sorry, this market is oversaturated with smartass comments. Demand is real low right now.

bahahaha!!!!!

HAHAHA, nice.

Hoya - I agree with that completely. However my personal opinion on that front is that it's going to take a LOT longer if we only stick to upscale residential. Until more reasonable priced residential is available, the sheer volume to stimluate the construction of something like a regular grocer, cvs, etc. won't exist. And if you're waiting for C2S, don't hold your breath. Remember the masterplans are just that, not actual planned developments.

Sorry, this market is oversaturated with smartass comments. Demand is real low right now.

+1. Good one

sorry, this market is oversaturated with smartass comments. Demand is real low right now.[/thread]..

HAHAHA, nice.

Hoya - I agree with that completely. However my personal opinion on that front is that it's going to take a LOT longer if we only stick to upscale residential. Until more reasonable priced residential is available, the sheer volume to stimluate the construction of something like a regular grocer, cvs, etc. won't exist. And if you're waiting for C2S, don't hold your breath. Remember the masterplans are just that, not actual planned developments.

There's plenty of affordable rental housing. Proportionately there's not much upscale anything, rental or for sale. I wrote CVS and Walgreens a long time ago and was told they need a population of 10,000 to put a store in. That's not happening in the foreseeable future no matter what we build.

There's a big grocery store at 16th and Classen already. Although I have to drive there, it's really not that far. And I have a walkable small grocery store that has most of what I need.

At this point in time people don't live downtown if they choose not to. It's not a wasteland and it has as many affordable options or more near downtown than most cities.

There's plenty of affordable rental housing. Proportionately there's not much upscale anything, rental or for sale. I wrote CVS and Walgreens a long time ago and was told they need a population of 10,000 to put a store in. That's not happening in the foreseeable future no matter what we build.

This is why some cities offer incentives to certain types of businesses to locate in area that isn't viable for them yet, in hopes that the presence of the good/service will spur additional development. I wonder if CVS got a free lease until 10,000 people lived within 2 miles of their store if it would change their mind.

All I know is there was a CVS in a street level retail location in downtown Dallas that was near our hotel and we used that thing constantly. Super convenient. Never once used a car the entire stay there. I would love to see a similar setup in DT OKC. Think of the regular foot traffic, it would keep life in a district otherwise potentially dead, post 5pm.

Just to clarify, I am very happy that our downtown area is developing. I have very high hopes for OKC. Personally I doubt that I'll ever be in a place in my personal life where I end up moving downtown. I would like to, but it just might not work out for Hoya. If circumstances were different, then maybe. There are a lot of people in this city in situations similar to me. If the cost were lower I might have been able to move downtown earlier. If there were more amenities I might choose to move downtown later on. There's a balancing point in life and its different for each person. There are people right now, like Betts, where that balancing point tips in favor of moving downtown. And that's great, we need first movers because otherwise it will never develop at all. But there are so many more people who are waiting for downtown to become practical for them.

As time progresses and we have more housing options, we as a city expand our market. We sell to different types of people. BMW doesn't just sell BMWs. They also own Mini Cooper and Rolls Royce. There are only so many people who can afford a Rolls Royce. Rover is right in that regard, you can't just produce and produce and produce and expect that the market is just going to buy them all. That's why they make a range of products, all the way down to the Mini, for people who like cars that are ugly as hell. LEVEL serves a different market than The Hill.

As our downtown develops, which may take 40 years before it gets where I really want it, different amenities will appear, different price points will become available. But after every development, our overall product improves. It's much more appealing to walk by Betts' Brownstone, even if I can't afford to live there, than it is to walk by an empty lot. I don't know the likelihood that Carnegie Centre will ever get off the ground. But I don't think we're in any danger of exhausting the demand for "urban housing". As long as no one drops 50 more LEVELs or 1000 Brownstones into the downtown market overnight we should be fine.

America's great cities developed their downtowns over the course of a century or more. We're starting almost from scratch. It's not going to happen quickly. We still have a lot of empty spaces downtown. But it should speed up. I think we get a CVS within 10 years. Once demand is high enough the CBD restaurants will decide to stay open for dinner and on the weekends. The streetcar will help connect different parts of the city. The snowball is starting to roll downhill.

I think the problem with downtown is that OKC has been so starved for anything down there, that we initially took what we were given. It seems like Midtown is beginning to experience competition, which will lead to increased quality. The problem with the Carnegie Centre isn't location, or demand - it is the quality of this particular developer. Hopefully we are getting past the point where any developer throws an idea against the wall to see if it sticks! This development was doomed from the start (selling white box interiors for $200/SF, with no first floor tenants or any redo of the exterior (see 1212 N. Walker)?). It is frustrating to see top quality developments occur, but market forces will get us there! Certainly a very exciting time for Oklahoma City!

If people are waiting for suburban prices in downtown they will wait forever, unless there is another bust. We would then have a poor economy and cheap housing. Along with educating our citizens about urban quality of life issues, we need to do a good job of educating them and changing their expectations on urban economics.

I believe this project will be successful because it satisfies a specific niche and doesn't put too many units into the market place that are targeted for that niche. It is a great way to slowly and incrementally test the demand for such. These smaller projects are great to balance out market segments.

But, lest we're aghast at $200/square foot, here's a little perspective: I went to a few open houses in Nob Hill, SFO recently and saw fairly bare bones condos for $1,000 per foot. As Rover said, you don't get suburban prices downtown. If you do, I'd worry about quality, although I'd worry about a lot of the suburban housing quality as well. When you buy cheap, you usually get cheap.

But, lest we're aghast at $200/square foot, here's a little perspective: I went to a few open houses in Nob Hill, SFO recently and saw fairly bare bones condos for $1,000 per foot. As Rover said, you don't get suburban prices downtown. If you do, I'd worry about quality, although I'd worry about a lot of the suburban housing quality as well. When you buy cheap, you usually get cheap.

haha, San Francisco as a comparison point for perspective in housing costs? Really?

As I said, there is a lot of ignorance about urban life and urban economics. While it has many great attributes, relative cheapness of real estate and other things isn't one of them.

haha, San Francisco as a comparison point for perspective in housing costs? Really?

Why not at least look at what prices are in other cities? We don't consider OKC a city? I paid $220/ft and was happy to do so. As I've said before, I am saving $30,000+ per year in maintenance/taxes/insurance costs over my suburban home, which drops that per square foot price rather rapidly. Then, when I look at what downtown real estate costs in other cities, I see very little in OKC as "high end", including the Brownstones. City Place maybe, but that's about it.

Why not at least look at what prices are in other cities? We don't consider OKC a city? I paid $220/ft and was happy to do so. As I've said before, I am saving $30,000+ per year in maintenance/taxes/insurance costs over my suburban home, which drops that per square foot price rather rapidly. Then, when I look at what downtown real estate costs in other cities, I see very little in OKC as "high end", including the Brownstones. City Place maybe, but that's about it.

Plus, isn't there a hidden bonus when you give up your car, or at least seriously decrease the usage?

Plus, isn't there a hidden bonus when you give up your car, or at least seriously decrease the usage?

It is the Housing and Transportation Affordability Index. Most people simply look at housing affordability, but when you factor in transportation cost (which are directly tied to where you chose to live) it turns out the higher the denisty the cheaper it is to live there.

There is a map on this link that you can find the HTAI for 180,000 neighborhoods.

Welcome to The H+T Affordability Index (http://www.htaindex.org/)

Downtown housing prices are going to continue to up not down if you are looking for a long term trend

Downtown housing prices are going to continue to up not down if you are looking for a long term trend

10% should be 'affordable' units though.

So, should every building be required to have affordable units even if it is at a loss for them. Isn't that welfare? Why? I would like to live in Gaillardia...I think 10% of those houses should be affordable because I want to live there.

So, should every building be required to have affordable units even if it is at a loss for them. Isn't that welfare? Why? I would like to live in Gaillardia...I think 10% of those houses should be affordable because I want to live there.

No, they should have 10% for a lot reasons but the primary one is that the federal government requires it for most of the projects where federal funds/programs are involved - plus, it is just a good idea. However, affordable doesn't mean poor or section 8. The new East Bricktown project is going to have 32 'affordable' units if I remember correctly. Concentrating the poor hasn't worked out so well.

Subsidizing or mandating doesn't necessarily work out well either.

I can understand what JTF is saying. If you're using federal dollars, then you're going to have to do it. That's because the federal money is supposed to be used to help represent a broad spectrum of interests...not just upscale. If the developer takes a loss on those units, that's something they have to know going in and agree to if they want those dollars. If the developer doesn't want to do that, then they dont have to take the money...it's that easy.

If you're a private developer, then you should be free to do what you want. The market is going to tell you whether you are right or not. But more often than not, the builder of a residential development doesn't hold on to it for terribly long after construction is done. 5 years or so and they're selling off the place. At that point, all agreements are out the window anyway.

What I do feel, is that there needs to be a more balanced approach to what type of developments are put in. Zoning is where you handle that one. Rent control is another option. I don't personally feel that downtown should be turned into an upscale only residential area. It's not as though the city is preventing someone from building that type of facility, but they dont seem to be encouraging it either. A non-action is an action. And i'm not talking $500 a month or section 8 either. Even a little townhouse or 2-3 bed for 1000-1200 would be a welcome change. Edge it up a little more given that it's in the CBD. I'm not talking the projects...just not something that equates to 2500-3000 a month.

Subsidizing or mandating doesn't necessarily work out well either.

I know, but we can't have slums either. So either housing for all income levels needs to be part of the plan or slums are the ultimate outcome. Our development model of the last 60 years has segregated us by income level better than any despotic government could ever imagine doing it and it has had terrible effects on our society. We have to change that.

Well, maybe it isn't fair that the poorer population has to buy at Aldi vs Whole Foods, but it doesn't mean that we should make WF offer 10% cheap food on their shelves. I am restricted where I can live by my economic realities. Everyone is.

As far as creating economically defined areas, it exists everywhere. And should we force developers to provide high price housing in lower economic areas? What's the difference. Why not let the government dictate the amounts/mix of All neighborhoods and don't allow builders to build what they think will sell, but rather what the govt dictates? These decisions become arbitrary and political.

There are so many benefits to a mixed income neighborhood I would have a hard time starting the list. If you want to live with a group of people that look just like you, drive the same level of car you do, buy clothes from the same designer, eat the same type of food, and live in the same size of house - there are about 180,000 in the US where you can do that so have at it.

Some of us are trying to build a place that is different. A place where local businesses have access to a wide range of incomes so they aren't dependent on the success of one class of people, that aren't subject to the fluctuations in gasoline price, and where people can go through all of life's changes (from child, to early adult, to family, to senior citizen) without having to move out of their neighborhood. A place where grandkids can walk to grandma's place and grandma can walk to the pharmacy. Where people of all incomes can associate with each other to build trust and friendship across socio-economic boundaries.

If that can be accomplished by developers including a small percentage of affordable residential units then I think we should try it.

Ok, so now back to Carnegie Centre

^^^ Like!

Down with enterprise, up with government intervention. Let's have the government (whoever that is that is running it) establish THEIR view of the perfect society and force the rest of us to comply. (Sarcasm intended)

I've spent some time in China and eastern Europe and how they have tried to provide that kind of control over who gets what and it didn't work. There are plenty of ghettos created regardless. In New York, rent control hasn't as much made fashionable neighborhoods affordable but has created a tremendous black market and corruption. Forced control is not long term sustainable.

Carnegie should succeed or fail based on the economics of the project, the quality of the execution, and the demand for the final result. THAT will be the determinant, not a government quota on housing.

No one said anything about rent control. Besides, I don't even know if Carnegie Centre is required to make 2 units available at below market rate, and even if they are, how much below market rate that has to be, or for how long. However, just because someone can afford $1000 per month instead of $1300 per month doesn't make them a low life.

I didn't call them a low life, you just did. I guess you look at economic conditions and determine character. All I said was I don't believe in allowing the government to control who gets to live where based on an their esoteric notion of a great society. I trust the public and economics to rule. I think Carnegie should compete in the category of market they determine to be best for their ownership. I agree with the ideal of a truly mixed society and I for one do not judge the value of an individual based on how much they earn, what brand of clothes they wear and where they live. I just believe that if you wish to live in a prime location of desire then it is not a "right" but a privilege and not one that should be endowed upon any class by the government.

Secondly, I am not sure what "affordable" means. Does that mean cheap? Do we have the right to dictate any business sell at different prices to different classes based on their ability to pay? Is location a commodity or is there no value in it?

Carnegie Center has a great opportunity to compete and win. I think it fits a niche and will make the developer money....the best incentive to do more.

I didn't call them a low life, you just did. I guess you look at economic conditions and determine character. All I said was I don't believe in allowing the government to control who gets to live where based on an their esoteric notion of a great society. I trust the public and economics to rule. I think Carnegie should compete in the category of market they determine to be best for their ownership. I agree with the ideal of a truly mixed society and I for one do not judge the value of an individual based on how much they earn, what brand of clothes they wear and where they live. I just believe that if you wish to live in a prime location of desire then it is not a "right" but a privilege and not one that should be endowed upon any class by the government.

Secondly, I am not sure what "affordable" means. Does that mean cheap? Do we have the right to dictate any business sell at different prices to different classes based on their ability to pay? Is location a commodity or is there no value in it?

Carnegie Center has a great opportunity to compete and win. I think it fits a niche and will make the developer money....the best incentive to do more.

I generally agree with you, but...

We're talking about a region of town that has seen heavy government investment. The money we spend through MAPS made certain properties very valuable. Certain property owners, through little action on their own, were basically given a large gift. I could make the argument that the government isn't being a bunch of oppressive communists when they say "you have to make some of this housing affordable". Downtown development wasn't intended to just be a playground for the rich.

The city has a very real interest in making sure that these developments are successful. That's why they passed MAPS in the first place. If some crazy builder came in and decided to purchase the top floors of every building along the canal, and turn them into bachelor pad for a billionaire Saudi Arabian sheik (who once made a joke about moving to OKC that the builder seriously misinterpreted), must the city stand idly by? Let the moron lose his shirt and throw away property that benefitted from significant public investment? I don't think they do. I think they can require a use that has a public benefit.

The same really goes for any property. The city can require builders to put in sidewalks, public parks, and anything else they choose. Part of the requirements of doing business in that city. I think that's one place OKC has seriously lagged behind its peers.

We will see over the long run, but most artificial restrictions result in black markets. It is like ticket scalping. When the demand exceeds the supply, the commodity price rises regardless of the ticket selling "policy". Someone will profit and all the ideology goes out the window.

I think the thing that JTF is trying to say is how downtown differs from normal suburban development in that so much public money has been thrown into the area to make it accessible to EVERYONE, that allowing residential developments to exclude all but upscale ends up cheating most of those that contributed to the funding, out of the game. Downtown is what it is because of Maps, not because of private development. Most of these projects have recevied some sort of incentive or credit or something to get their project moving. That money comes from public sources. If you want that money, then you need to be willing to do something so that money is reflective of those that give it...meaning more than the upscale. That, i think, is the jist of what JTF was trying to say but maybe i'm wrong.

Now if you want to take the other arguements valid about not having government intervention, that's fine. The solution there is simple. Don't take the incentive, credit, etc. If you want to run a development 100% the way you want without anyone having a say, then you need to secure 100% private funding. Otherwise, you should assume that there are strings attached to it. Remember tax dollars are not intended to be an open bank. It would be mismanagement of the funds if they were just given away without any concession.

If you want to make something like Gallardia, fine. That's your choice and there are probably plenty people out there (obviosuly) that would contribute. But if you want to use them as an example, then you'll also see how that development makes my argument for me. That is a 100% privately funded development. The roads were privately built and are privately maintained. That's why they aren't required to leave the gates open during the day. Remember a gated community has to open them during the day if it's a road that's built/maintained with tax dollars...ie you have the right to drive on that road if you want to. So to get around anyone else telling them what to do, they paid for it themselves. And FYI - Gallardia is also split into villas where you build your house in an area based on how large (and therefore expensive) it is. So even in the upscale area, they're classifying themselves by income.

You can keep jumping but you will always come down because you can't deny gravity. The government can dictate mix originally, but the only way demand doesn't force prices up and the lower economic classes out is to create an area that people don't want to move to. Decent quality, good amenities, great location WILL still raise prices beyond affordability of many... Unless there are substandard living units or continuing government subsidies or manipulation. Utopia is not achievable by government quotas.

I dont think anyone is talking about what you are implying Rover. We're not suggesting making a 3K unit, available to Section 8. There needs to be some practical logic applied here, and i think you're trying to stretch it beyond the scope of what we're saying. And it does work - rent control in NYC has helped to do this very thing. Areas of NYC fluctuate all the time, but what it has done, it allowed many areas to mix more. The side effect there, is that the move to Manhattan from other areas has increased to the point where Manhattan is no longer affordable to anyone but the top income earners. So that's going to be the next area you will see targeted. Tune to the Bryan Leher show from WNYC some time and they bring it up from time to time.

How does this relate to Carnegie? Carnegie is just a small little island microcasm of the larger picture. What is created in each development is what determines what the area is.

If they get tax credits or historical credits (which they shouldn't since they are altering it so much), then they need to be willing to do these things.

If they get tax credits or historical credits (which they shouldn't since they are altering it so much), then they need to be willing to do these things.

Many of the government programs are designed to compensate the developer for making units more cost effective for the resident. Getting government money with no strings attached just isn't possible. If the property owner only wants market rate units then he is free to develop the project using only private funds (although I would argue even in that case that 10% of the units be affordable just from a 'good business practice' stand point).

Many of the government programs are designed to compensate the developer for making units more cost effective for the resident. Getting government money with no strings attached just isn't possible. If the property owner only wants market rate units then he is free to develop the project using only private funds (although I would argue even in that case that 10% of the units be affordable just from a 'good business practice' stand point).

tax credits/historical tax credits are mostly to make the development possible ... ie the building wouldn't get developed at all in the current market environment with out them market rate is fine for all of these new building ... if the demand is there prices will continue to go up ...

Obviously if someone wanted to build a 600' residential tower on an old parking lot with totally private funds and charge $400 per square foot, then I, as hypothetical dictator of OKC, would not say no. I don't think there is enough demand for that much high priced housing in this city, but hey it's their money. On the opposite side, if someone managed to finance the renovation of a historic building almost entirely through various public grants, then the city gets to be heavily involved. Yes, I'm sure the top 6 floors of the First National Building would make a totally kickass private Laser Tag arena for you and your buddies, but you don't get to spend $80 million in public money to make it. Although I do think I've just found a use for Stage Center. That would be awesome.

The city has an interest in building and maintaining a vibrant downtown. Developers may not have the same interest. So the city can require better construction standards, public accessibility, and can influence exactly what gets built. If that means assuring that affordable housing exists downtown then so be it. Now obviously it's the city's responsibility to make sure these demands are well thought out. We could require that every new building more than 5 stories high have elevator operators, but I don't think that's a good idea. But requiring 10% or 20% of downtown housing to be similar in price to a suburban equivalent would not be horrible. It would get more people living downtown, quickly. My apartment in MWC is about $900 a month. Downtown it would probably be $1500 to $1700. There are a whole lot more people who can afford the first than can afford the second. If the city wants a large downtown population, then mandating a certain number of affordable units makes sense.

Now if everything is going great, and million dollar developments like The Hill are selling out as quickly as you can build them, then maybe you don't need lower price points. But, as people have previously worried about in this very thread, if you think that you might run out of demand at some point in the near future, that you might over-saturate the market, then requiring a certain percentage of price controlled housing makes sense. It helps to avoid a crash. It gets more people downtown and helps diversify the population (you don't want an entire neighborhood to be made up entirely of say, Kerr McGee executives). You don't want to over-regulate to the point where new construction becomes unprofitable, either. But there's definitely a balance to be reached.

hoyasooner: Obviously if someone wanted to build a 600' residential tower on an old parking lot with totally private funds and charge $400 per square foot, then I, as hypothetical dictator of OKC, would not say no.We could be like Mayor McFascist in New York and start demanding things like this.....LOL

Even if income diversity can't acheived in a single building it should be done at the neighborhood level.

Even if income diversity can't acheived in a single building it should be done at the neighborhood level.

or just as the market dictates

or just as the market dictates

The market dictates? Explain to me the free-market in the housing industry in American today. It doesn't exist. Maybe that is the problem. The non-New Urbanist think what we know today as 'civilization' is a result of a free-market at work, so anything different must be some kind of government plan to control your life, when in reality, the exact opposite is true. The government has done such a good job of segregating us (right down to cul-de-sacs in a subdivision) that everyone just assumes that is 'normal'. It isn't normal.

We are no different than the cows down at the feeder market divided into pens by breed, age, and weight - except we call it race, age, and income. Heaven forbid someone wanted to build a 1600 sq foot house in my subdivision - all hell would break lose no matter how nice or decent the new resident might be. They won't have the same income, the same job, drive the same level of car, have a different education level, or some other qualification that deems them 'unworthy'. Frankly - it makes me sick to know I participated in this sham as long as I have, but at least now I know it was a sham.

Ok, rant off :)

The market dictates? Explain to me the free-market in the housing industry in American today. It doesn't exist. Maybe that is the problem. The non-New Urbanist think what we know today as 'civilization' is a result of a free-market at work, so anything different must be some kind of government plan to control your life, when in reality, the exact opposite is true. The government has done such a good job of segregating us (right down to cul-de-sacs in a subdivision) that everyone just assumes that is 'normal'. It isn't normal.

We are no different than the cows down at the feeder market divided into pens by breed, age, and weight - except we call it race, age, and income. Heaven forbid someone wanted to build a 1600 sq foot house in my subdivision - all hell would break lose no matter how nice or decent the new resident might be. They won't have the same income, the same job, drive the same level of car, have a different education level, or some other qualification that deems them 'unworthy'. Frankly - it makes me sick to know I participated in this sham as long as I have, but at least now I know it was a sham.

Ok, rant off :)

now that rant was funny

or just as the market dictates

But the market isn't acting on its own right now.

Suppose I'm a builder, and I want to build a nice little neighborhood somewhere northwest of the city. Not quite out to Mustang or Yukon, out somewhere within OKC city limits but where it's a big empty field. I buy the land, parcel it out, apply for permits, and get ready to build a bunch of nice houses that I will sell for a significant profit. Free market at work? Nope. Why?

Because the city is going to have a lot of costs that they will have to cover. They're going to have to build roads for my new division. They're going to have to put in water pipes and gas pipes and sewage pipes, as well as electric lines. I, as the builder, may have to pay a certain portion of some of these costs. But I'm not going to have to pay them all. I effectively get a cost break for buying cheap land, because I'm not paying for all the costs of new development. I also don't have to pay the city's increased operating costs. The city is going to have to pay for either a new school for all the kids in my neighborhood to attend, or will have to pay for bus service out to this area. I'm not gonna pay that. The city pays for that. Those are costs that I don't have to pay, which makes it cheaper for me than if I had to build in an area that already had all the utilities set up. I benefit directly from the government picking up the tab by being able to buy cheaper land. That's not the free market.

Nobody was building in Bricktown or Deep Deuce before MAPS. The growth we have seen there is in direct response to government investment. If the government comes in and cleans up the neighborhood, putting in massive capital projects like the canal, you don't think that influences people's investment decisions? Pretending it is just the "free market" at work is disingenuous. Most of these developments are closer to a public/private partnership.

But the market isn't acting on its own right now.

Suppose I'm a builder, and I want to build a nice little neighborhood somewhere northwest of the city. Not quite out to Mustang or Yukon, out somewhere within OKC city limits but where it's a big empty field. I buy the land, parcel it out, apply for permits, and get ready to build a bunch of nice houses that I will sell for a significant profit. Free market at work? Nope. Why?

Because the city is going to have a lot of costs that they will have to cover. They're going to have to build roads for my new division. They're going to have to put in water pipes and gas pipes and sewage pipes, as well as electric lines. I, as the builder, may have to pay a certain portion of some of these costs. But I'm not going to have to pay them all. I effectively get a cost break for buying cheap land, because I'm not paying for all the costs of new development. I also don't have to pay the city's increased operating costs. The city is going to have to pay for either a new school for all the kids in my neighborhood to attend, or will have to pay for bus service out to this area. I'm not gonna pay that. The city pays for that. Those are costs that I don't have to pay, which makes it cheaper for me than if I had to build in an area that already had all the utilities set up. I benefit directly from the government picking up the tab by being able to buy cheaper land. That's not the free market.

Nobody was building in Bricktown or Deep Deuce before MAPS. The growth we have seen there is in direct response to government investment. If the government comes in and cleans up the neighborhood, putting in massive capital projects like the canal, you don't think that influences people's investment decisions? Pretending it is just the "free market" at work is disingenuous. Most of these developments are closer to a public/private partnership.

the city doesn't pay to build any of the new roads, pipes or electric that goes in (in fact the city doesn't have anything to do with the electric) now of course they maintain them after the fact .. and of course get new revenue from the increased property and sales taxes

I think he meant ancillary to the development, not inside of it. Some impacts are generally covered by developers - I think for instance connecting to the sewer system, for instance - but hoya is right when he says suburban development will create new taxpayer expenses in the 'burbs that are not created by urban development, since services/infrastructure are already in place. Widening of roads to accommodate new traffic, new signals, expansion of police patrols, garbage truck routes, addition of new fire stations, etc., are all examples of new taxpayer expenditures that usually result from suburban development and far less often with urban.

OG&E of course (or whatever applicable local company) would be the ones putting in electric lines. My bad. But the city does have to pay for many of the development costs, roads leading up to the development, etc. Even if the developer pays for everything within the four corners of his land, the city still has to maintain that and pay for and maintain the connection between it and the rest of the city. These are significant costs. Then you've got schools to factor in as well.

Increased property and sales taxes, yes. But these will be paid regardless of where the development is. And these costs aren't site neutral. A development two miles further out will cost more to the city than one that is closer. Taxes will differ depending on where you locate it. You can't just pretend that it all equals out.

What I am saying is that the city is a necessary partner in all developments, and has an interest in favoring certain types of developments over others. Requiring a percentage of "affordable" housing might be a bad idea, but it's not a bad idea simply because it offends some idealized notion of a "free market" that doesn't exist.

the city doesn't pay to build any of the new roads, pipes or electric that goes in (in fact the city doesn't have anything to do with the electric) now of course they maintain them after the fact .. and of course get new revenue from the increased property and sales taxes

Even in an established sub-division, builders have all kinds of costs. I have a good friend who builds here, and he built a duplex on 16th where an old house had burnt down. The city would not let him split the existing water line before the water meter where the single house used to be, he had to pay $10,000 to get another line line run under 16th. The city doesn't pay for as much as people think, it falls on the builder and ultimately whomever rents or purchases the house.

the city doesn't pay to build any of the new roads, pipes or electric that goes in (in fact the city doesn't have anything to do with the electric) now of course they maintain them after the fact .. and of course get new revenue from the increased property and sales taxes

...and that is where the fallacy comes in. The maintence and replacement cost are HIGHER than the tax collected. The studies have been done - have the courage to believe the truth.

52NhFMFgLEY

I wonder when the last time a suburban development generated this level and range of debate.

...and that is where the fallacy comes in. The maintence and replacement cost are HIGHER than the tax collected. The studies have been done - have the courage to believe the truth.

52NhFMFgLEY

I wonder when the last time a suburban development generated this level and range of debate.

then how is it that our city is in such great finical shape being that we have such a giant land sized city??

then how is it that our city is in such great finical shape being that we have such a giant land sized city??

Because it is a growth model. Skip forward to about the 22 minute mark. How many billion of debt do you think OKC is carrying right now?

This thread is so far off the topic it is amazing. And the logic and "facts" used to justify some of the beliefs are just as off. People at the far fringe of all dogmas who are rigid are usually not very objective anyway. Nothing new.

I'll bring it back in then....i still say Carnegie is done.

This thread is so far off the topic it is amazing. And the logic and "facts" used to justify some of the beliefs are just as off. People at the far fringe of all dogmas who are rigid are usually not very objective anyway. Nothing new.

I don't think you could call me "at the far fringe of all dogmas". I'm pretty moderate on everything. But oh well.

Thought I would contribute to this discussion and say that I have actually been in contact with the company leasing the Carnegie Center and expected completion is January 2014. There had been set backs when trying to change the outer appearance I believe and the plan had to be reconfigured to only utilize existing windows. I do understand the skepticism regarding the completion that many have though with the seemingly changing completion times. Has anyone been around and seen if it looked like anything was going on inside? I am afraid I havent been in the area in a couple months.

Last time i was in the area, nothing was happening. And i wont believe the latest timeline until i see a "we're open" sign out front. For the place to be done right, they would need more than from now to Jan to do it. So if that's what they're doing, when we're looking at a failed project...one that simply converts one MASSIVELY UGLY building into a massively ugle residential dungeon.

Ran across this today. Carnegie Centre is named after the Carnegie Library.

http://m4.i.pbase.com/o6/27/79027/1/114195184.x1F9ur9D.OKOklahomaCityPostOffice1937.jp g

West on Dean McGee and Robinson
1937

StreetView (https://www.google.com/maps/preview?hl=en#!data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-97.516169!3d35.470888!2m2!1f303.9!2f90.7!4f75!2m5! 1e1!2m3!1sEuMH2zn1gKyhPprwlZnNew!2e0!7e11&fid=5)

This thread is so far off the topic it is amazing. And the logic and "facts" used to justify some of the beliefs are just as off. People at the far fringe of all dogmas who are rigid are usually not very objective anyway. Nothing new.

Hmmm....

I cry a little bit when i see things like the old Carnegie Library. Gems like that and the old County Courthouse should have been saved. It's a HUGE loss that they are gone. To think, we get the old downtown library in place of that masterpiece. What crack were we smoking?

The old County Courthouse for reference. In case someone out there isn't familiar. The link will take you to the current County Courthouse. In place of this there is an old Holiday Inn building (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2009/01/civic-center.html). Actually where the parking lot is. Woe to any structure that becomes worth less than the property it sits on (Stage Center).

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/Old%20Oklahoma%20County%20Courthouse/21412BH6961.jpg