor

I think the complex that has been proposed on Tecumseh (proposed as "medium density") is important to this discussion from the standpoint that, at least right now, there is no plan whatsoever when it comes to density in Norman.  As far as I can tell there is nothing to stop someone from loading up high density right next to low density anywhere in the city, assuming the developer has or could get the proper zoning.  So the reason the Tecumseh development is significant is that it highlights it is possible that Norman, without proper planning, could end up with a dead core full of single story businesses and sprawling home additions, and strange Franken-suburbs of high and low density convoluted development all around the periphery if we're not careful.  Basically a backwards plan if that happens, or if everything is just a big mess of multiple types of density everywhere then no plan at all.

Along these same lines, I think that many home owners are already thinking exactly this, and the comment they are making, which I think has been misconstrued in this thread, is really that they don't want clusters of development and they don't want a bunch of single story low density houses butting up against a multi-story tower of people, with large numbers of windows peering into their backyards and into their private lives.  It's not a "liberal" issue, it's an "anyone who owns a home in Norman" issue.  The city council needs to address this because it is going to grow into the #1 hot button of homeowners here; they are going to come for the council with proverbial pitchforks and torches if they don't consider it adequately.  What you are seeing at various planning meetings... people of wildly different economic and political backgrounds banding together against this issue... isn't a strange anomaly but is in fact a strong indicator of the widespread opposition to what is going on, or what is feared to be happening in Norman.  When the average "normal" person takes notice it is going to get much more heated and only worse for city politicians.  Hopefully they are realizing this and will give an issue of this magnitude the proper deliberation and planning that it deserves.

----------


## venture

Questor...good points and I pretty much agree with you.

Side comment. OMG use periods. LOL That first sentence in the second paragraph was rough.  :Wink:

----------


## king183

I don't think anyone said this was a "liberal issue," though I did say that liberals from the core of Norman have been the most outspoken against it at the community discussions.  That just seems odd to me, personally. They also are making different points from Questor. They are fearful that Norman is going to become too big: besides the person who said she didn't want Norman to become like NYC, there were others who said they didn't want the population increase they believe will come with high density; they didn't want more bars they assume will come with high density; they didn't want more traffic they assume will accompany high density; and they wanted to keep Norman "family friendly."

Further, what I'm hearing at these discussions is not a fear of "Franken suburbs," but a fear of high density in the places its most logical to be (i.e., downtown Norman or near campus).  In fact, at these meetings there have been repeated suggestions by opponents of these HD developments that, if we do build high density, then it should go out "on the edges of the city"-- that is, nearer the single story homes, which would create the Franken suburb referred to earlier.

It sounds like more people need to attend these discussions to get their points out there.

----------


## soonerliberal

Norman seems to be a very unique situation when it comes to demographics and planning.

First, the demographics are all over the place. Norman west of I-35 is very much a traditional suburb in that it has high-middle to upper class housing and income levels and a significant amount of commuters to the larger city to the north.  East Norman is a mix of middle income suburban community with a suburban college town feel.  Central Norman is all over the place - diverse incomes, demographics, and cultures.  Not to mention... there is also very much a college town feel in the central area.

Because of the diversity of the city, there are a million different interests that are competing, not always along political and ideological lines.  West Normanites, conservative or liberal, are more likely to be interested in the fastest route to drive to work.  Central Normanites might be more inclined to support rail due to the proximity to Downtown, not because of their ideology.

I am of the opinion that higher density that is done right can be very valuable to the community as a whole.  I would love to see the area from Campus Corner to Downtown become much denser with developments similar to the athletic dorms on Jenkins or Level in OKC.  As I have mentioned before, I believe the demographics and desire are there to make it work, but unlike the University, city developments are much more bureaucratic in nature.

----------


## Just the facts

> ... they didn't want more traffic they assume will accompany high density...


ROFLMAO.  Do they not understand where traffic comes from?  The average household starts their car 13 times a day.  They start their car to get from where they live to the places they need to go.  If the places they live and the places they need to go are closer together they don't need a car for that, they can walk.  The less people need to drive the less traffic there is.  Why is that hard to figure out?

But alas, Norman is suburb so it is little surprise that the average citizen has a suburban state of mind.  So they go about widening roads that make it easier to drive, which leads to more sprawl, so the traffic returns to the previous state of congestion, and the process repeats.

----------


## ou48A

> I think the complex that has been proposed on Tecumseh (proposed as "medium density") is important to this discussion from the standpoint that, at least right now, there is no plan whatsoever when it comes to density in Norman.  As far as I can tell there is nothing to stop someone from loading up high density right next to low density anywhere in the city, assuming the developer has or could get the proper zoning.  So the reason the Tecumseh development is significant is that it highlights it is possible that Norman, without proper planning, could end up with a dead core full of single story businesses and sprawling home additions, and strange Franken-suburbs of high and low density convoluted development all around the periphery if we're not careful.  Basically a backwards plan if that happens, or if everything is just a big mess of multiple types of density everywhere then no plan at all.
> 
> Along these same lines, I think that many home owners are already thinking exactly this, and the comment they are making, which I think has been misconstrued in this thread, is really that they don't want clusters of development and they don't want a bunch of single story low density houses butting up against a multi-story tower of people, with large numbers of windows peering into their backyards and into their private lives.  It's not a "liberal" issue, it's an "anyone who owns a home in Norman" issue.  The city council needs to address this because it is going to grow into the #1 hot button of homeowners here; they are going to come for the council with proverbial pitchforks and torches if they don't consider it adequately.  What you are seeing at various planning meetings... people of wildly different economic and political backgrounds banding together against this issue... isn't a strange anomaly but is in fact a strong indicator of the widespread opposition to what is going on, or what is feared to be happening in Norman.  When the average "normal" person takes notice it is going to get much more heated and only worse for city politicians.  Hopefully they are realizing this and will give an issue of this magnitude the proper deliberation and planning that it deserves.


Thanks Questor. I had not heard the term “medium density” used to describe the proposed development in question.
 I agree with the rest of your post. There is a place for medium / high density developments and places not to put them. 
Clearly this is not going to be a business as usual deal in Norman. 
The people will be in serious revolt if elected city leaders do not handle this well.

----------


## ou48A

The best example of newly built high density development that I have seen near a major campus is in Lubbock just east of their football stadium. It’s very nice. Nearby they are also building brand new version of campus corner that was still a work in process.
I drove all over Manhattan KS near their campus  this past fall and did not see anything new that was as nice or near as big as what I saw in Lubbock.

The land south of Duck pond is about the only place where large scale development similar to what they have done in Lubbock could occur near OU. Obviously OU would need to cooperate if this land was developed similarly.

----------


## ou48A

> Norman seems to be a very unique situation when it comes to demographics and planning.
> 
> First, the demographics are all over the place. Norman west of I-35 is very much a traditional suburb in that it has high-middle to upper class housing and income levels and a significant amount of commuters to the larger city to the north.  East Norman is a mix of middle income suburban community with a suburban college town feel.  Central Norman is all over the place - diverse incomes, demographics, and cultures.  Not to mention... there is also very much a college town feel in the central area.
> 
> Because of the diversity of the city, there are a million different interests that are competing, not always along political and ideological lines.  West Normanites, conservative or liberal, are more likely to be interested in the fastest route to drive to work.  Central Normanites might be more inclined to support rail due to the proximity to Downtown, not because of their ideology.
> 
> I am of the opinion that higher density that is done right can be very valuable to the community as a whole.  I would love to see the area from Campus Corner to Downtown become much denser with developments similar to the athletic dorms on Jenkins or Level in OKC.  As I have mentioned before, I believe the demographics and desire are there to make it work, but unlike the University, city developments are much more bureaucratic in nature.


Your assessment of the various parts of Norman is spot on.
Parts of Norman are a true commuter suburban town while other parts are just as you describe with different needs.

 There is no reason why we shouldn’t try to enhance life in various part of town based on their individual needs.

----------


## Spartan

I agree with that. On that desire to treat unique parts of Norman differently, I think it's important to keep higher-density apartments out of West Norman. I don't think they need that kind of unnecessary development in that area, and that density could be put to better use in Central Norman.

----------


## king183

> The land south of Duck pond is about the only place where large scale development similar to what they have done in Lubbock could occur near OU. Obviously OU would need to cooperate if this land was developed similarly.


I think I remember reading that OU planned some medium to high density housing in that area. I don't know if that's still the plan, but it would fit in well with the redesign of that part of Lindsey.

----------


## ou48A

> I think I remember reading that OU planned some medium to high density housing in that area. I don't know if that's still the plan, but it would fit in well with the redesign of that part of Lindsey.


At one time there was a plan to build condos in that area. I think it was about 2006.
They used the condos as a reason to demolish the old apartment housing in that area. That’s where the OU KSU football game bomber lived.

I remember trying talking my wife into buying one of these condos with no luck at all. LOL

----------


## Questor

> I don't think anyone said this was a "liberal issue," though I did say that liberals from the core of Norman have been the most outspoken against it at the community discussions.  That just seems odd to me, personally. They also are making different points from Questor. They are fearful that Norman is going to become too big: besides the person who said she didn't want Norman to become like NYC, there were others who said they didn't want the population increase they believe will come with high density; they didn't want more bars they assume will come with high density; they didn't want more traffic they assume will accompany high density; and they wanted to keep Norman "family friendly."
> 
> Further, what I'm hearing at these discussions is not a fear of "Franken suburbs," but a fear of high density in the places its most logical to be (i.e., downtown Norman or near campus).  In fact, at these meetings there have been repeated suggestions by opponents of these HD developments that, if we do build high density, then it should go out "on the edges of the city"-- that is, nearer the single story homes, which would create the Franken suburb referred to earlier.
> 
> It sounds like more people need to attend these discussions to get their points out there.


This surprises me and here is why:  all of these meetings have been breaking up into tables, and notes are being kept by each table's facilitator indicating what different folks at each table are saying.  Also, there are video recordings of each of these meetings available on the city's website.  When I look through the round-table minutes from the "location and compatibility of high density" meeting, I only see a few bullets that partain to the far-flung areas of Norman, or comments that say "no where at all."  Most of the bullets seem reasonable to me, and are aligned with the types of things I and others have said in this thread.  Am I misinterpreting these minutes?

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/sites/def...-%206-2812.pdf

For anyone interested, here are the videos, presentation materials, and minutes to all of the meetings so far:

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/cm/high-d...ity-discussion

I guess I find your comments more concerning than anything else.  I take it you have been attending these meetings, and it concerns me that your description of what you are seeing, versus what the city is actually recording in the minutes (or at least how I am interpreting them), is so different.  If you work for the city, then that concerns me even more.

Perhaps this means the city's processes it is using for this are flawed.  Either that or maybe your perception is different than what is actually happening, I don't know.  When I look through the minutes the common themes I keep reading are that the area around OU, Campus Corner, downtown, and UNP could support high-density, and that the quaintness of other areas of the city should be preserved.  I also see discussion about rail and building-up density along a desired rail path.  All of this seems reasonable to me.  You're saying this isn't what is being said _by the majority of people_ at the meetings?

Your comments are also inconsistent with what representatives from my HOA, who are attending and monitoring all meetings, have been reporting in email to the entire addition.  Again, concerning.

----------


## Questor

> Thanks Questor. I had not heard the term “medium density” used to describe the proposed development in question.
>  I agree with the rest of your post. There is a place for medium / high density developments and places not to put them. 
> Clearly this is not going to be a business as usual deal in Norman. 
> The people will be in serious revolt if elected city leaders do not handle this well.


My HOA says that representatives of the developer used that term when contacted by them.  In reality I have no idea what "medium density" really is or if it can be quantified in any way.  Honestly, sounds like weasel-words to me... trying to appeal to both the low and high density crowd via BS.

----------


## Questor

I think I have gotten some mailings from the OU Foundation in the recent past about the desire to build condos near the duck pond.  I think this idea has just been delayed for various reasons, but is still planned.  If I can find the literature I'll scan it in and post it here.

----------


## Questor

> Questor...good points and I pretty much agree with you.
> 
> Side comment. OMG use periods. LOL That first sentence in the second paragraph was rough.


Sorry, I think I was enjoying a frosty beverage as I wrote that.   :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## ou48A

> I think I have gotten some mailings from the OU Foundation in the recent past about the desire to build condos near the duck pond.  I think this idea has just been delayed for various reasons, but is still planned.  If I can find the literature I'll scan it in and post it here.


I know I received something from the OU Foundation about these condos several years ago.
 I have since thrown it away. It would be interesting to hear an update.

----------


## king183

> This surprises me and here is why:  all of these meetings have been breaking up into tables, and notes are being kept by each table's facilitator indicating what different folks at each table are saying.  Also, there are video recordings of each of these meetings available on the city's website.  When I look through the round-table minutes from the "location and compatibility of high density" meeting, I only see a few bullets that partain to the far-flung areas of Norman, or comments that say "no where at all."  Most of the bullets seem reasonable to me, and are aligned with the types of things I and others have said in this thread.  Am I misinterpreting these minutes?
> 
> http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/sites/def...-%206-2812.pdf
> 
> For anyone interested, here are the videos, presentation materials, and minutes to all of the meetings so far:
> 
> http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/cm/high-d...ity-discussion
> 
> I guess I find your comments more concerning than anything else.  I take it you have been attending these meetings, and it concerns me that your description of what you are seeing, versus what the city is actually recording in the minutes (or at least how I am interpreting them), is so different.  If you work for the city, then that concerns me even more.
> ...


No, I didn't say that at all. Please re-read what I wrote.

And, yes, I've attended the meetings and would say the minutes do not fully reflect the extent or nature of the opposition, nor do I really expect them to given that they are just bullets.  I encourage you attend the next one and you'll see what I mean regarding the opposition.

(EDIT: And, by the way, the city isn't recording the minutes. The professional group running the meetings is, so I don't blame "the city.")

----------


## G.Walker

"Looks like" Richard Mckown is the one proposing high density living in Norman:

http://m.normantranscript.com/norman...tguid=RwGGEKxS

----------


## johnpwoods

he's not proposing it, he was just commenting on it.  He isnt involved in either project that is currently on the drawing board.  He is a wealth of knowledge on the topic though, and Norman would be fortunate if we had a LEVEL type/quality project come in.

----------


## G.Walker

> he's not proposing it, he was just commenting on it.  He isnt involved in either project that is currently on the drawing board.  He is a wealth of knowledge on the topic though, and Norman would be fortunate if we had a LEVEL type/quality project come in.


Thanks for the clarification.

----------


## king183

If any of you would like an example of the delusional opposition to high density in Norman, check out this post.  High density is a conspiracy to make us all use public transportation and enforce federal government desires.

http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2012...ialog-charade/

----------


## dankrutka

Wow. The comments by the dissenting city council members are ridiculous:

http://newsok.com/norman-city-counci...rticle/3701143

----------


## Just the facts

> If any of you would like an example of the delusional opposition to high density in Norman, check out this post.  High density is a conspiracy to make us all use public transportation and enforce federal government desires.
> 
> http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2012...ialog-charade/


Holy crap!  I guess some people are going to have to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming.  The fantasy world that the guy who wrote that is living in (aka urban sprawl) was all paid for by massive debt and we can't afford to sustain it.  So really, it doesn't matter what he thinks, we can't afford his world.

----------


## soonerliberal

> Wow. The comments by the dissenting city council members are ridiculous:
> 
> http://newsok.com/norman-city-counci...rticle/3701143


This is a great FIRST step for Norman... Hopefully their silly "concerns" will be alleviated once they actually see what is proposed.

----------


## Just the facts

> This is a great FIRST step for Norman... Hopefully their silly "concerns" will be alleviated once they actually see what is proposed.


That is what I love about all the progress being made in downtown OKC.  It will be an example to the rest of the metro area.

----------


## Questor

I am actually for this development, but I agree with the dissenting council members... I wish the council would have kicked the decision out another 30 days.  I understand that this was just medium density, but a lot of people will not.  I don't see how this doesn't do anything but disenfranchise people.  If the city really wants people commenting and participating in their density discussions, then they have to realize that regardless of how many units this thing really is that the perception is going to be that the city doesn't care what its constituents think and is going to do what it wants.  That never leads to good outcomes....

----------


## kevinpate

But pandering to people who oppose A, and are simply confused that B is a different critter altogether, only opens the door to folks getting their hopes up wrongly and enhances later disappointment needlessly.

High density opponents ought to be heard on high density issues.  But when they are against something else because they confuse it with high density, it is not incorrect for the elected folks to do their danged jobs and politely make it clear along the way that this is not that.

----------


## BG918

Are there any renderings for the Boyd Street Lofts?  I assume this will be built on the vacant lot at the NW corner.  I wonder if they will do parallel parking along Boyd or angled like it is further west, or any street parking at all.  I assume the building will come up to the sidewalk.

----------


## Just the facts

It seems many of the people in Norman aren't in favor of the new high density housing.  Reading the story put out today makes me realize how simple-minded some people are.

http://newsok.com/norman-residents-w...rticle/3706844




> “I don't think the city is asking straightforward questions about it. I'm asking simple yes-or-no questions. Do you or do you not want these type of developments? Do you want them in your neighborhood?” Coker said.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> “People have turned out for these meetings because they are very protective of their neighborhoods,” Councilwoman Linda Lockett said. “They don't want these type of developments to change the character of their neighborhood or the city as a whole.”


For the love of Pete, don't they realize that by spreading Norman out all over the place they are destroying whatever quality of life items they have grown to love in Norman?  It is really pretty simple - Norman is going to grow so you have to decide where all those new people are going to live.  They can live in 100 units per acre or in 10 units per acre.  I don't understand how anyone can think the low density route is going to 'protect' Norman neighborhoods.  From a simple supply and demand view single family home owners in Norman shouldn't want anymore single family homes.

----------


## G.Walker

This is just the minority, the majority of the people in Norman accept high-density development, but they want design restrictions implemented. Ultimately, its up to the Norman City Council to make the final decision, which I think the majority of the council is in favor of such developments, including Mayor Rosenthal. Mayor Rosenthal is very urban minded, she was actually a professor of mine in my Public Policy Analysis class when I was working on my MPA at OU a few years ago. She is really pro urban, I don't see high-density residential development in Norman having any problem being implemented.

----------


## Just the facts

G. Walker - I hope you're right, but that doesn't mean some people are still not extra stupid.

----------


## ou48A

There are parts of Norman that are well suited for this type of development but there are other parts that are not.

 I believe the majority understands this and would like to see that the development is done in a ways that fit the need of different parts of town.

----------


## BG918

> There are parts of Norman that are well suited for this type of development but there are other parts that are not.
> 
>  I believe the majority understands this and would like to see that the development is done in a ways that fit the need of different parts of town.


Central Norman between Main, Elm, Constitution and Classen being the best places for such development.  That is already a higher density part of town that can support additional high density, especially residential around OU with commercial in the downtown area.

----------


## Just the facts

It is hard to believe that something like this is currently illegal in Norman.

----------


## Just the facts

> Where is the property rights crowd?


Silence from them as all of a sudden what someone does on their own property has an impact on them. However, tell them that building a 4 lanes road out to their country estate isn't cost effective and they will come out of the wood work.  Wierd how that works.

----------


## CaptDave

> Silence from them as all of a sudden what someone does on their own property has an impact on them. However, tell them that building a 4 lanes road out to their country estate isn't cost effective and they will come out of the wood work.  Wierd how that works.


Touch - but none of those individuals will recognize the disconnect in their thinking.

----------


## Just the facts

> Touch - but none of those individuals will recognize the disconnect in their thinking.


I posted this in the General Urban Development section but it applies here as well.

Warning: does contain graphic language 4 times.

----------


## Questor

> It is hard to believe that something like this is currently illegal in Norman.


On the first picture, I'd love to see something like that in Norman.  I think the sad reality is, though, that if that were approved... in the end... it would look nothing like that.  I've seen too many things go wrong with UNP and other things around town to think anything but that.  Also, I want to correct you on what you just said -- developments like this are not and have not been illegal in Norman.  The city is simply not processing any requests to the planning commission until they come up with a land use plan.  It remains to be seen what the outcome of that will be.

You might be surprised to learn that Norman has had some mixed use retail (of similar size and configuration to what you just posted) developed over the last few years.  It's probably the reason why some are opposed to anything new... it's only a few years old and it already looks like crap, there is very little survivable retail on the first floor, and it seems like it attracts nothing but transient college students.  That's just a sad reality.  The development in question includes a second identical structure to the south, multiple stand-alone condos behind it, and another row of slightly different units behind that.  I don't remember the number of units off the top of my head.

Blah.jpg


I think the key to the high density meetings at city hall is having a real and honest discussion about the crap they let builders get away with in this town, and a promise at limiting that nonsense for developments like this.

Regarding your second photo... I don't understand.  I see a single, stand-alone big box that is three stories.  It doesn't appear to me to have any mix of retail... looks like it is all residential to me.  At best this would be medium density according to how the city categorizes things.  These types of developments are still moving forward and were not frozen as part of the high density discussions.  Anyway, I Google'd "Scott Court" from the image and it is basically campus lodging, which can be a large complex of shared apartments, condo developments, and so forth.  We already have a lot of that in Norman, so I don't understand your point.  Other than aesthetics, how is that any different than Crimson Park, Campus Lodge, The Edge, etc. which were all built here within the last 10 years?  I agree the picture you posted looks pretty, but as far as function and configuration goes I think we have plenty of these developments around town already.  I also think the average permanent resident is probably not impressed with any of them.

A photo of one of the campus housing complexes built in the last few years (this is a very generous photo):

photo.jpg 


Just trying to understand where you are coming from.  Not seeing it in this one.

Just to restate my viewpoint in case it isn't clear, it is that I like high density, but I don't think Norman developers know what they are doing and I don't think the city has the balls to enforce any codes or ordinances against them to prevent a giant trashy apartment apocalypse in this town.  I am only getting that out of the way right now because I don't want to be hit over the head with replies about how great high density is... you're preaching to the choir.  I'd just rather not see it in Norman unless they can man up and learn how to do it right.

----------


## mcca7596

Questor, the main problem with the place in the first picture that you posted is that it doesn't interact with the street and the setback is too large.

----------


## kevinpate

> There are parts of Norman that are well suited for this type of development but there are other parts that are not.
> 
>  I believe the majority understands this and would like to see that the development is done in a ways that fit the need of different parts of town.



aka NIMBY, irrespective of any particular topic de jour.

----------


## Just the facts

> Also, I want to correct you on what you just said -- developments like this are not and have not been illegal in Norman.


Norman has a maximum density of 26 units per acre.  Anything more than that are not allowed.  To get around that they have to build radiant structures (like your first picture) - and those have failed around the world since they day they were conceived.

----------


## ou48A

> aka NIMBY, irrespective of any particular topic de jour.



There are some things that are ok… but others that are not. Most of this is simple common sense.
 Kind of like not putting a strip joint in next to a grade school.

----------


## Questor

> Questor, the main problem with the place in the first picture that you posted is that it doesn't interact with the street and the setback is too large.


Yeah I think so too.

----------


## Questor

> Norman has a maximum density of 26 units per acre.  Anything more than that are not allowed.  To get around that they have to build radiant structures (like your first picture) - and those have failed around the world since they day they were conceived.


NewsOK article wasn't exactly right.  Items zoned RO, small lot, are allowed up to 33/acre, while RO large lot up to 43/acre.  RO is mixed use and those values are for residential only; commercial does not contribute to the value.

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/planning/zoning-summary

Here's something interesting... OKC's zoning definitions.  Their medium-density R-3 maxes out at 23/acre.  This is comparable to Norman's RM-6 21/acre.  What's interesting about the OKC list is that only one actually talks about mixed use... the Bricktown Core Development (BC) district, and density isn't even mentioned on this summary sheet.  The words "high density" appear no where in OKC's zoning lexicon.

http://www.okc.gov/Planning/code/On-...finitions.html

I'm not pointing all of this out to win some online argument.  I am simply saying I think that OKC and Norman codes are not all that different, and yet I am generally much happier with developments in OKC than I am Norman.  I don't think that pointing to Norman's code and saying it's the problem is really a root cause.  And regardless of all of this I think if someone wanted to they could buy up enough land in Norman to meet the requirements of RO, could place the residential close to the street corner, could load up retail on the first and possibly second floors to drop density per acre, and could use the empty space behind for a parking garage if they wanted to.  There are always creative ways to do what you want to do and meet code.

----------


## Questor

Also I wanted to point out that Norman's PUD zone definition pretty much allows a free for all, depending on the whims of the planning commission and other city entities.

Zoning ordinance text, page 10:

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/sites/def...%207-31-12.pdf

Could Norman's zoning actually be more progressive than OKC's?

----------


## Just the facts

Personally I don't even like segregated zoning.  Mixed use should be allowed everywhere.  The only requirment (other than heavy industrial) should be that buildings are about the same scale, regardless of use.

----------


## HangryHippo

It appears Norman has decided to squash could be a sizable development opportunity:

http://normantranscript.com/headline...gh-density-yet

Really great that we get architecture grads with the drive to build something that looks very nice and then squander it because some people might get upset about a little density.

----------


## Spartan

I am really surprised. It looks like Stillwater and Manhattan are going to build up way before Norman.

----------


## BG918

Is high density development allowed anywhere in Norman, like downtown?  Is it a problem because it's in a single family neighborhood, even though there are apartments in the vicinity?  That whole area from Boyd to Brooks in between the tracks and Jenkins should be zoned for high density.  If a commuter line is started there will likely be a stop there so perfect place for TOD.

----------


## Spartan

How were the Boyd lofts approved,many the East Village? Boyd has no mixed-use

----------


## ljbab728

Norman has not decided to squash that kind of development.  According to this article they want standard development guidelines to be in place first.  I don't see that as unreasonable.

Norman City Council rejects high-density housing proposal | NewsOK.com

----------


## HangryHippo

> Norman has not decided to squash that kind of development.  According to this article they want standard development guidelines to be in place first.  I don't see that as unreasonable.
> 
> Norman City Council rejects high-density housing proposal | NewsOK.com


Go back and read what I actually wrote about Norman squashing this development OPPORTUNITY.  I have no problem with wanting standard development guidelines being in place and don't find that unreasonable either, but the houses that this development would replace need replacing.  They are rundown and I don't see the problem with approving something dense for an area that surrounds the university.  The developers said they would meet whatever aesthetic requirements Norman wanted them to but that they needed the density to make it work.  How often does Norman see proposals willing to make that kind of agreement?  I strongly believe this should have been approved.  When are we going to actually see the new guidelines?  At some reasonable time when the developer might still be willing to come back with this proposal?  Probably not.

----------


## ou48A

> Is high density development allowed anywhere in Norman, like downtown?  Is it a problem because it's in a single family neighborhood, even though there are apartments in the vicinity?  That whole area from Boyd to Brooks in between the tracks and Jenkins should be zoned for high density.  If a commuter line is started there will likely be a stop there so perfect place for TOD.


I would agree that this would be a good area for high density development however there have been persistent rumors that OU would eventually like to use most of this land “ from Boyd to Brooks in between the tracks and Jenkins”.
I have heard that OU would like to eventually build a new basketball arena, a new baseball park, parking garages and more academic space in this area. 
The area just east of the tracks where there are  a number of older mostly rental  homes has good street access and would  have good access to a commuter rail station.

This would tie in well if the city ever built a partly elevated Front street project that would run from the campus area to all the way north past Robinson to connect with Flood street. It would run on the west side of the tracks.

----------


## kevinpate

I enjoyed my time at OU, even though it wasn't typical undergrad time.  That said, if OU has designs on land for future expansion purposes, then OU ought to actually acquire the land, or at minimum hold an option on it.  If not, the land is, and ought to be, freely available for any willing seller/buyer transaction that comes along. 

I can't think of a better location in Norman for high density residential than easy walking distance to the heart of campus. I had a relative live in one of the older rentals just off this area back in the late, late 80's.  It was fugly as all get out, but it was also dirt cheap .. a big gelling point since he was also maintaining a household back home and each week he spent almost as many nights back home as he spent in Norman.

----------


## ljbab728

> Go back and read what I actually wrote about Norman squashing this development OPPORTUNITY.  I have no problem with wanting standard development guidelines being in place and don't find that unreasonable either, but the houses that this development would replace need replacing.  They are rundown and I don't see the problem with approving something dense for an area that surrounds the university.  The developers said they would meet whatever aesthetic requirements Norman wanted them to but that they needed the density to make it work.  How often does Norman see proposals willing to make that kind of agreement?  I strongly believe this should have been approved.  When are we going to actually see the new guidelines?  At some reasonable time when the developer might still be willing to come back with this proposal?  Probably not.


I certainly not questioning that this may have been a good opportunity.  The problem, as I see it, is that without specific guidelines in place they may be setting precedents that could be used later by other developers to demand similar types of developments even if they don't meet some new guidelines.  If that area is a good fit for that kind of development developers won't be forever put off by a delay to develop those guidelines.

----------


## HangryHippo

> I would agree that this would be a good area for high density development however there have been persistent rumors that OU would eventually like to use most of this land “ from Boyd to Brooks in between the tracks and Jenkins”.
> I have heard that OU would like to eventually build a new basketball arena, a new baseball park, parking garages and more academic space in this area. 
> The area just east of the tracks where there are  a number of older mostly rental  homes has good street access and would  have good access to a commuter rail station.
> 
> This would tie in well if the city ever built a partly elevated Front street project that would run from the campus area to all the way north past Robinson to connect with Flood street. It would run on the west side of the tracks.


OU48A, you seem to regularly be in the know about the rumors regarding OU, but I have never heard so much as one word about the possibility of any of this.  While I'm certainly not trying to call you out, what would they do with the existing facilities if they did build new stuff in this area north of Boyd?  And why would they expand north?  That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me.  They have a tremendous amount of land to the south, especially around Constitution in the area they've been clearing off the old barracks and apartments.

Also, I think kevinpate has an excellent point.  If OU does hope to expand, they ought to actually acquire the land or it ought to be available to other entities that are interested.  This is probably a pipe dream, but I wish OU was more transparent about their hopes for the future.  I'm sure that would rile the NIMBYs, but I would like to have a better idea about what my alma mater wants to see for the future.

----------


## ou48A

> OU48A, you seem to regularly be in the know about the rumors regarding OU, but I have never heard so much as one word about the possibility of any of this.  While I'm certainly not trying to call you out, what would they do with the existing facilities if they did build new stuff in this area north of Boyd?  And why would they expand north?  That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me.  They have a tremendous amount of land to the south, especially around Constitution in the area they've been clearing off the old barracks and apartments.
> 
> Also, I think kevinpate has an excellent point.  If OU does hope to expand, they ought to actually acquire the land or it ought to be available to other entities that are interested.  This is probably a pipe dream, but I wish OU was more transparent about their hopes for the future.  I'm sure that would rile the NIMBYs, but I would like to have a better idea about what my alma mater wants to see for the future.


Most of this is a wish list at this point, in need of large amounts of money, not very much official has been done that I am aware of. 

But if you are familiar with this area you may already know that OU has been gradually buying up property east of Jenkins and north of Brooks. OU has already torn down houses, build parking lots, and park space in this area. This is only very slowly occurring. It makes sense to buy property as it naturally becomes available for sale. I have been told that the OU’s foundation probably owns more property in this area but that it is being rented out for now though a property management company and that it will be torn down when practical. 

There was a published report several years ago that talked about the possibility of a new basketball arena located at the NE corner of Jenkins and Brooks. This land is more centrally located than the vacant land on the south base. Building new high destination facility’s close to the football stadium and close to a commuter rail station with a large park and ride has several obvious advantages.

Having become better acquainted with things at OU in recent years I have learned that there are a lot of things that go on that never make the newspapers or much outside a certain circle of people and a lack of clarity is often the case. IMHO there are different factions in some cases that have different ideas.

But a narrow strip of condos / apartments along the tracks would help create a sound barrier for OU and still preserve large amounts of land for OU. I could see that.

----------


## Questor

If I'm reading that correctly, the Council is saying the request was denied and all requests will be denied until the issue of creating a master plan for high density is settled.  I don't know that this is a bad thing.

Also, who the heck are the Elsey brothers?  Does anyone know who they are, what they have gotten funded and built out to completion in the past, and so on?  Have they had successful high density developments elsewhere in the past?  Are they this project's architects, or are they guys with money looking to buy land and get something going on it by pairing up with others?  If the latter, who have they paired-up with in the past?  What are their construction, architectural, and developer connections?  

Just because somebody walks into city hall with an idea that doesn't mean such things should just be automatically approved....  I mean I have no idea who these people are... maybe the council doesn't either.  Does anyone here, and can you share some information if you do?  Have they previously approached city staff and worked with them on any plans?  Where are they?

----------


## HangryHippo

As I understand it, the Elsey brothers are architects from Kansas.  I know they have some carried out some developments in Manhattan, Kansas and Stillwater, Oklahoma.  I've not seen either development so I cannot comment on the quality of either.  I think they were the architects for this proposed development and not just the guys with the money for the land.

You're right.  But they did say they would be willing to work with the council on the aesthetics, but I'm just worried that the council won't develop an ordinance in a timely manner that will be friendly to this kind of development.  Does anyone know what the citizen meetings led to?  Is the council hoping to see quality density developments or did the NIMBYs win out, ultimately resulting in an ordinance unfriendly to density?

----------


## HangryHippo

> Most of this is a wish list at this point, in need of large amounts of money, not very much official has been done that I am aware of. 
> 
> But if you are familiar with this area you may already know that OU has been gradually buying up property east of Jenkins and north of Brooks. OU has already torn down houses, build parking lots, and park space in this area. This is only very slowly occurring. It makes sense to buy property as it naturally becomes available for sale. I have been told that the OU’s foundation probably owns more property in this area but that it is being rented out for now though a property management company and that it will be torn down when practical. 
> 
> There was a published report several years ago that talked about the possibility of a new basketball arena located at the NE corner of Jenkins and Brooks. This land is more centrally located than the vacant land on the south base. Building new high destination facility’s close to the football stadium and close to a commuter rail station with a large park and ride has several obvious advantages.
> 
> Having become better acquainted with things at OU in recent years I have learned that there are a lot of things that go on that never make the newspapers or much outside a certain circle of people and a lack of clarity is often the case. IMHO there are different factions in some cases that have different ideas.
> 
> But a narrow strip of condos / apartments along the tracks would help create a sound barrier for OU and still preserve large amounts of land for OU. I could see that.


Do you know where I could find the published report you mention?

----------


## ou48A

> Do you know where I could find the published report you mention?



I wish I could remember where I read it. But it was about 4 or 5 years ago and most likely in the Daily Oklahoma but I am not real sure, sorry. I am pretty sure it was more speculation than anything about what they would like to eventually do.

If you will Google a satellite map of this area you will see that OU already has decent size chunk of the land under its control that would be needed for a new arena. This is in an area bordered by Brooks on the south, Jenkins on the west, Trout on the east and University PI on the North. I drove though this area on Friday. It looked like most of the remaining homes in this area are in a state of poor repair. Some look like they should be condemned.

I strongly wish OU would be much more forthcoming about their long range construction goals and desires. I really hate it when they spend even a small amount of money on something only to tear it back out just a few years later.
 It would be more cost effective if they did and it also might help with their fund raising efforts.

----------


## HangryHippo

This article High density zoning district currently under consideration  Headlines  The Norman Transcript is pretty depressing.  The article states that "a growing demand for urban housing within a walkable distance to the university and/or ships and businesses is driving the high-density movement in Norman and follows a national trend of urban renewal."  However, our lame ass council can't get over protecting the charm of suburgatory.  I'm sorry but I really find all this reluctance to change frustrating as hell.  Why can't we agree that density is cool and that it's probably not going to just magically appear in the middle of their quaint neighborhoods, but rather in designated areas and with a great attention to detail and fit. Hell, it might even make more people want to live in Norman.

----------


## kevinpate

> ... Hell, it might even make more people want to live in Norman.


You do realize you have hit the fear nail rather squarely on its head?  There is a segment of Norman that recognizes many people want to live in Norman because of how it is but fear, rightly or wrongly is irrelevant as the fear is real to them, Norman will cease to be Norman if it grows too much or too fast. This group is not unorganized and even where they recognize certain aspects of Norman is warty, they like Norman as it is, warts and all.

----------


## HangryHippo

> You do realize you have hit the fear nail rather squarely on its head?  There is a segment of Norman that recognizes many people want to live in Norman because of how it is but fear, rightly or wrongly is irrelevant as the fear is real to them, Norman will cease to be Norman if it grows too much or too fast. This group is not unorganized and even where they recognize certain aspects of Norman is warty, they like Norman as it is, warts and all.


Oh yes, I realize it.  I do wish it weren't quite so though.

----------


## blangtang

The historic district folks want to limit "high density" to three stories, while a developer wants 75 feet.?! lol!

"A growing demand for urban housing within a walkable distance to the university and/or shops and businesses is driving the high density movement in Norman and follows a national trend of urban renewal. *But residents, especially those in Normans historic districts near where much of the high density construction requests are focused, are concerned about increased traffic, parking problems, and the potential for damaging the charm and character of existing single family neighborhoods*."

There are only 2 Historic Districts in Norman, the Classen Miller one and the Chautauqua one, and I don't understand how the Chautauqua one would be affected, unless the developers somehow re-jiggered the boundaries, which I doubt will happen.  

That Jungman guy quoted in the article lives in the Classen Miller district and I have a feeling those people are pissed off about that new suburban looking 2 story apartment called Monnett Garden, which is just west of the train tracks, south of Duffy, and east of Monnett.  

8285746646_968ab9f16a_m.jpg


8285738160_567e1868d4_m.jpg

I suppose I don't blame them too much since there was the LOFT 401 that is sort of creeping toward their 'hood.  Are these discussions reacting to phantom developments or have there been some actual proposals, I haven't been paying too close attention.

----------


## HangryHippo

There was a proposal by a developer made up of two brothers out of Kansas I think and they had proposed some housing north of Sarkey's off Boyd.  But these NIMBY clowns protested the hell out of it, apparently so they can keep the charm of the rundown homes that are currently there.

----------


## Bunty

> I am really surprised. It looks like Stillwater and Manhattan are going to build up way before Norman.


Surely, OSU's buyout of the rather large student ghetto just to the north of it has helped to stimulate development of two or so mid rise apartment complexes.  Development like that was needed to help discourage students from over crowding a rather old, but not real crappy, Westwood neighborhood just to the west of OSU, which has been a local issue of controversy.

----------


## Just the facts

> "A growing demand for urban housing within a walkable distance to the university and/or shops and businesses is driving the high density movement in Norman and follows a national trend of urban renewal. *But residents, especially those in Norman’s historic districts near where much of the high density construction requests are focused, are concerned about increased traffic, parking problems, and the potential for damaging the charm and character of existing single family neighborhoods*."


What is sad is that high density decreases traffic.  Eliminate the need for the car and you eliminate the car; eliminate the car and you eliminate traffic AND the need for parking.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> What is sad is that high density decreases traffic.  Eliminate the need for the car and you eliminate the car; eliminate the car and you eliminate traffic AND the need for parking.


So you want everyone to walk everywhere? When you need to go across the country you take a train? Like I said before I want a light rail in OKC more than anything but if I am imagining the world you are, it seems really boring to me. I think there need to be balance for people like me who like cars but also for people that want to use mass transit for their everyday travel and then there are those who make the best of both worlds.

----------


## Spartan

> There was a proposal by a developer made up of two brothers out of Kansas I think and they had proposed some housing north of Sarkey's off Boyd.  But these NIMBY clowns protested the hell out of it, apparently so they can keep the charm of the rundown homes that are currently there.


This. Elsey is a good developer..solid track record.

----------


## Just the facts

> So you want everyone to walk everywhere? When you need to go across the country you take a train? Like I said before I want a light rail in OKC more than anything but if I am imagining the world you are, it seems really boring to me. I think there need to be balance for people like me who like cars but also for people that want to use mass transit for their everyday travel and then there are those who make the best of both worlds.


Why would you want to drive your car if you lived in a high density area that had all your daily needs (and wants) within walking distance?  While I was in Philly I looked at some apartments and condos and The Phoenix as a pretty good marketing edge.  You can go anywhere in the world without stepping outside and no car needed.

Philadelphia Condominiums - The Phoenix :: Luxury Residences :: 1600 Arch Street

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Why would you want to drive your car if you lived in a high density area that had all your daily needs (and wants) within walking distance?  While I was in Philly I looked at some apartments and condos and The Phoenix as a pretty good marketing edge.  You can go anywhere in the world without stepping outside and no car needed.
> 
> Philadelphia Condominiums - The Phoenix :: Luxury Residences :: 1600 Arch Street


Well first off I like driving but I would also like to be able to walk to the store to pick up something to eat or whatever, so I understand your point. I live in Edmond so it isn't very dense and I like it that way. I prefer having a yard(front and back) and is cheaper to own bigger home than bigger apartment(if you want to live in nice areas). So to me there are pros and cons for each. Cons here is having to drive everywhere to get something. But, on the other hand, sometimes I like driving to the store and looking out my window. I just can't imagine a city that is 100% urban. Some people like high density urban environments and I think they're neat and one day I would love to become a developer and develop such areas. But, as far as living I just like were I'm at.

----------


## Just the facts

Just to be clear, no one is asking you to move, but both Edmond and Norman should also include high density areas for those that want to live in a traditional town style development.  Edmond and Norman don't have to be 100% suburban or low density.

----------


## catch22

I don't think anybody should be forced to live 100% urban or suburban. I really don't think many are asking or talking about that, Plutonic Panda. However, the cost of sprawl and the street network to support that life style should reflect the true cost to sustain that. If you love driving you should be willing to pay to use that. The big beef most on this forum (and other likeminded individuals who are not on this forum) have with suburbia is that the cost is enormous to the city budgets, but very little of that cost is being paid by the primary users of it. Usually at the cost of the inner city being neglected (why we are now spending so much money to grow the inner city again, if we hadn't hav subsidized sprawl, we wouldn't be investing as heavily to rebuild downtown -- it'd still be functional and pretty spectacular).

----------


## Plutonic Panda

I understand people need to be willing to pay and I support that. I would also support a new gas tax that would primarily go to building a brand new Light Rail and then go to rebuilding our interchanges ASAP!

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Just to be clear, no one is asking you to move, but both Edmond and Norman should also include high density areas for those that want to live in a traditional town style development.  Edmond and Norman don't have to be 100% suburban or low density.


I agree with that. In fact I would love for Edmond to have an extensive urban development in the central core surrounding UCO. I mean I would like a pretty big area for that. I would also be in favor of completely removing Broadway starting from 2nd street all the way to Bryant and putting in a street car and creating a new entertainment, shopping, and residential area not seen in OKC. I don't know Norman that well but that will probably change when I attend OU in the Fall.

----------


## Stew

All this urbanism dense living seems very faddish. Right now there's a lot of interest and tremendous subsidies to make everything bright and shiny but when the shine wears off people will move back to the burbs for the same reasons our grandparents did. There's nothing new under the sun. It's all been played out before. 

Whether I'm right or wrong I do enjoy all the new stuff.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> All this urbanism dense living seems very faddish. Right now there's a lot of interest and tremendous subsidies to make everything bright and shiny but when the shine wears off people will move back to the burbs for the same reasons our grandparents did. There's nothing new under the sun. It's all been played out before. 
> 
> Whether I'm right or wrong I do enjoy all the new stuff.


I agree to some extent. I don't know how faddish it is. I just can't imagine living in a concrete jungle no matter how dressed up it is. But, that is just view of it and I'm sure many people on here would disagree.

----------


## Spartan

> I agree but to be fair, most people haven't experienced or lived in the kind of density that most new urbanists like JTF actually would like to see. It is pretty doubtful that aside from projects like Carlton Landing, traditional, "urban" neighborhoods are not likely to be built or preserved (Deep Deuce) in Oklahoma.  There will be exceptions but I don't see the 'fad' really taking off here.  
> 
> Extreme fans of urbanism who can will probably eventually leave for places that are really committing to that kind of density.


I don't know what all of this is to be honest. A lot of people don't leave and the point is that cities can embrace all of its citizens, provide a place for everyone, and become much more diverse places. Diversity isn't just racial but also exists between lifestyles, income groups, and people who like red cars versus people who like black suvs.

In the past we've gotten too caught up in entire suburbs where everyone looks the same, thinks the same, lives in the same house, and drives the same car. That's why a lot of people roll their eyes at Edmond or look down on Moore, or [insert typical reaction to a suburb's stereotype]. However, showcasing Downtown OKC is by far putting our best foot forward in attracting growth and new business.

----------


## HangryHippo

I wonder if this will pass tonight.  I think it'd be a great addition, but knowing Norman, I doubt it passes.

High-density project on agenda for Norman City Council | News OK

----------


## jedicurt

> I wonder if this will pass tonight.  I think it'd be a great addition, but knowing Norman, I doubt it passes.
> 
> High-density project on agenda for Norman City Council | News OK


i'm also saying no, it won't pass... which is sad.  I would like to see more of their plans. as if not done right, i too might oppose it, just not for any of the reasons that it will get voted down

----------


## BoulderSooner

> i'm also saying no, it won't pass... which is sad.  I would like to see more of their plans. as if not done right, i too might oppose it, just not for any of the reasons that it will get voted down


what is interesting is that if the developer is correct and he can build the highrise housing by current zoning right he very well might just building the housing anyway if this is voted down.   if which case he could just leave the planned retail empty and go get the rezoning after the fact

----------


## ou48A

This location seems like a pretty good place for this type of development.
I don’t understand why Campus Corner merchants wouldn’t want more people closer to their businesses.

----------


## HangryHippo

Well, it makes too much sense.

----------


## venture

This was in the Transcript today...Work on density zoning continues  Headlines  The Norman Transcript

I like the direction they are going in.

Initial proposed ordinance was:
HDR-1 - up to 45' high
HDR-2 - up to 55' high
HDR-3 - up to 75' high

Mayor Rosenthal has proposed changing them to:
HDR-1 - 3 stories or up to 45' high
HDR-2 - 4 stories or up to 55' high, discouraged next to single family homes
HDR-3 - unlimited height, on arterial streets only, prohibited next to single family homes

So things are continuing to evolve and it appears in the right direction. We need to get away from the 75' high restriction. I'm not sure the location restriction is good, because that wouldn't allow them to build on a secondary street downtown or other higher density areas.

----------


## Questor

Interesting that there is now virtually no difference between HDR-1 and the controversial apartment development on the west side. Leave it to normanites to approve higher density on the outskirts and fight it to the death in the urban core.

----------


## kevinpate

The CC area development discussion was postponed, again, at the request of the developer.
Vote on high-density rezoning request postponed for fifth time  Headlines  The Norman Transcript

----------


## HangryHippo

Has anyone seen the renderings for this Risser project?

----------


## Geographer

That's the one just north of campus corner right? If so, there's new renderings out from the meeting last week. Check the city of norman's planning commission agenda from June 13th.

----------


## HangryHippo

Yeah.  I looked up the agenda though and didn't see any renderings included.  The link for that week doesn't have open links like the other agendas.  Can you post them here?  Or at least the link to the active agenda where you saw them?

----------


## Questor

Here are the schematics for the Campus Corner development:

http://norman.legistar.com/gateway.a...22eb213174.pdf

----------


## G.Walker

Nice...

----------


## Geographer

Here is the document from the City of Norman website: http://legistar1.granicus.com/norman...ing_Agenda.pdf  (scroll to the last page for links)

----------


## HangryHippo

> Here is the document from the City of Norman website: http://legistar1.granicus.com/norman...ing_Agenda.pdf  (scroll to the last page for links)


Thanks Trey and Questor.

----------


## jedicurt

> Here are the schematics for the Campus Corner development:
> 
> http://norman.legistar.com/gateway.a...22eb213174.pdf


not great, but very good.  i like

----------


## BG918

So is this moving forward?  Looks like a decent infill project for Norman, and hopefully leads to more similar developments in that area.  

Looking at the site plan it appears the small office building where the Emerging Technology Entrepreneural Center (ETEC) is located.  Are they relocating to another space in Campus Corner or downtown Norman?  That would be great to see them get their own new building.

----------


## Questor

If I read the minutes correctly, the Planning Commission has now referred the issue to the City Council for a vote. So we'll see what happens in a future meeting. 

And yes, I believe this development would replace the block directly behind Campus Corner. I'm not sure where eTec would move, I don't know if anything has been announced.

----------


## dankrutka

Norman is way overdue for a project like this. It'll fit in wonderfully in that area. If this is rejected than I give up on Norman.  :Wink:

----------


## blangtang

on the assessor webpage, it looks like its going to take up six different parcels, but they are still listed with various owners.  

the eTec site is .6 acres and that site plan shows 1.5 acres.  this has me confused...

----------


## OKCbrew

If this turns out as cool as I imagine it I'd seriously consider moving in. My wife and I live on the southeast side of Norman and we constantly pine for the ability to just walk out the door to a shop or a cafe or a pub. She's especially unaccustomed to not having much walkability or public transportation options being from Cape Town.

Related thought: I was jealous of places even in Africa that have immensely better public transportation options, walkability and urban fabric than most of the OKC area, though there are most definitely trade offs.

Does anyone know if these flats are all rentals or will there be some for sale as well? Guess I could contact B3 Development Group to see if they can offer any info. I'm kind of psyched!

----------


## Rover

> Related thought: I was jealous of places even in Africa that have immensely better public transportation options, walkability and urban fabric than most of the OKC area, though there are most definitely trade offs.


Seriously? Have you ever been to Africa?

----------


## OKCbrew

> Seriously? Have you ever been to Africa?


Yessir. Maybe I should say Southern Africa in particular. My wife lived in Cape Town when I met her, and it was nice dense suburbs, mixed use everywhere, shops/cafes/pubs, and quite a decent rail system that allowed me to get all over town. Even the smaller cities and towns in the region keep it nice and cozy. But like I said, there are big trade-offs like crime, unemployment and corruption. It has made me think though, that since the political and economic situation is much better here in central Oklahoma as opposed to Southern Africa, it's a shame that we struggle to scrape together the urban culture, density and services that seem to come so naturally to them despite the hardships.

I do have to say though I am excited about the way things are happening in Norman and the rest of central OK.

----------


## OKCbrew

Did anyone make it to the council meeting last night? I wanted to go but I couldn't leave the office on time. Lame!  :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## Geographer

> Did anyone make it to the council meeting last night? I wanted to go but I couldn't leave the office on time. Lame!


I just watched some portions of the video, from what I gathered they didn't do anything? Idk I didn't have much time so I skipped towards the end of the meeting video.

----------


## OKCbrew

Norman Transcript: Controversial high-rise, high-density residential proposal on indefinite hold  Headlines  The Norman Transcript

Sounds like the zoning issue has been put on indefinite hold until a more comprehensive study/plan is in place for the whole of central Norman with OU being more involved. I guess it sounds promising for the long run but I always have a hard time reading between the lines on this stuff.

----------


## Geographer

> Norman Transcript: Controversial high-rise, high-density residential proposal on indefinite hold  Headlines  The Norman Transcript
> 
> Sounds like the zoning issue has been put on indefinite hold until a more comprehensive study/plan is in place for the whole of central Norman with OU being more involved. I guess it sounds promising for the long run but I always have a hard time reading between the lines on this stuff.


It could be good, could be bad.  It just depends on how long the indefinite hold (moratorium) lasts.  I don't believe developers will completely scrap their plans by the time this hold is lifted and it makes sense that the city would want to have a good ordinance in place.  However, I am skeptical on just what that ordinance will look like and what it will allow.  Im afraid there's too many misconceptions and misinterpretations on exactly what high density residential IS.  It isn't HIGH RISE, 3-4 stories is NOT high rise.  They are looking at this all the wrong way.

It also functions completely differently than apartment complexes or cul-de-sacs of duplexes and I am afraid they're looking at this development as an apartment complex.  It functions completely differently (obviously).  We shall see.

----------


## HangryHippo

> It could be good, could be bad.  It just depends on how long the indefinite hold (moratorium) lasts.  I don't believe developers will completely scrap their plans by the time this hold is lifted and it makes sense that the city would want to have a good ordinance in place.  However, I am skeptical on just what that ordinance will look like and what it will allow.  Im afraid there's too many misconceptions and misinterpretations on exactly what high density residential IS.  It isn't HIGH RISE, 3-4 stories is NOT high rise.  They are looking at this all the wrong way.
> 
> It also functions completely differently than apartment complexes or cul-de-sacs of duplexes and I am afraid they're looking at this development as an apartment complex.  It functions completely differently (obviously).  We shall see.


Exactly!  Man, I agree with everything you said.  I'm excited by the addition of OU's resources in the Institute for Quality Communities, but it's Norman, and I would not be surprised to see this indefinite hold last for a long, long time.  And why the hell they keep referencing a 6 story building as a high rise is beyond me!  It's not even close, but by calling it that, they certainly help get the residents fired up about the idea of a high rise invading their neighborhood.

----------


## OKCbrew

> It isn't HIGH RISE, 3-4 stories is NOT high rise.


That's exactly what I was thinking as I was reading previous articles. I feel like this development would be considered low-rise at most.

----------


## Geographer

> Exactly!  Man, I agree with everything you said.  I'm excited by the addition of OU's resources in the Institute for Quality Communities, but it's Norman, and I would not be surprised to see this indefinite hold last for a long, long time.  And why the hell they keep referencing a 6 story building as a high rise is beyond me!  It's not even close, but by calling it that, they certainly help get the residents fired up about the idea of a high rise invading their neighborhood.



Indeed, to me, the language is what is killing this project and getting the citizens fired up.  It's unfortunate that it has been called high density.  It should be called something like "City Mixed Use Centers" or something like that.

----------


## Geographer

> That's exactly what I was thinking as I was reading previous articles. I feel like this development would be considered low-rise at most.


Well, in other large cities it would probably be mid-rise.  You see mid-rise buildings all along main street and many arterial streets that are right next to low rise single family homes.  (No one would complain if they lived next to Bob Stoops' high rise home, eh?).  I just think this has been framed completely the wrong way.  It adds SO MUCH to this area, sigh.

----------


## HangryHippo

We are in perfect agreement on this.  I know it probably seems like semantics, but calling this a high-rise development has cast this important discussion in a very unflattering light.  High-density is important for the future growth of cities, where resources will be in shorter supply and costs will continue to rise.  However, high-rises are not the only way to develop higher densities and that's where part of the problem here is, at least in my view.  By calling this a high-rise, they've done little besides rile up the NIMBY crowd, that if given their way, would never see Norman change.  They miss the sleepy old college town, but Norman is now Oklahoma's 3rd-largest city and needs to start acting like it.  Norman should have planned for things like this years ago, but per usual, they're behind the times.  Call this building mixed-use, like you've suggested, and this building probably doesn't face quite this sort of backlash.

With the ideas from OU's institute hopefully guiding design and aesthetics, it will be these kinds of projects that will provide the kind of desirable, yet manageable growth that Norman should want.

----------


## Geographer

> We are in perfect agreement on this.  I know it probably seems like semantics, but calling this a high-rise development has cast this important discussion in a very unflattering light.  High-density is important for the future growth of cities, where resources will be in shorter supply and costs will continue to rise.  However, high-rises are not the only way to develop higher densities and that's where part of the problem here is, at least in my view.  By calling this a high-rise, they've done little besides rile up the NIMBY crowd, that if given their way, would never see Norman change.  They miss the sleepy old college town, but Norman is now Oklahoma's 3rd-largest city and needs to start acting like it.  Norman should have planned for things like this years ago, but per usual, they're behind the times.  Call this building mixed-use, like you've suggested, and this building probably doesn't face quite this sort of backlash.
> 
> With the ideas from OU's institute hopefully guiding design and aesthetics, it will be these kinds of projects that will provide the kind of desirable, yet manageable growth that Norman should want.



Be sure to attend Dan Burden's talks this Friday. Livable Lindsey Street Workshop with Dan Burden- Eventbrite

----------


## Geographer

I wonder if anyone has brought up Boulder, CO during these discussions at city council? Boulder is of similar size, they have a university, and are near a metropolitan area.  They have so, so, so, so many of these mid-rise multi-use developments throughout the city.  Boulder is a great city. It's walkable and the buildings wonderfully relate to the street. Seriously, go have a look at some google street views all around Boulder.  Of course no city is without its issues, it's by no means a perfect place but I think it's a great model for what Norman COULD be if we properly frame this discussion in the right light and point towards a model for what we want.  If people frame it as high rise, people will think large dumb-bell tenements from 1920's NYC...BUT if you show them pictures of places like Boulder...well then you've got an entirely new discussion

----------


## Geographer

This isn't "directly" related to more intensive use of development (which is what this thread is about).  BUT...this afternoon at 4:00 at Legends II on Lindsay Street in Norman is a workshop entitled "Lindsay Street Opportunities & Best Practices"...about the future envisioning of Lindsay Street (mediated by Dan Burden).  The session this morning dealt with different examples of streets from around the country and the types of buildings and development that those types of streets bring.  It's important for Lindsay, which could be an amazing street/district/corridor/village for more intensive land uses (which is the part that's relevant to this thread).  So if you're in Norman...COME! It'll be a good time of discussion and knowledge.

Here's a link Livable Lindsey Street Opportunities Presentation- Eventbrite

----------


## BG918

I don't see a need to delay this project.  If it was right in the core of Campus Corner, maybe, but it's replacing existing apartments and parking lots further north.  I agree a comprehensive plan would be good, something that sets strict rules for urban development in the area, like building to the sidewalk, all parking either in a garage or below ground for large projects, certain streets must have mixed-use functions, etc.  For example if this project was further south on Asp it should probably have retail space to enhance and extend Asp Ave. through Campus Corner.  On Buchanan St. north of White it isn't as important, and should be a residential front but with entrances on the sidewalk i.e. stoops and patios.

And a plan for Lindsey St. is long overdue.  That street has the potential to be a much nicer gateway, and hopefully this presentation is a good first step to making that a reality.  Part of that includes making it 4 lanes from Berry to Jenkins, no left turn lane, bike lanes and large sidewalks with a row of street trees and new streetlamps down the entire length.  Red brick paver crosswalks as you get into campus would be a nice touch.

----------


## BG918

College Station doesn't seem to have a problem building high density mid-rises by the A&M campus...
A Johnny Manziel lure? Texas A&M takes luxury level to another level - CultureMap Houston

----------


## HangryHippo

> College Station doesn't seem to have a problem building high density mid-rises by the A&M campus...
> A Johnny Manziel lure? Texas A&M takes luxury level to another level - CultureMap Houston


I've yet to visit a college town that didn't have a more cohesive feel and higher density living options near the campus than what OU has.  Even Stillwater is getting in on the action, but Norman continues to plod along.  It's a damn shame.

----------


## Geographer

> I've yet to visit a college town that didn't have a more cohesive feel and higher density living options near the campus than what OU has.  Even Stillwater is getting in on the action, but Norman continues to plod along.  It's a damn shame.


Totally agree. It's mind boggling that there are city council members that say Norman isn't "big enough" for denser developments. That's literally what my (former) city councilman told me, quite disappointing.

----------


## HangryHippo

> Totally agree. It's mind boggling that there are city council members that say Norman isn't "big enough" for denser developments. That's literally what my (former) city councilman told me, quite disappointing.


Yep, I've been told the same thing.  It frustrates the hell out of me because Norman has a TON of potential.  It's a college town that's actually pretty close to a major city so we can reap the benefits of that, but there's enough going on in Norman that it could really do well with the right leadership and focus.  Instead, it seems like Norman is doing everything it can to turn into a series of housing subdivisions.  LAME.  I loved OU, but I haven't missed Norman at all since I left.  It's missing the boat completely on development.

----------


## Geographer

> Yep, I've been told the same thing.  It frustrates the hell out of me because Norman has a TON of potential.  It's a college town that's actually pretty close to a major city so we can reap the benefits of that, but there's enough going on in Norman that it could really do well with the right leadership and focus.  Instead, it seems like Norman is doing everything it can to turn into a series of housing subdivisions.  LAME.  I loved OU, but I haven't missed Norman at all since I left.  It's missing the boat completely on development.


 :Rock On: 

Yeah, hopefully the new lindsey street scape won't end up being terrible and will spur medium-density development and maybe then we'll start seeing the kind of development that's found pretty much everyone except here.  They're even doing it in Lubbock!!! (Look just east of the football stadium on google maps: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=lubbo...gl=us&t=h&z=18 )

EDIT: I love the way the Cottages was created in Lubbock as well, it doesn't create a super block because there are through streets that go all the way through the development.  This is what I wish the Norman cottages looked like. https://maps.google.com/maps?q=lubbo...gl=us&t=h&z=18

----------


## BG918

Downtown and Campus Corner should be full of high density developments.  I would suggest writing the council and mayor advocating for the zoning to allow these projects, and also to the OU Institute for Communities (Blair Humphreys) as they are assisting the city and promote walkable mixed use development.

----------


## Geographer

> Downtown and Campus Corner should be full of high density developments.  I would suggest writing the council and mayor advocating for the zoning to allow these projects, and also to the OU Institute for Communities (Blair Humphreys) as they are assisting the city and promote walkable mixed use development.


The IQC, I believe, will be working on a master plan for campus corner.

----------


## Questor

I have got to believe that someone with a lot of money, downtown businesses, OU, or a large employer is fighting the downtown/CC high density plan behind the scenes. I mean if all of freaking northwest Norman couldn't stop an HDR-1 development there, then how is it possible that a strip of land surrounded by a church, a handful of small businesses, a dozen homes, and OU could....

I'd love to know the real story there.

----------


## Geographer

> I mean if all of freaking northwest Norman couldn't stop an HDR-1 development there.


What development do you speak of?

----------


## venture

> I have got to believe that someone with a lot of money, downtown businesses, OU, or a large employer is fighting the downtown/CC high density plan behind the scenes. I mean if all of freaking northwest Norman couldn't stop an HDR-1 development there, then how is it possible that a strip of land surrounded by a church, a handful of small businesses, a dozen homes, and OU could....
> 
> I'd love to know the real story there.


You are probably on to something.

----------


## kevinpate

> What development do you speak of?


There is one going in just southwest of Tecumseh/36th intersection.  Lots of angst and many new kitties birthed in the nearby sub-d's over that project.

----------


## HangryHippo

> There is one going in just southwest of Tecumseh/36th intersection.  Lots of angst and many new kitties birthed in the nearby sub-d's over that project.


Are you sure about this?  I remember an uproar over a Walmart Neighborhood Market and an apartment complex sign for a development that never got anywhere.

----------


## Dubya61

I believe y'all are talking about the same thing.

http://www.okctalk.com/norman/29824-...-tecumseh.html

----------


## kevinpate

> Are you sure about this?  I remember an uproar over a Walmart Neighborhood Market and an apartment complex sign for a development that never got anywhere.


The surplus kitties were all put up for adoption last November.
Norman council approves 'high-end' apartments, despite protest from residents | News OK

----------


## HangryHippo

> The surplus kitties were all put up for adoption last November.
> Norman council approves 'high-end' apartments, despite protest from residents | News OK


Interesting.  Thanks for the link.

----------


## Spartan

> The surplus kitties were all put up for adoption last November.
> Norman council approves 'high-end' apartments, despite protest from residents | News OK


Oh my... NW Norman is officially going apartment. Woooow.

----------


## venture

I got a chuckle out of that whole thing. People were fighting it tooth and nail, but yet they want their own commuter rail stop on Tecumseh? Granted these are the same that complain about having to drive about a mile to a gas station.

----------


## Geographer

LOL. This apartment complex in no way shape or form resembles any kind of "high-rise" development that I'd like to see near campus

----------


## venture

> LOL. This apartment complex in no way shape or form resembles any kind of "high-rise" development that I'd like to see near campus


I laugh when I hear people call a 3-5 story building a high rise development. To me a high rise development is pushing around 10 stories - similar to the dorm towers on campus. No reason we can't see more of those and less of these 2-3 story apartment mash ups.

----------


## Geographer

> I laugh when I hear people call a 3-5 story building a high rise development. To me a high rise development is pushing around 10 stories - similar to the dorm towers on campus. No reason we can't see more of those and less of these 2-3 story apartment mash ups.


I agree, which is why I think it was a mistake to call it the "High-Rise residential" ordinance...because it's not high rise!!! It's completely put the issue in the wrong light in front of the city council and the public.

----------


## HangryHippo

> I agree, which is why I think it was a mistake to call it the "High-Rise residential" ordinance...because it's not high rise!!! It's completely put the issue in the wrong light in front of the city council and the public.


Exactly.  We've hashed this out before, but it really bears repeating.  The name for this ordinance framed it in the wrong light, only serving as a rallying cry to rile up those citizens that got suckered in to believing that another Sarkeys Tower was headed to their backyard.  Just a colossal mistake to call it that.

----------


## kevinpate

Although .... a couple of Sarkey's size nicely appointed residential towers, wouldn't be a bad thing for the university area of Norman. Come to think of it, wouldn't be horrible just off downtown either.  The former is more likely to happen one day than the latter.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> I laugh when I hear people call a 3-5 story building a high rise development. To me a high rise development is pushing around 10 stories - similar to the dorm towers on campus. No reason we can't see more of those and less of these 2-3 story apartment mash ups.


For me, when I hear high-rise, I think of a 25+ story development. 40+ Would a "sky-rise" and over 60 would be a super tall(DEVON!!!!!!!!!!!  :Wink: ). From 5-25 would be mid-rise and 5> is a low rise. A one story, is just that!

----------


## Just the facts

One story is a 'no rise'

----------


## jedicurt

i've always said high-rise was 15+, not sure why, but just have always thought of it that way.   is there an actual definition somewhere of which is which?

----------


## dankrutka

I really hope Norman gets this done. There are so few high quality large-scale urban options in Norman. Actually are there any others beyond the 401 Lofts?!?

----------


## venture

> I really hope Norman gets this done. There are so few high quality large-scale urban options in Norman. Actually are there any others beyond the 401 Lofts?!?


Only one that really comes to mind that sorta compares are those over on 12th SE and Lindsey. Though they still aren't perfect and retail on the first level has been shaky.

----------


## Geographer

> Only one that really comes to mind that sorta compares are those over on 12th SE and Lindsey. Though they still aren't perfect and retail on the first level has been shaky.


Indeed, retail has struggled in that development. It's just a donut shop, tanning salon, liquor store....the ice cream place recently vacated.  I suppose they're making enough money off of the rent to construct a third building, which is what they're currently doing.

----------


## venture

> Indeed, retail has struggled in that development. It's just a donut shop, tanning salon, liquor store....the ice cream place recently vacated.  I suppose they're making enough money off of the rent to construct a third building, which is what they're currently doing.


Maggie Moo's has been gone for a year or two now - not really recent. They did a lot of downsizing so you can't really judge the development based on that chain. That area though needs some additional reinvestment. I would like to see high dense residential go in there on the east side of 12th as well. Not to mention replace the shopping center north of Lindsey. Dedicated bike lane and better walking trails to campus would probably help some too.

----------


## BG918

What is the latest with this development?  Is it on hold pending development of a Campus Corner master plan with input from OU?

----------


## Just the facts

I don't understand what is taking so long.  There must be 20 of these types of developments around the Georgia Tech campus with even more under construction all around the downtown adjacent neighborhoods.  This is how people want to live now - higher density and within walking distance to the basic amenities of daily life.  What is the alternative, sprawling apartment complexes that require everyone to drive for everything?

----------


## HangryHippo

> What is the latest with this development?  Is it on hold pending development of a Campus Corner master plan with input from OU?


Yes.  I read in the Transcript that the developer agreed to pull his request until the plan with OU's input was created.  God only knows when that will be though.

----------


## kevinpate

> Yes.  I read in the Transcript that the developer agreed to pull his request until the plan with OU's input was created.  God only knows when that will be though.


Three weeks after they figure out how to restore their Pride perhaps?

----------


## venture

Since the discussion should be here, I'm going to reply to the off topic posts form the Lindsey thread...




> Several 3 story apt complexes now. This area has a great deal of walk-ablility to events / campus / and easy access to Hwy 9 for commuters.


For someone wanting to go out to dinner and such, it is still a pretty long walk unless you are taking a bike. Just because someone can walk to a place, doesn't make it "walkable".




> ..Yes, very serious. Please look at the SW corner of Chatauqua & Imhoff ( old car wash & for sale ). Yes, those buildings on the North of that corner is 3 story apt. Buildings to the South are apt too. It works very well. The Mixed use Tower would work w/ Residential & Retail below. Thank you for the map, that helps.


A mixed use tower in that area would be a waste when you could put it closer to downtown or campus and be able to draw off of the other amenities that are already available. 




> I still don't believe you're being serious. 
> 
> Just because there's a couple of student developments does not make this "high density". Besides a 7/11 gas station the nearest thing to walk to that is commercial/entertainment is Campus Corner, which is 1.5 miles away. I've lived in Traditions for a summer and walked ... once ... to Main Street for a night out. It was a nightmare and I'd never do it again, especially in Oklahoma summer heat. 
> 
> You and I must have very different ideas of what "high density" development means....


Exactly. A mile may not seem long running from one concourse to another in Atlanta, but going to dinner or to the store is.




> I said place a High End Apt / Condo Tower on that location, ...with the lower floors having a Starbucks / Bookstore / Restaurant / etc. and this will Sell. This location becomes (The draw). It's location is best for Students / 20 - 30 Single group / and urbanist. The condos would be perfect. Apts would be THE only tower apt available in Norman. Don't get too confused w/ luster of campus corner. People don't want to live next door to the Night Life, and remember this. When Dad's are paying the bills for the daughters, the don't want them next the bars. lol.


People don't want to live next door to night life? Funny considering there are several $300-400K+ homes in the Campus Corner area now.




> I believe this has been stated before on another thread...but there is SO much parking available near campus corner. There is plenty of street parking in the surrounding neighborhoods, huge lots of parking on the west side of University...parking should be campus corner's last worry.


Exactly. Though I think it would be smart to look at building high density buildings with integrated parking in the structure's foot print as well.

----------


## venture

> Guru... do you even got out at all? ....Maybe you should get out more and look around at the other college towns. Austin ? They have several like this. That means ( Multi Million Dollar ) investments have been made previously, for the exact same purpose..... So, the idea in not laughable, just the first in the market place. That makes it even better ( financial ) move.
> 
> guru, ...don't even talk about $$$ w/ me.


Austin is larger than Norman, why is this even being brought in? Norman is closer to Ann Arbor than Austin. Hell OKC has trouble holding a candle to Austin in some aspects.

----------


## OKVision4U

You are correct.  Austin is way ahead of Norman, but the needs around a DI school are still the same.  They have similar needs & they have similar demographics.  ( from a developers / financial POV ).  Students / Urbanist / Hip crowd.

Thus they have the same needs for housing.  And yes, a 8 - 10 story condo mixed retail will work.

----------


## OKVision4U

Venture, great input.  I did say that this would include a couple of restaurants / deli.  One thing that is already happeing in south Norman in the apartment living segment, they live further out and w/o a dinner location in close proximity.  They are full because of the demand in the area, and the access to hwy 9.

If a mixed use residential tower was in that location, if would provide that type of amenities that lack that area.  ie. starbucks / deli / book store / high end feel. 

They are already making that walk, now.  One key that makes this idea so appealing is the commuters.  The urbanist / young marrieds that don't want a yard, would purchase the condos just for this & the great access to hwy 9 and then to I-35.  

Another key, is safety.  The Tower provides locked gates w/ all units secured by limiting access to others.  This is a huge key for 50% of the demographics, ...women.  Their safety is a priority.

----------


## venture

While the idea has merit, you are thinking too short term for such a large investment. Initial investments are going to need existing traffic and demand to make it work. More urban developments on 12th and Lindsey, pretty close to campus on the east side, have been filling up on the residential size but retail/food has been very slow to fill in. So you can't expect businesses to just flock in there because of a single concentrated housing development. You also need to have existing foot traffic and demand to make it work. 

This is why you see the development proposed on Boyd. You have a lot of existing foot traffic with campus and campus corner. People are actually right on the core of campus and aren't having to walk a mile north to get to it. 

You mention commuters. Eventually we will see commuter rail from Norman to Downtown connecting to a larger network. As Kerry has pointed out many times, we really want to avoid Park'n'Rides as much as we can, but it isn't avoidable here in my opinion. However, the Norman station for such a development is likely going to be either in Downtown Norman or near campus. The Boyd Street area probably isn't a bad location for it. If you combine it with the high density development plan, you are setting that area up for an explosion of demand. Combine it with the Legacy Trail bike path starting just north on Duffy...you start to bring in other features that can be combined to enrich an area. 

As soon as the first large development is done, you start creating a neighborhood/district that begins to rapidly transform into a true walkable/urban development. You also start to link Downtown and Campus. Implement a highly reliable transit system with buses throughout that area down to the research park and you start creating a district that become attractive to more businesses. This means more money works in to where redevelopment of the area can take place. We can look at streets getting modernized with dedicated bike lanes, small single lane roundabouts, and wide sidewalks. OU has said they would put in a roundabout at Lindsey and Jenkins if needed. I would think you look at Jenkins and do roundabouts the entire way to Highway 9 and you create a continuous traffic flow all the way for auto commuters. 

The key to all of this is building density. Focusing up in Campus Corner and eventually grown north to Downtown is the best way to tap into it.

----------


## soonerguru

> While the idea has merit, you are thinking too short term for such a large investment. Initial investments are going to need existing traffic and demand to make it work. More urban developments on 12th and Lindsey, pretty close to campus on the east side, have been filling up on the residential size but retail/food has been very slow to fill in. So you can't expect businesses to just flock in there because of a single concentrated housing development. You also need to have existing foot traffic and demand to make it work. 
> 
> This is why you see the development proposed on Boyd. You have a lot of existing foot traffic with campus and campus corner. People are actually right on the core of campus and aren't having to walk a mile north to get to it. 
> 
> You mention commuters. Eventually we will see commuter rail from Norman to Downtown connecting to a larger network. As Kerry has pointed out many times, we really want to avoid Park'n'Rides as much as we can, but it isn't avoidable here in my opinion. However, the Norman station for such a development is likely going to be either in Downtown Norman or near campus. The Boyd Street area probably isn't a bad location for it. If you combine it with the high density development plan, you are setting that area up for an explosion of demand. Combine it with the Legacy Trail bike path starting just north on Duffy...you start to bring in other features that can be combined to enrich an area. 
> 
> As soon as the first large development is done, you start creating a neighborhood/district that begins to rapidly transform into a true walkable/urban development. You also start to link Downtown and Campus. Implement a highly reliable transit system with buses throughout that area down to the research park and you start creating a district that become attractive to more businesses. This means more money works in to where redevelopment of the area can take place. We can look at streets getting modernized with dedicated bike lanes, small single lane roundabouts, and wide sidewalks. OU has said they would put in a roundabout at Lindsey and Jenkins if needed. I would think you look at Jenkins and do roundabouts the entire way to Highway 9 and you create a continuous traffic flow all the way for auto commuters. 
> 
> The key to all of this is building density. Focusing up in Campus Corner and eventually grown north to Downtown is the best way to tap into it.


Great post. For some reason (reading comprehension?) OKVision has confused me with someone who doesn't want great, ambitious things for Norman. Perhaps because he's new he doesn't have a sense of my posting history.

I would love to see high-rise residential for Norman (at least 12-20 stories). But it needs to be in the right area of town to maximize urban density, as you have explained so well.

----------


## OKVision4U

> While the idea has merit, you are thinking too short term for such a large investment. Initial investments are going to need existing traffic and demand to make it work. More urban developments on 12th and Lindsey, pretty close to campus on the east side, have been filling up on the residential size but retail/food has been very slow to fill in. So you can't expect businesses to just flock in there because of a single concentrated housing development. You also need to have existing foot traffic and demand to make it work. 
> 
> This is why you see the development proposed on Boyd. You have a lot of existing foot traffic with campus and campus corner. People are actually right on the core of campus and aren't having to walk a mile north to get to it. 
> 
> You mention commuters. Eventually we will see commuter rail from Norman to Downtown connecting to a larger network. As Kerry has pointed out many times, we really want to avoid Park'n'Rides as much as we can, but it isn't avoidable here in my opinion. However, the Norman station for such a development is likely going to be either in Downtown Norman or near campus. The Boyd Street area probably isn't a bad location for it. If you combine it with the high density development plan, you are setting that area up for an explosion of demand. Combine it with the Legacy Trail bike path starting just north on Duffy...you start to bring in other features that can be combined to enrich an area. 
> 
> As soon as the first large development is done, you start creating a neighborhood/district that begins to rapidly transform into a true walkable/urban development. You also start to link Downtown and Campus. Implement a highly reliable transit system with buses throughout that area down to the research park and you start creating a district that become attractive to more businesses. This means more money works in to where redevelopment of the area can take place. We can look at streets getting modernized with dedicated bike lanes, small single lane roundabouts, and wide sidewalks. OU has said they would put in a roundabout at Lindsey and Jenkins if needed. I would think you look at Jenkins and do roundabouts the entire way to Highway 9 and you create a continuous traffic flow all the way for auto commuters. 
> 
> The key to all of this is building density. Focusing up in Campus Corner and eventually grown north to Downtown is the best way to tap into it.


I can see several points that you stated are keys to helping insure the success of a large / substantial investment.  

If the development that I was recommending was the 3rd or 4th tower to be constructed, then I certainly would want more "volume of foot-traffic" and more infrastructure in place.  I can see that campus corner area could support a large residential tower now.  I still believe that the demand on the south end of Norman would pull from all the other existing apartment customer-base and would be The Hot Spot.  

I do see that the condo "buyer" vs. campus apartment lease would be more inclined to be where they have quick access to Hwy 9 - I-35.  From Campus Corner it puts another 10-15 min on your commute, thus the 20 - 30 singles / Young Marrieds would be less likely to purchase on Campus Corner.   If I were to build this High End Residential Condo / Apt , mixed retail, it would be Pre-Sold before the yellow ribbon was cut.   IMO.

----------


## venture

> I can see several points that you stated are keys to helping insure the success of a large / substantial investment.  
> 
> If the development that I was recommending was the 3rd or 4th tower to be constructed, then I certainly would want more "volume of foot-traffic" and more infrastructure in place.  I can see that campus corner area could support a large residential tower now.  I still believe that the demand on the south end of Norman would pull from all the other existing apartment customer-base and would be The Hot Spot.  
> 
> I do see that the condo "buyer" vs. campus apartment lease would be more inclined to be where they have quick access to Hwy 9 - I-35.  From Campus Corner it puts another 10-15 min on your commute, thus the 20 - 30 singles / Young Marrieds would be less likely to purchase on Campus Corner.   If I were to build this High End Residential Condo / Apt , mixed retail, it would be Pre-Sold before the yellow ribbon was cut.   IMO.


Your reasoning doesn't make sense. High density development would be more prosperous where there is existing density or at least the foundation for more density. You are referring to the existing apartments on the south end to help with your development, but that doesn't make sense. For your project to go forward, you are going to have to remove at least one of those complexes to have room for yours. Whereas that won't be an issue near CC. Let's not forget, CC is already a hot spot - why try to make another right now?

10-15 minutes to get down Jenkins or whatever to extend a commute? Hardly. Sure estimates can fluctuate but if you map it out, the commute time would  be essentially the same - no more than a 4 minute difference, which is nothing. Young marrieds with kids are likely going to pick a more traditional neighborhood over any high density development - so they don't need to get in this discussion. The 20-30 singles/couples are going to probably follow the typical trend of sticking to an urban setting if possible. Heck if people are buying houses worth $400-500K right next to Campus Corner, that must not be a huge turn off. 

I really don't see any logic how a solitary high density development will work south away from various amenities, but it won't work where there is some level of density and demand already.

----------


## venture

> One is really just vertical sprawl and the other is fitting into a cohesive neighborhood. 
> 
> The former is simply for storing people, commuters namely. The later is for giving the 1st place in a holistic lifestyle, where their 2nd Place and 3rd Place(s) are nearby. Third place - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> If Norman wants to just be a bedroom community of commuters, then they should build high density outside the core and nearest to the interstates. 
> 
> If Norman wants to attract professionals of all ages to live, work, eat, and recreate all within Norman, then they need to develop the core as much as possible. As many projects as possible to raise rates will drive capital into the city and encourage business growth. Growth that will rely on a labor force that the school is currently offering and new residents will provide. 
> 
> That's my $.02.


Completely agree. Building these 6-storyish developments in the Campus Corner to Downtown section of the city you really nail the live, eat, and recreate portion of the equation. Work is something that needs some help. Though with efficient bus service (perhaps maybe street cars one day) you start to connect in the research park and those businesses on south campus and also downtown. Eventually the system can be expected to the UNP business developments and the others built along the "technology corridor" on Highway 9. Add in a commuter rail line to downtown OKC (that connects to a larger network) and you have a very favorable and attractive district to live in. 

Additional retail/food space on the first level of any developments also get to cash in on the large student population and not to mention the huge boost on game days (football and basketball to some extent). We already have documented cases of people getting an apartment/condo in or near downtown OKC to get the experience of an urban lifestyle - even while still owning their home in the burbs. Could definitely see some doing the same in Norman.

----------


## Just the facts

> That's my $.02.


Factor in currency exchange rates and your 2 cents is worth $1.75 in some other people's ideas.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Completely agree. Building these 6-storyish developments in the Campus Corner to Downtown section of the city you really nail the live, eat, and recreate portion of the equation. Work is something that needs some help. Though with efficient bus service (perhaps maybe street cars one day) you start to connect in the research park and those businesses on south campus and also downtown. Eventually the system can be expected to the UNP business developments and the others built along the "technology corridor" on Highway 9. Add in a commuter rail line to downtown OKC (that connects to a larger network) and you have a very favorable and attractive district to live in. 
> 
> Additional retail/food space on the first level of any developments also get to cash in on the large student population and not to mention the huge boost on game days (football and basketball to some extent). We already have documented cases of people getting an apartment/condo in or near downtown OKC to get the experience of an urban lifestyle - even while still owning their home in the burbs. Could definitely see some doing the same in Norman.


Things are certainly changing for the better in central okla for sure. When the regional light rail comes to Norman, you will see even more reason for my proximity to Hwy 9 for my 10-12 story High End Condo / Apt Tower.  I'm ok with not having as much "foot traffic" w/ my development.  All things equal, my location becomes the better choice.   High Visibility will continue to feed the demand for this location.  People want what they see.  If the core of Norman was prominent, then the core would be a great first choice.  But Norman's core is moderate at best.   It will take a great deal of time & money to get the core of Norman to equal the demand of the university.  ( People would rather be closer to campus, than downtown Norman ).  

Most 20-30 Singles / Urban Marrieds, would want this location over campus corner.  Once graduation happens, the campus is not where you want to live.  This is why this location provides the "best of both" worlds.  Close to campus, but not on campus.  I will give them Bikes w/ each condo purchase.  ( lol.). Covered parking w/ safe rooms.

----------


## OKVision4U

Trendy Condo Tower in Norman...  Would anyone want to live here?  ...Would this be fun?   :Cool: 

100 DAVENPORT | YORKVILLE CONDOS | THE FLORIAN CONDOS | 100 DAVENPORT CONDOMINIUMS

----------


## OKVision4U

> Trendy Condo Tower in Norman...  Would anyone want to live here?  ...Would this be fun?  
> 
> 100 DAVENPORT | YORKVILLE CONDOS | THE FLORIAN CONDOS | 100 DAVENPORT CONDOMINIUMS


...just giving an example of what type of Trendy I am speaking of.

----------


## venture

> Things are certainly changing for the better in central okla for sure. When the regional light rail comes to Norman, you will see even more reason for my proximity to Hwy 9 for my 10-12 story High End Condo / Apt Tower. I'm ok with not having as much "foot traffic" w/ my development. All things equal, my location becomes the better choice. High Visibility will continue to feed the demand for this location. People want what they see. If the core of Norman was prominent, then the core would be a great first choice. But Norman's core is moderate at best. It will take a great deal of time & money to get the core of Norman to equal the demand of the university.  ( People would rather be closer to campus, than downtown Norman ). 
> 
> Most 20-30 Singles / Urban Marrieds, would want this location over campus corner. Once graduation happens, the campus is not where you want to live. This is why this location provides the "best of both" worlds. Close to campus, but not on campus. I will give them Bikes w/ each condo purchase. ( lol.). Covered parking w/ safe rooms.


Okay seriously, you aren't making any sense. With commuter rail (not light rail) how is a location 2-4 miles from the station going to be even better than one that could very well be right next door or less a mile bike ride/walk? Do you even have any experience being in a high density area or experiencing any large scale mass transit? Hell...even SimCity would teach you better with planning. LOL

Your location is even less desirable and has less features around it than the one that is ACTUALLY planned. Sure it might be good for some cities to throw towers every where, but at some point you destroy any chance of getting to critical mass and really extracting the benefits of high density living. Why would you even claim people would choose your location over Campus Corner when you have people wanting to get into Downtown OKC because things are developing that are in walking distances. If you just want a tower for commuters...go pick a field out in the middle of Tuttle or something. 




> Trendy Condo Tower in Norman...  Would anyone want to live here?  ...Would this be fun?  
> 
> 100 DAVENPORT | YORKVILLE CONDOS | THE FLORIAN CONDOS | 100 DAVENPORT CONDOMINIUMS


So that's your example. NOW...did you even bother looking at the neighborhood it is in? It is located in an area with other high density developments and towers. Not off away from a high traffic area next to some apartment complexes. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of putting the Devon Tower at I-240/I-40 out in far east OKC. You aren't even talking about this rationally.

Is there demand for a high density multi-use tower in Norman right now? I don't think so. Not yet anyway. We need more of these 4-6 story developments to go in and start building up the density and help reach the point where some larger makes sense. For now the only high rise residential complexes in Norman will remain the dorm towers.

----------


## warreng88

> Trendy Condo Tower in Norman...  Would anyone want to live here?  ...Would this be fun?  
> 
> 100 DAVENPORT | YORKVILLE CONDOS | THE FLORIAN CONDOS | 100 DAVENPORT CONDOMINIUMS


Put that on campus corner and I'm in. Put that on the corner (any corner) of Chautauqua and Imhoff and I'm out.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Okay seriously, you aren't making any sense. With commuter rail (not light rail) how is a location 2-4 miles from the station going to be even better than one that could very well be right next door or less a mile bike ride/walk? Do you even have any experience being in a high density area or experiencing any large scale mass transit? Hell...even SimCity would teach you better with planning. LOL
> 
> Your location is even less desirable and has less features around it than the one that is ACTUALLY planned. Sure it might be good for some cities to throw towers every where, but at some point you destroy any chance of getting to critical mass and really extracting the benefits of high density living. Why would you even claim people would choose your location over Campus Corner when you have people wanting to get into Downtown OKC because things are developing that are in walking distances. If you just want a tower for commuters...go pick a field out in the middle of Tuttle or something. 
> 
> 
> 
> So that's your example. NOW...did you even bother looking at the neighborhood it is in? It is located in an area with other high density developments and towers. Not off away from a high traffic area next to some apartment complexes. What you are suggesting is the equivalent of putting the Devon Tower at I-240/I-40 out in far east OKC. You aren't even talking about this rationally.
> 
> Is there demand for a high density multi-use tower in Norman right now? I don't think so. Not yet anyway. We need more of these 4-6 story developments to go in and start building up the density and help reach the point where some larger makes sense. For now the only high rise residential complexes in Norman will remain the dorm towers.


Venture, you know most all of the new Large Buildings are South of the oval?   ...NWS / Tech Row. / LNC /  ...this is not just "thrown" out there.   This Trendy Tower I am speaking of has ALL the amenities you want.  I'm not Planning for a City, I'm developing a property for Sell.  A world of difference.  I'm not saying that the 4-6 story units won't be successful in the campus area or the core of Norman, but this Trendy High End Tower would sell.  $285 K p/ unit.  With a view of all the ball fields / River / Stadium.... It willl be in high demand.

----------


## warreng88

Let's take the idea of retail, restaurant, etc out of the equation. Vision, where in Norman would be the best place to put a 15 story residential tower with the only amenities being on site parking?

----------


## BG918

I would say in close proximity to Canpus Corner on the north and east side of OU.  That is where densities are already higher and where existing housing could demolished to increase density (unlike neighborhoods to the northwest/west).  This also goes along with the vision that higher density should be near the tracks due to the eventual rail line to OKC, and synergies between downtown, Campus Corner and OU.

----------


## venture

> Venture, you know most all of the new Large Buildings are South of the oval?   ...NWS / Tech Row. / LNC /  ...this is not just "thrown" out there.   This Trendy Tower I am speaking of has ALL the amenities you want.  I'm not Planning for a City, I'm developing a property for Sell.  A world of difference.  I'm not saying that the 4-6 story units won't be successful in the campus area or the core of Norman, but this Trendy High End Tower would sell.  $285 K p/ unit.  With a view of all the ball fields / River / Stadium.... It willl be in high demand.


How can you possibly have ALL the amenities someone shopping for an urban/high density environment in one development? You can't. Are you actually considering LNC a "new" large building? Wow. Campus Corner you have a developer who has interest in build a 6-story urban high density project. Right across the street from the TALLEST building in Norman (since size of buildings seems to matter to you for some reason) and a short walk from Memorial Stadium. Not to mention you have all the existing restaurants and shops in CC that someone would be able to walk to. On top of that, you have the potential to be right next to a commuter rail station. You can essentially live in the development WITHOUT a car. Your project would still require that and have NOTHING close to the CC offerings. 

Here is an image of what the same developer proposed in Stillwater: 



These urban developments are what is in demand right now. This is why you see Deep Deuce filling so fast. Downtown OKC has significantly higher density than Norman, but you don't see people tripping over each other to build towers - do you? Use common sense.

----------


## OKVision4U

> How can you possibly have ALL the amenities someone shopping for an urban/high density environment in one development? You can't. Are you actually considering LNC a "new" large building? Wow. Campus Corner you have a developer who has interest in build a 6-story urban high density project. Right across the street from the TALLEST building in Norman (since size of buildings seems to matter to you for some reason) and a short walk from Memorial Stadium. Not to mention you have all the existing restaurants and shops in CC that someone would be able to walk to. On top of that, you have the potential to be right next to a commuter rail station. You can essentially live in the development WITHOUT a car. Your project would still require that and have NOTHING close to the CC offerings. 
> 
> Here is an image of what the same developer proposed in Stillwater: 
> 
> 
> 
> These urban developments are what is in demand right now. This is why you see Deep Deuce filling so fast. Downtown OKC has significantly higher density than Norman, but you don't see people tripping over each other to build towers - do you? Use common sense.


...the comment about large buildings was a response to your "throw a tower out in the middle of nowwhere".   ...Your are correct, LNC is not that new, so i will mention that my Tower will be 2 blocks from the Largest Museum in Norman, The Sam Noble Museum of Natural History.  I did overlook that one.  lol.  

Yes, the 4-6 developments are hot in Deep Duece.  A big need.  What makes my offer of a large tower is the 30,000 customers ( each year ) that attend the Univ. of Oklahoma.  This is the Dynamic that would "feed" my Trendy Condo / Apt. Tower.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Put that on campus corner and I'm in. Put that on the corner (any corner) of Chautauqua and Imhoff and I'm out.


Hey look, my first customer.  Warreng likes it too..

----------


## OKVision4U

> Let's take the idea of retail, restaurant, etc out of the equation. Vision, where in Norman would be the best place to put a 15 story residential tower with the only amenities being on site parking?


Warreng, in all reality I would not spend less money, just to save the cost.  The amenties are what helps "Seal the Deal" for my Tower.  It's like taking your own environment w/ you.  If my mixed use tower has 3 floors dedicated to retail / rest / book store / Starbucks, then my develompent becomes the anchor.

----------


## warreng88

> Hey look, my first customer.  Warreng likes it too..


But did you notice that I said I would NOT live in that if you were to put it where you originally proposed? You know why? There is nothing else down there. Then I am just some d-bag living in condo next to Lloyd Noble and the water treatment plant. I bet you could put just about any building, whether it be a six story in-fill (like venture is talking about) or a 15 story condo/apartment near Campus Corner and it would sell because of the already existing activities available.

----------


## warreng88

> Warreng, in all reality I would not spend less money, just to save the cost.  The amenties are what helps "Seal the Deal" for my Tower.  It's like taking your own environment w/ you.  If my mixed use tower has 3 floors dedicated to retail / rest / book store / Starbucks, then my develompent becomes the anchor.


I understand what you would do, but let's just say for sh!ts and giggles that someone wants to build a condo tower but does not want to do any sort of other amenitites. Where then would you advise them to put it? And no, you cannot tell them to add retail/bookstore/pet shop/braum's/christie's toy box to the development. Just the tower and parking.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Let's take the idea of retail, restaurant, etc out of the equation. Vision, where in Norman would be the best place to put a 15 story residential tower with the only amenities being on site parking?


Warreng, for the sake of discussion, if I were to place a Trendy Condo Tower in Norman ( w/o amenities ) w/ parking only, then I would say Lindsey & I-35 on the NW corner ( car lot there? ).

----------


## venture

> ...the comment about large buildings was a response to your "throw a tower out in the middle of nowwhere". ...Your are correct, LNC is not that new, so i will mention that my Tower will be 2 blocks from the Largest Museum in Norman, The Sam Noble Museum of Natural History. I did overlook that one. lol. 
> 
> Yes, the 4-6 developments are hot in Deep Duece. A big need. What makes my offer of a large tower is the 30,000 customers ( each year ) that attend the Univ. of Oklahoma. This is the Dynamic that would "feed" my Trendy Condo / Apt. Tower.


I've lived in Norman for 15 years. I've never been to the museum. Chances are it is not going to be a selling point at all to live in some tower south of campus. I much rather would be more interested in retail and restaurant choices. Something your facility wouldn't be able to compete with.




> Warreng, in all reality I would not spend less money, just to save the cost. The amenties are what helps "Seal the Deal" for my Tower. It's like taking your own environment w/ you. If my mixed use tower has 3 floors dedicated to retail / rest / book store / Starbucks, then my develompent becomes the anchor.


So you are going to fill it with chains to compete against more local/unique options near campus. You are going to suggest a book store? Yes...cause those are doing SO well these days. 




> But did you notice that I said I would NOT live in that if you were to put it where you originally proposed? You know why? There is nothing else down there. Then I am just some d-bag living in condo next to Lloyd Noble and the water treatment plant. I bet you could put just about any building, whether it be a six story in-fill (like venture is talking about) or a 15 story condo/apartment near Campus Corner and it would sell because of the already existing activities available.


Especially with houses going for north of $300K-400K in the campus corner area already...developers could get a pretty penny for urban developments in the same area.

----------


## venture

> Warreng, for the sake of discussion, if I were to place a Trendy Condo Tower in Norman ( w/o amenities ) w/ parking only, then I would say Lindsey & I-35 on the NW corner ( car lot there? ).


Wow really...over UNP?

You realize a tower was proposed for that area and went no where right? Are you using any common sense in your decision making or just pulling it from down under?

----------


## warreng88

> Warreng, for the sake of discussion, if I were to place a Trendy Condo Tower in Norman ( w/o amenities ) w/ parking only, then I would say Lindsey & I-35 on the NW corner ( car lot there? ).


What that spot specifically? Why wouldn't you put it north of Boyd and University Blvd?

----------


## OKVision4U

> Warreng, for the sake of discussion, if I were to place a Trendy Condo Tower in Norman ( w/o amenities ) w/ parking only, then I would say Lindsey & I-35 on the NW corner ( car lot there? ).


NOW, I would not do ONLY that.  The Tower must have the amenities too.  That is what makes the desire for the consumer, a Closed Loop.  ...so the best place again is Chaut & Imhoff.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Wow really...over UNP?
> 
> You realize a tower was proposed for that area and went no where right? Are you using any common sense in your decision making or just pulling it from down under?


He asked "if i placed a tower in norman w/o amenities, where would I put it? ...the most visible location in norman.   BUT, I would not spend 8-10 Million w/o amenities.  Guys, you don't have a condo w/o the beach?   ... I would spend $18 Mil w/ all the amenities and insure the success ot the development long term.

----------


## OKVision4U

One more thing, from my High End Trendy Condo Tower, you can watch the OU Sooners practices from your balcony or the Work-out Faclity on the 12th Floor.  Or, you can just sit back in the Lounge area on the 11th floor.  ...take a look again at the type of trendy Warreng likes:  ...lol.

100 DAVENPORT | YORKVILLE CONDOS | THE FLORIAN CONDOS | 100 DAVENPORT CONDOMINIUMS

----------


## soonerguru

There is a lot of unintended comedy in this thread.

----------


## warreng88

> NOW, I would not do ONLY that.  The Tower must have the amenities too.  That is what makes the desire for the consumer, a Closed Loop.  ...so the best place again is Chaut & Imhoff.


So, you are going to place a tower with a restaurant, bookstore, retail, coffee shop in an area surrounded only by other apartments, Lloyd Noble, Sam Noble and other homes that is a nine minute drive to the I-35 Main Street interchange (using googlemaps) over a tower on University and Boyd that is a 10 minute drive (again, googlemaps) surrounded by Blackbird, Cafe Plaid, 405 imports, Tulips, Take Five, Hideaway, Brothers, Blush, Buchanan Bicycles, Victoria's, the Deli, Toto's pizza, Beloved Bridal Boutique, Logan's, Fuzzy's, Crooked Crust, Pickleman's, O'Connell's, Balfour, Louie's, Starbucks, Which Wich, Pita Pit, Midfirst Bank, Lucca and a two block walk from campus?

Do you see my point? One would not have to spend the extra money on amenities directly in the tower development because already established places are a two block walk away.

----------


## warreng88

> There is a lot of unintended comedy in this thread.


I hope this was not directed at me, but it might be...

----------


## OKVision4U

> There is a lot of unintended comedy in this thread.


and you can have on too.  Since your the SoonerGuru, just be sure to order early, the good ones go first.

----------


## warreng88

> One more thing, from my High End Trendy Condo Tower, you can watch the OU Sooners practices from your balcony or the Work-out Faclity on the 12th Floor.  Or, you can just sit back in the Lounge area on the 11th floor.  ...take a look again at the type of trendy *Warreng likes*:  ...lol.
> 
> 100 DAVENPORT | YORKVILLE CONDOS | THE FLORIAN CONDOS | 100 DAVENPORT CONDOMINIUMS


Don't keep referencing me in these post, please. I don't want you to get the idea that I agree with you on, really, anything in general. In regards to the condos themselves, I would not pay $400,000-$3,750,000 to own a small condo in Norman. If I am going to pay that kind of money, it is going to DT OKC where I don't have to worry about owning a car and am around plenty of amenities not just a starbucks, restaurant and a book store.

----------


## soonerguru

> I hope this was not directed at me, but it might be...


Nope.

----------


## OKVision4U

> So, you are going to place a tower with a restaurant, bookstore, retail, coffee shop in an area surrounded only by other apartments, Lloyd Noble, Sam Noble and other homes that is a nine minute drive to the I-35 Main Street interchange (using googlemaps) over a tower on University and Boyd that is a 10 minute drive (again, googlemaps) surrounded by Blackbird, Cafe Plaid, 405 imports, Tulips, Take Five, Hideaway, Brothers, Blush, Buchanan Bicycles, Victoria's, the Deli, Toto's pizza, Beloved Bridal Boutique, Logan's, Fuzzy's, Crooked Crust, Pickleman's, O'Connell's, Balfour, Louie's, Starbucks, Which Wich, Pita Pit, Midfirst Bank, Lucca and a two block walk from campus?
> 
> Do you see my point? One would not have to spend the extra money on amenities directly in the tower development because already established places are a two block walk away.


YES, I would have first 3 floors w/ Retail , Eateries, etc.  I would not build all the stores you mentioned, but a few "Very Select" choices.  This Tower will pull its own customer base.  You can still have yours.  One would not canniblize the other.

----------


## warreng88

> YES, I would have first 3 floors w/ Retail , Eateries, etc.  I would not build all the stores you mentioned, but a few "Very Select" choices.  This Tower will pull its own customer base.  You can still have yours.  One would not canniblize the other.


Which stores that I mentioned? The long list of stores which already exist on campus corner or the basic stores that exist in pretty much every hotel that you mentioned?

I would think you could charge about $100,000 more for the exact same condo near the campus corner area over your location and your building costs would be significantly lower since you wouldn't have to build "Very Select choice" stores as you put it.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Don't keep referencing me in these post, please. I don't want you to get the idea that I agree with you on, really, anything in general. In regards to the condos themselves, I would not pay $400,000-$3,750,000 to own a small condo in Norman. If I am going to pay that kind of money, it is going to DT OKC where I don't have to worry about owning a car and am around plenty of amenities not just a starbucks, restaurant and a book store.


$285 K - $475K.  ...we will book them all day long.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Nope.


Hey Guru, do you want one on the upper floors?

----------


## venture

> One more thing, from my High End Trendy Condo Tower, you can watch the OU Sooners practices from your balcony or the Work-out Faclity on the 12th Floor.  Or, you can just sit back in the Lounge area on the 11th floor.  ...take a look again at the type of trendy Warreng likes:  ...lol.
> 
> 100 DAVENPORT | YORKVILLE CONDOS | THE FLORIAN CONDOS | 100 DAVENPORT CONDOMINIUMS


Go back and look what I said earlier about this...that you seem to have ignored. The development you keep highlighting is one in a high density area of Toronto. Apples and Oranges.

And wait...watch OU practice? From the 12th floor? Are you an idiot or do you have x-ray vision? I would assume you mean the football team and if that's the case, good luck looking through the dorm towers and trees to the practice field that is - as the crow flies - 1.25 miles from where you are proposing. If I had someone trying to sell me on that I would laugh in their face and call them a moron...and recommend they go back to the used car lot from where they came.

----------


## venture

> YES, I would have first 3 floors w/ Retail , Eateries, etc.  I would not build all the stores you mentioned, but a few "Very Select" choices.  This Tower will pull its own customer base.  You can still have yours.  One would not canniblize the other.


How are you going to get retail in there when Campus Corner is a much strong prospect (more density and foot traffic) and the vast majority are being sucked into UNP. 

Look I commend people that have exciting ideas to share, but you need to fully vet them before you get behind it. Hey I've had crazy ideas for an airline based in OKC...is it logical? Not without asking a billionaire if they want to become a millionaire. 

However I look at existing urban developments around right now. The newer urban development at 12th and Lindsey, which is almost at full build out now, has struggled to get retail into the first floor. That is being on a corner with some of the highest traffic numbers in the city. That too is also next to numerous apartment complexes, has more food options in the area, and about equal distance to the heart of campus. 

As entertaining as this has been, you aren't doing yourself any favors.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Go back and look what I said earlier about this...that you seem to have ignored. The development you keep highlighting is one in a high density area of Toronto. Apples and Oranges.
> 
> And wait...watch OU practice? From the 12th floor? Are you an idiot or do you have x-ray vision? I would assume you mean the football team and if that's the case, good luck looking through the dorm towers and trees to the practice field that is - as the crow flies - 1.25 miles from where you are proposing. If I had someone trying to sell me on that I would laugh in their face and call them a moron...and recommend they go back to the used car lot from where they came.


Are you even aware of the OU Football program at all? ...do you even know where they practice?  Pre-season is across the street from my new Trendy Condo Tower.  Ok, since you used the word idiot to describe me, then I will be forced to apply that word to all the people that don't understand how development works.  A developer may use the same "building design / footprint" for other locations.  It keeps cost down.  The Civil is the only changes and a few misc. for adaptations on local.  The Davenport Model can be placed in other locations Venture. 

Venture, how does that crow taste?

----------


## OKVision4U

> How are you going to get retail in there when Campus Corner is a much strong prospect (more density and foot traffic) and the vast majority are being sucked into UNP. 
> 
> Look I commend people that have exciting ideas to share, but you need to fully vet them before you get behind it. Hey I've had crazy ideas for an airline based in OKC...is it logical? Not without asking a billionaire if they want to become a millionaire. 
> 
> However I look at existing urban developments around right now. The newer urban development at 12th and Lindsey, which is almost at full build out now, has struggled to get retail into the first floor. That is being on a corner with some of the highest traffic numbers in the city. That too is also next to numerous apartment complexes, has more food options in the area, and about equal distance to the heart of campus. 
> 
> As entertaining as this has been, you aren't doing yourself any favors.


As a stick-built structure, your area would be competing against all the other apartment locations.  My Tower would stand alone, in competition.  The bottom line is this, Norman in the campus corner area is "coming alive", but I'm not banking on the Campus Corner... I will talke all the other Top 10 % customers.  I'm fine w/ that.

----------


## warreng88

> Are you even aware of the OU Football program at all? ...do you even know where they practice?  Pre-season is across the street from my new Trendy Condo Tower.  Ok, since you used the word idiot to describe me, then I will be forced to apply that word to all the people that don't understand how development works.  A developer may use the same "building design / footprint" for other locations.  It keeps cost down.  The Civil is the only changes and a few misc. for adaptations on local.  The Davenport Model can be placed in other locations Venture. 
> 
> Venture, how does that crow taste?


Wow, you really showed him. May I suggest to you a book called "How to win friends and influence people"? I think it would be a good read for you.

----------


## venture

> Are you even aware of the OU Football program at all? ...do you even know where they practice? Pre-season is across the street from my new Trendy Condo Tower. Ok, since you used the word idiot to describe me, then I will be forced to apply that word to all the people that don't understand how development works. A developer may use the same "building design / footprint" for other locations. It keeps cost down. The Civil is the only changes and a few misc. for adaptations on local. The Davenport Model can be placed in other locations Venture. 
> 
> Venture, how does that crow taste?


Okay so that's pre-season...what about the rest of the season? Anyway. So you are saying you understand development - how much have you actually participated in? 




> As a stick-built structure, your area would be competing against all the other apartment locations.  My Tower would stand alone, in competition.  The bottom line is this, Norman in the campus corner area is "coming alive", but I'm not banking on the Campus Corner... I will talke all the other Top 10 % customers.  I'm fine w/ that.


So you are saying it is better to have individual developments spread out all over the place? You are one of the problems with the sprawl issue. You want to develop a high density structure but then don't want to put it in the area the high density is best supported? Let's not forget that actual developers have been applying to build there. No one has proposed a residential tower out on your "island". Granted...City of Norman won't permit it either as the high density district will be from Campus Corner to Downtown. So you are DOA regardless.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Wow, you really showed him. May I suggest to you a book called "How to win friends and influence people"? I think it would be a good read for you.


Reading comprehension.  Warrreng, read again what I said... Since he used the word "idiot"...????  and he was wrong both times.  So Warreng, go someplace else w/ that babble.  I did read "It's Tough to Soar w/ Eagles when you Blog w/ Turkeys".

----------


## venture

> Reading comprehension.  Warrreng, read again what I said... Since he used the word "idiot"...????  and he was wrong both times.  So Warreng, go someplace else w/ that babble.  I did read "It's Tough to Soar w/ Eagles when you Blog w/ Turkeys".


Coming from the person who didn't realize Warren didn't like his idea.

----------


## warreng88

> Reading comprehension.  Warrreng, read again what I said... Since he used the word "idiot"...????  and he was wrong both times.  So Warreng, go someplace else w/ that babble.  I did read "It's Tough to Soar w/ Eagles when you Blog w/ Turkeys".


I did read what you said and it's not what you said, it's how you said it. That is the point of the book. It's a good read. Might be of some use to you. I know it was to me when I was in college.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Okay so that's pre-season...what about the rest of the season? Anyway. So you are saying you understand development - how much have you actually participated in? 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are saying it is better to have individual developments spread out all over the place? You are one of the problems with the sprawl issue. You want to develop a high density structure but then don't want to put it in the area the high density is best supported? Let's not forget that actual developers have been applying to build there. No one has proposed a residential tower out on your "island". Granted...City of Norman won't permit it either as the high density district will be from Campus Corner to Downtown. So you are DOA regardless.


Not spawling at all.  This Tower will be tucked in-between the San Noble Musuem of Natural History & Across the Street From all the New Women's Sports Fields.  I feel good about my location. 

I have a great deal of development experience in the lower 48.

----------


## OKVision4U

> I did read what you said and it's not what you said, it's how you said it. That is the point of the book. It's a good read. Might be of some use to you. I know it was to me when I was in college.


Warreng, you should know by now that I'm not that guy.  Move on.

----------


## warreng88

> Warreng, you should know by now that I'm not that guy.  Move on.


You're not that guy who looks to improve himself? Fair enough.

----------


## venture

> Not spawling at all.  This Tower will be tucked in-between the San Noble Musuem of Natural History & Across the Street From all the New Women's Sports Fields.  I feel good about my location. 
> 
> I have a great deal of development experience in the lower 48.


Link to your developments please.

----------


## SouthsideSooner

> One more thing, from my High End Trendy Condo Tower, you can watch the OU Sooners practices from your balcony or the Work-out Faclity on the 12th Floor.  Or, you can just sit back in the Lounge area on the 11th floor.  ...take a look again at the type of trendy Warreng likes:  ...lol.
> 
> 100 DAVENPORT | YORKVILLE CONDOS | THE FLORIAN CONDOS | 100 DAVENPORT CONDOMINIUMS





> $285 K - $475K.  ...we will book them all day long.


They're selling theirs for $1;549,000 to $3,150,000 but you're gonna sell yours for $285k to $475k? You are quite the astute business man, aren't you buddy...haha

The Florian by Diamante Development Corporation in Toronto, New Condos - Project Details

----------


## Questor

I'm glad to know that all the big power players in Norman are frequenting this thread and all have enough free time in between all those important development meetings to spend an entire Wednesday afternoon chatting away on a message board and are willing to let anyone who is reading know all about the inner workings of their proprietary business deals with companies they are trying to negotiate into their development. Because that makes sense. 

Honestly guys?  Come on.

----------


## ou48A

> I'm glad to know that all the big power players in Norman are frequenting this thread and all have enough free time in between all those important development meetings to spend an entire Wednesday afternoon chatting away on a message board and are willing to let anyone who is reading know all about the inner workings of their proprietary business deals with companies they are trying to negotiate into their development. Because that makes sense. 
> 
> Honestly guys?  Come on.


LOL ****the truth hits a grand slam****  LOL

----------


## venture

> I'm glad to know that all the big power players in Norman are frequenting this thread and all have enough free time in between all those important development meetings to spend an entire Wednesday afternoon chatting away on a message board and are willing to let anyone who is reading know all about the inner workings of their proprietary business deals with companies they are trying to negotiate into their development. Because that makes sense. 
> 
> Honestly guys? Come on.


It is amazing how some people just can't come to grasp with reality, but then go out and want to propose a massive tower out of no where. At least the projects the rest of are are talking about are actually proposed.  :Smile:   It is pretty sad though.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> There is a lot of unintended comedy in this thread.


Wherever a particular individual(yes, that one guy with that one genetic makeup that assigns himself a very specific username) lurks, laughs and giggles are sure to fill the air.

disclaimer- I am not aiming this comment at Warreng88

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Warreng, you should know by now that I'm not that guy.  Move on.


Who are you? Seriously, have the balls to identify yourself one way or another. . .

----------


## soonerguru

I think he's either a sock puppet or plant. He's certainly trolling.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

I've done my fair share of trolling, believe you me, but this guy takes it to a new level.

----------


## venture

> I've done my fair share of trolling, believe you me, but this guy takes it to a new level.


Oh you are still a puppy when it comes to trolling compared to this guy. LOL

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Oh you are still a puppy when it comes to trolling compared to this guy. LOL


I have never trolled around here. . . .I just think OKC deserves a few high-fives for its accomplishments and progress. . . see what I did there? lol  :Wink:

----------


## venture

> I have never trolled around here. . . .I just think OKC deserves a few high-fives for its accomplishments and progress. . . see what I did there? lol


Where is something heavy I can throw...

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Well, there is a very specific place in the world, not sure if I've ever mentioned it. It is about 250 miles south of us, and it's pretty heavy; weighs a few billion tons(well, I'm not sure exactly how much it weighs), if you could throw that smack dab into the I35/I240 junction, that'd be greeeeaaaaat trolololol  :Wink:

----------


## ljbab728

> Well, there is a very specific place in the world, not sure if I've ever mentioned it. It about 250 miles south of us, and it is pretty heavy; weighs a few billion tons(well, I'm not sure exactly how much it weighs), if you could throw that smack dab into the I35/I240 junction, that'd be greeeeaaaaat trolololol


Down boy.   :Wink:

----------


## venture

> Well, there is a very specific place in the world, not sure if I've ever mentioned it. It is about 250 miles south of us, and it's pretty heavy; weighs a few billion tons(well, I'm not sure exactly how much it weighs), if you could throw that smack dab into the I35/I240 junction, that'd be greeeeaaaaat trolololol


Hmmm...we should go look at it...together...during an ice storm.  :Big Grin:

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Hmmm...we should go look at it...together...during an ice storm.


We'll have to get there before the salt trucks do or won't be any fun lol

----------


## OKVision4U

> I'm glad to know that all the big power players in Norman are frequenting this thread and all have enough free time in between all those important development meetings to spend an entire Wednesday afternoon chatting away on a message board and are willing to let anyone who is reading know all about the inner workings of their proprietary business deals with companies they are trying to negotiate into their development. Because that makes sense. 
> 
> Honestly guys?  Come on.


Questor, this was an exercise of ideas for High Density Developments in Norman that Venture said would not work.   I supported my idea well.  This is what this thread was designed for. 

I think we can look out on the landscape of Power Brokers in Norman and see that list is "very short" for any Large Power Players w/ any national attention  I'm not concerned with "divulging" anying that isn't already out there for public knowledge.  ...this is just an outlet for dialogue.

Questor, any ideas for High Density Living in Norman, or not? ...maybe not.

----------


## warreng88

> Questor, this was an exercise of ideas for High Density Developments in Norman that Venture said would not work.   I supported my idea well.  This is what this thread was designed for. 
> 
> I think we can look out on the landscape of Power Brokers in Norman and see that list is "very short" for any Large Power Players w/ any national attention  I'm not concerned with "divulging" anying that isn't already out there for public knowledge.  ...this is just an outlet for dialogue.
> 
> Questor, any ideas for High Density Living in Norman, or not? ...maybe not.


So, Vision, where are you planning on getting financing for your tower? When are you planning on breaking ground?

----------


## OKVision4U

> So, Vision, where are you planning on getting financing for your tower? When are you planning on breaking ground?


....well, if you don't loan it to me, then I guess I will just use CASH.

----------


## warreng88

> ....well, if you don't loan it to me, then I guess I will just use CASH.


Good to know you have $18-$20 million lying around that you can use for this. What is your actual last name? McClendon? Nichols? Hamm? Kaiser? Green? Love? Tannenbaum?

----------


## Questor

I think it's pretty obvious. There are two potential areas for high density that could really succeed in Norman. The first is somewhere in the campus corner area. I think the development pitched and on hold for the blocks behind campus is actually a pretty good development, if its ever allowed to move forward. The second is university north park. Not what's there today, but when the lifestyle center phase begins if they mix in development on the order of bricktown's centennial building here and there and design that portion for walk ability I think they've got a real shot at something. 

As I have ranted in many a past thread, after setting through many planning meetings I think step zero begins with a total and absolute purging of the planning commission and city staff.  Good luck on seeing anything significant or even somewhat rationale happening until that occurs. So for now perhaps Normans best bet for high density is building a rail line to Bricktown.

----------


## BG918

> As I have ranted in many a past thread, after setting through many planning meetings I think step zero begins with a total and absolute purging of the planning commission and city staff.  Good luck on seeing anything significant or even somewhat rationale happening until that occurs. So for now perhaps Normans best bet for high density is building a rail line to Bricktown.


I am hopeful the input from OU's Institute for Quality Communities, which is an urban-minded group, will help persuade these planning and city officials to green light higher density projects.  It is only a matter of time, and once one goes then it will be infinitely easier for the next round.

----------


## venture

> I am hopeful the input from OU's Institute for Quality Communities, which is an urban-minded group, will help persuade these planning and city officials to green light higher density projects.  It is only a matter of time, and once one goes then it will be infinitely easier for the next round.


It obviously a lot of what they say is going on deaf ears. Look at the Lindsey Street solution. I agree with Questor, until the planning commission and related idiots are purged, nothing will move forward. We'll continue as a bedroom community benefiting the McMansion crowd.

----------


## OKVision4U

So if hwy 9 is going to become in interstate in magnitude,then my High end Condo Tower will be even a greater success with more accessibility.

----------


## OKVision4U

> So if hwy 9 is going to become in interstate in magnitude,then my High end Condo Tower will be even a greater success with more accessibility.


Each tenant will get a free Segway with each purchase.

----------


## soonerguru

> Each tenant will get a free Segway with each purchase.


Do you work for the city? This is some serious troll action, here.

The whole concept of "your tower" defies density, as it creates no density and is marooned in a suburban, auto-centric neighborhood. You aren't actually being serious, and the free Segway comment just pushed this over the edge of credulity.

----------


## venture

I think Griffin shut down or had a few escape.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Do you work for the city? This is some serious troll action, here.
> 
> The whole concept of "your tower" defies density, as it creates no density and is marooned in a suburban, auto-centric neighborhood. You aren't actually being serious, and the free Segway comment just pushed this over the edge of credulity.


Something this large brings it's own density. You r not that familiar with Norman. The south area has received well over 100m in development vs campus corner, so I don't feel that marooned. Large developments are south not north.

----------


## venture

> Something this large brings it's own density. You r not that familiar with Norman. The south area has received well over 100m in development vs campus corner, so I don't feel that marooned. Large developments are south not north.


While Partners Place is a great development, it is wrong to say all development is south and not north. That just comes from someone who doesn't know Norman. Of course cracks are starting to show in how you talk. No seasoned professional, as you claim to be, would switch to "textaneese" in their typing. So that means the author is either really young or not as well versed as they lead others to believe.

However, the ball is in your court. If you are so experienced with these developments, then please share examples of what you have done in the past. Surely you would have no problem sharing that with us.

----------


## kevinpate

> I think Griffin shut down or had a few escape.


There is still quite a bit of activity on the Griffin campus, though many of the older buildings are no longer used.

#sometimesmissHopeHall

----------

