yeah, sorry to say Spartan a sidewalk increases walkability for me. I don't need 20, 2-3 buildings pushed right up against the street for me to want to walk somewhere. If I am going to walk, I am going to walk. If you have to have an urban fabric to do that, than sucks for you.

So that's your opinion, but it isn't corroborated by either academic or practical study of cities, no matter how you refute even the need to understand or know about concepts such as walkability, city planning, traffic planning, urban design, or urbanism.

Pete (or anyone else that knows), is this project still moving forward?

So if I live at these Apartments, you're telling me that the only thing I need to entice me to walk to my job at Home Depot is a path of sidewalks from here to there.

Here are a few major factors that are going to affect the areas walkability:

Speed Limits
Lighting (for nights)
Distance
A variety of ways to get from Point A to Point Z
Points of Interest between Point A and Point Z
Infrastructure
Safety

Throwing sidewalks everywhere does not address all those factors. The fact of the matter is, is that the people who walk in NW OKC do it because they have to.

This development in particular will help increase the density in the area and there are things they could do to make the development more walkable. Cut the 2 or 3 parking spaces that are immediately in front of the entrance and extend and landscape the entire elevated pedestrian area from the entrance to the street…As it is now, the development is blocked by an immediate view of automobiles until you're essentially inside the development.The only thing I care about is the infrastructure that would allow me to get to point a to be without having to walk on the road except crosswalks. Don't care about speed limits and that has nothing to do with safety for me as most speed limits are 45mph anyways, a safe speed limit.

Sure, with the right infrastructure, you can physically walk.

The placement of buildings, street design, and a multitude of other factors are psychological. We need to create an environment where people want to walk, because it is enjoyable and physically possible.

The only thing I care about is the infrastructure that would allow me to get to point a to be without having to walk on the road except crosswalks. Don't care about speed limits and that has nothing to do with safety for me as most speed limits are 45mph anyways, a safe speed limit.

Wait you think 45 mph is a safe speed limit where you can walk if there's (maybe) a sidewalk?

Wait you think 45 mph is a safe speed limit where you can walk if there's (maybe) a sidewalk?I feel completely safe walking AND biking along and ON(don't walk on but bike) Covell and the speed limit is 45MPH with traffic generally moving at about 50MPH.

I understand what "walkability" means, but I see no reason to make NW Expressway walkable in that sense. It will never happen. How are you going to do that with a six lane road that has a median, buildings that are spread out and have a suburban layout, etc. Why does everything have to be urban to be able to want to walk around it? So what, I suppose some here will advocate for this(another) street to be have lanes taken away to be 4 lanes, huh? So now we need to narrow Classen and NW Expressway. While you're at it, just go ahead and narrow Lincoln and Shields.

So tell me, what is the problem with this if it is restored and have major private investments(as is currently happening) and 12ft. sidewalks are added, May Ave. or NW Expressway is brought to grade to intersect(allowing for more development), and light rail is built on both sides? Landscape, divide the road to four lanes in the middle allowing a faster speed limit of 45 to 50 mph and have the outer edge four lanes(two each way) of 30-35mph, push the sidewalks away from the road 5-8 ft. Some of that might have to be adjusted for space related issues, but something like that could work. That would make the area 1000x more walkable.

I just don't see the need to push for any urbanization of this area what so ever. The only thing I would support among that is taking the surface lots and turning them into structured parking removing big surface lots.

Sure, with the right infrastructure, you can physically walk.

The placement of buildings, street design, and a multitude of other factors are psychological. We need to create an environment where people want to walk, because it is enjoyable and physically possible.In districts such as auto alley, downtown Edmond, OU-downtown Norman etc.... I would support that, but not here. Just don't see the need to place the buildings up against the street here.

In districts such as auto alley, downtown Edmond, OU-downtown Norman etc.... I would support that, but not here. Just don't see the need to place the buildings up against the street here.

Why?

LA is hardly an urbanist model, however it's sprawl is a of high traffic high volume streets, with many buildings up against the street and street front retail. While it doesn't provide a 100 percent comfortable walk, it does allow for an interesting and somewhat enjoyable walk.

You have this thing in your mind that things are 100% urban with small, quaint streets, bicycles and mopeds; or 100% suburban, with 100 foot setbacks, endless seas of parking, 100% closed in neighborhoods, strip malls, and superhighways, and that The Lord saw the latter and he saw that it was good.

Stop. There are combinations of them. You can have a 45 mph 6 lane street next to buildings that are densely positioned next to the sidewalk. It would represent a transition between 100% urban and 100% suburban. You can achieve the best of both worlds, the NW expressway area would be a great place to reincorporate the area as a dense area while also maintaining automobile access. I'd say that would be a 50% mix. Not ideal for your urban dweller, not ideal for your suburban acreage dweller, but would be ideal for those wanting to live in a dense area where walking can be done, and driving can be also. Walking is accessible and driving is accessible, but neither are so overly dominant over the other.

Pardon me if this was mentioned, but is the cloverleaf not an artifact of when U.S. Route 66 and State Highway 74 aligned along May Avenue? And, it was confirmed to me that in those glory days before the 70s, as recently as the other week when talking to an old local during a sojourn at my neighborhood Starbucks, that it was gravel and dirt north of the NW highway back then, at points west. I've yet to confirm all of these points with one of my state maps. Anyway, if I recall right, 74 was moved from May in 1991. There's some good infrastructure to move around in the case of adding or removing access.

I hope Tiffany is revitalized.

Why?

LA is hardly an urbanist model, however it's sprawl is a of high traffic high volume streets, with many buildings up against the street and street front retail. While it doesn't provide a 100 percent comfortable walk, it does allow for an interesting and somewhat enjoyable walk.

You have this thing in your mind that things are 100% urban with small, quaint streets, bicycles and mopeds; or 100% suburban, with 100 foot setbacks, endless seas of parking, 100% closed in neighborhoods, strip malls, and superhighways, and that The Lord saw the latter and he saw that it was good.

Stop. There are combinations of them. You can have a 45 mph 6 lane street next to buildings that are densely positioned next to the sidewalk. It would represent a transition between 100% urban and 100% suburban. You can achieve the best of both worlds, the NW expressway area would be a great place to reincorporate the area as a dense area while also maintaining automobile access. I'd say that would be a 50% mix. Not ideal for your urban dweller, not ideal for your suburban acreage dweller, but would be ideal for those wanting to live in a dense area where walking can be done, and driving can be also. Walking is accessible and driving is accessible, but neither are so overly dominant over the other.I never said there can't be both. L.A. is a great model and one of my favorite cities.

You seem to vehemently despise any mixture that is not 100% pure of either style.

No, it just gets annoying when anything that is 100% pure suburban will immediately get bashed on here, 99% of the time.

PluPan, while I think there ARE a few lock-step urbanists here, I don't believe that is where the disconnect exists. I think the reason you see so many people bristle when you champion wide multi-lane raceways and massive parking lots is that most of the posters here are focused on making great PLACES, and making OKC a great PLACE. Freeways and expressways aren't great places. They merely serve to get you quickly from one place to another, and more often than not ugly things up and make places LESS accessible for many other people in the bargain.

There has been and will never be a parade down Northwest Expressway. Memorial Road will never appear on a post card. Simply put, they're not great PLACES.

There is no question that suburbs can be done well (or at the very least, better), but they haven't been done well here, and there are no sigs that is changing. Most people who post here have come to understand that big wide limited access roads, giant parking lots and big box developments are not a panacea, perhaps not even desirable, and that they are things that we already have PLENTY of. THAT is why you are hearing a backlash when you post about such things in glowing terms.

And I agree with some of that. Some of the buildings from NW Expressway would make a great postcard; Memorial, not so much. The goal is not to get roads and highways on postcards or have suburban areas on them, the goal is to support the wants and desires of the people who live there.

Which is apparently to get through these areas as quickly as possible in hopes of finding a nicer place.

Which is apparently to get through these areas as quickly as possible in hopes of finding a nicer place.We can make this area a nice place still get people through here quickly.

Why bother making a nice place when the only users are people traveling through at 45-50 MPH? Seems like a waste of time and money. If I owned a business there I would instead spend my money on building parking lots and erecting huge garish signs to catch their fleeting attention...which why these types of areas are loaded with parking lots, huge garish signs, and not much else.

And for the record I am not talking about the neighborhoods, which are generally quiet and lovely (albeit boring and certainly inconvenient if you can't drive). The main problem with the neighborhoods is that they don't have amenities, shopping, dining, schools etc. that you can walk to if you would like to do so.

Why bother making a nice place when the only users are people traveling through at 45-50 MPH? Seems like a waste of time and money. If I owned a business there I would instead spend my money on building parking lots and erecting huge garish signs to catch their fleeting attention...which why these types of areas are loaded with parking lots, huge garish signs, and not much else.Ok, so why can't we have people traveling through there and not have people that stop there as well? Uptown Grocery is a very nice place and there is people passing it at 45MPH. There is a new restaurant under-construction about to open with tons of more development planned. The new YMCA is world class and located in a great park along a 45-50MPH road.

These apartments will be extremely nice and are located on this road. People continue to invest and the more that happens, the nicer this area will become. The speed limit has nothing to do with it.

Ok, so why can't we have people traveling through there and not have people that stop there as well? Uptown Grocery is a very nice place and there is people passing it at 45MPH. There is a new restaurant under-construction about to open with tons of more development planned. The new YMCA is world class and located in a great park along a 45-50MPH road.

These apartments will be extremely nice and are located on this road. People continue to invest and the more that happens, the nicer this area will become. The speed limit has nothing to do with it.

All the locations you describe require driving to and from. That is the root of the issue, not necessarily the speed.

All the locations you describe require driving to and from. That is the root of the issue, not necessarily the speed.To the people that choose to live there, that is the point. We keep having this debate over and over, what am I missing here? I understand walking is good and I walk and bike every single day! I also enjoy driving and what do you propose we do then? I suppose many here are advocating for the new urbanist route but aren't saying it.

Can someone please explain to me what they would want to see done here. I have already stated what I think would be good and I'll post some pictures later on to better describe it.

To the people that choose to live there, that is the point. We keep having this debate over and over, what am I missing here? I understand walking is good and I walk and bike every single day! I also enjoy driving and what do you propose we do then? I suppose many here are advocating for the new urbanist route but aren't saying it.

Can someone please explain to me what they would want to see done here. I have already stated what I think would be good and I'll post some pictures later on to better describe it.

It's not about if you want to drive or not. It's about people being forced to drive because there is no other option. Many live in this area because it is cheaper than a lot of places, but living here forces them to drive which negate the savings they get from living in the area. It's about making these areas suitable for everyone. Not, really great for driving and "yeah I can walk on the grass where I need to go but it's miserable" for people who don't want to use a car. It should be more balanced.

It's not about if you want to drive or not. It's about people being forced to drive because there is no other option.People chose to live in this area which has no sidewalks and it more suburban oriented than it is urban.


Many live in this area because it is cheaper than a lot of places, but living here forces them to drive which negate the savings they get from living in the area.That's fine, but again, what are you wanting to see here? I've asked people that question multiple times and just saying it needs to be walkable doesn't cut it. What exactly do you want to see done here? I know an obvious answer from a bunch here would likely be lanes reduced to four, lowered speed limit, buildings pushed closer to the street, every parking lot removed and consolidated etc.... same thing for nearly everything.[/QUOTE]


It's about making these areas suitable for everyone. Not, really great for driving and "yeah I can walk on the grass where I need to go but it's miserable" for people who don't want to use a car. It should be more balanced.That's fine to. This area was built to prioritize cars and does just that exactly fine. There is no reason we can't make walking a little easier, but trying to make it more difficult for people traveling by car here is something I am against.

"yeah I can walk on the grass where I need to go but it's miserable"
Also, I am advocating for wide sidewalks and rail for here, AND bringing May Ave. to grade, but I guess that isn't good enough, which leads me to believe a few posters want this to be turned into an urban metropolis and whenever I point that out, some believe I think something either has to be 100% urban or suburban- which is not the case at all. This is the same thing with the HSC, and I will say this again, I am a huge supporter of urban design, new urbanism, and giving the best of both worlds in areas that should have it. I think NW Expressway and the May area all the way up against Hefner Parkway is a great place where we could do half and half.

Downtown Edmond, I am for redeveloping it into a strict new urbanist model that would be the best in Oklahoma and perhaps the best in the region. I am for Norman linking OU and downtown as Edmond and UCO, but Norman's would be on a larger scale. Uptown 23rd St.: turn it into a dense urban environment. The problem I have is people that seem to bash anything that is mainly suburban and what I was being accused of, not knowing a pure suburban development can be good. There doesn't HAVE to be a mix for it to be good and just having sidewalks with the majority of the infrastructure prioritizing cars, and that is NOT trapping people or forcing them to do anything. I live on Covell and Coltrane where is no sidewalks on the streets at all and is a two lane street with people going 50-55MPH and I bike there everyday. Balance is good, but not every place has to be perfectly balanced to be a nice area.

I still want to know though, exactly what it is that people here want. Please describe to me what you're envisioning. Are you wanting the road narrowed from six to four lanes, speed limit reduced from x to x, ped. bridges, rail, bike lanes, bike corridors or paths, buildings pushed up to the street, parking lots developed and parking consolidated into structured garages.... etc.... How about putting in a 10 mile line monorail servicing this area alone and creating a more localized community allowing people to live, work, and play all in this area without having to rely on people commuting here from the rest of city(I would support an elevated monorail here and think that would be awesome but only if the area was built to suit it). What is it that you want? Don't generalize anything please, be specific.

I disagree, café. along with redoing Covell in the area that have put in new sidewalks along both sides of the road that feed into the surrounding neighborhoods as well. so you can walk to all those places if you want. depends on how much time you have.

but the real issue is that you can put a sidewalk or a new sidewalk anywhere in the city connecting everything making it all "walkable," but most people will still want to drive. if its stupid cold outside or stupid hot, Im driving. If not, ill contemplate a walk.

I disagree, café. along with redoing Covell in the area that have put in new sidewalks along both sides of the road that feed into the surrounding neighborhoods as well. so you can walk to all those places if you want. depends on how much time you have.

but the real issue is that you can put a sidewalk or a new sidewalk anywhere in the city connecting everything making it all "walkable," but most people will still want to drive. if its stupid cold outside or stupid hot, Im driving. If not, ill contemplate a walk.Exactly. I understand in certain parts of the city you will want to create a "walkable" environment that includes storefronts pushed right up against the street and other special infrastructure for peds.... etc. That is great, but it doesn't need to be in every area and if it isn't, it doesn't mean the area is not walkable and is unsafe to walk.

This is an incredible new development and beats that old Tiffany House sitting empty. I'm glad someone has decided to develop this, and not only develop it, but go to the lengths of making it a destination location. A premiere intersection, close to shopping, hospital, parkway, Penn Square, lots if retail. Get anywhere fast. Woulda, coulda, shoulda, but this looks VERY nice.

Couldn't agree more. I'll be thrilled to see this get completed.
I'll take a stroll by after work and see if it looks like any demo work has started.

There is no question that suburbs can be done well (or at the very least, better), but they haven't been done well here, and there are no sigs that is changing.

That's frustrating. I'm not an anti-suburb snob. I just want to see them done well. I think our urban core and suburbs can coexist.

I see the suburbs and the shopping centers of where I grew up and now they're a ghost town because the city has built out past them. They served their usefulness and now the city doesn't care to repurpose or improve them. And the same thing will happen to all the crap going in on Memorial Road. The city will build past it and it will be old and dated and get run down. It's not too late to save Memorial road but it's getting there. If the suburbs are done right, there will be less building new things further out when our current buildings get a little wear and tear. Build something to last (not EIFS stip mall crap) and build it with a cohesive plan and it can be repurposed in the future.

You can't turn left, not that anyone coming from the west needs to get on N. May anyway. And back when you could, the pseudo highway onramps were extremely dangerous. Where exactly do you live, one of the apartment communities w direct frontage, or tucked away in a neighborhood?

My problem is that this interchange is obv designed for the folks who live tucked away in neighborhoods, providing for dispersing cars as fast as possible. There are a lot of people who live in apartments directly fronting this area and in the midst of the traffic patterns swirling around apartments, office plexes, shopping centers, and neighborhoods. NW Expwy and May is a place that just as many people go TO as THROUGH but the problem is the highway design only allows you to go THROUGH.

We talk about wanting to focus on more than just downtown, and that the rest of the city needs the same focus on improvements. It is true that OKC's middle-ring suburban areas are at a crossroads where years of suburban planning have taken their toll and made these places not worth caring about. NW Expwy and May can be different and it can be an urban foothold and it can help strengthen the middle-ring around the city. But if by "we need improvements for the suburbs, too" we mean "we need to double down financially on more failed suburban infrastructure" then no thanks.

Outside of Warwick West what apartments are there at NWEx & May?

Outside of Warwick West what apartments are there at NWEx & May?

Tiffany House, Founders Tower, Lakeside Tower, and several hotels.

Exactly. I understand in certain parts of the city you will want to create a "walkable" environment that includes storefronts pushed right up against the street and other special infrastructure for peds.... etc. That is great, but it doesn't need to be in every area and if it isn't, it doesn't mean the area is not walkable and is unsafe to walk.

You're right; it doesn't mean everyplace HAS to be walkable. But I still don't think you grasp what "walkable" means from a planning perspective. A place can be SAFE to walk but still not be a place where people WANT to walk (i.e. "walkable"). Simply having good sidewalks means a place has accessibility. It's confusing. Personally, I don't think "walkable" is a good term for what we are trying to describe, but is the one that we are stuck with. On the surface it literally means "a place where you are ABLE to WALK." From a planning perspective, however, it means "a place where people WANT to walk." There is a difference.

I disagree, café. along with redoing Covell in the area that have put in new sidewalks along both sides of the road that feed into the surrounding neighborhoods as well. so you can walk to all those places if you want. depends on how much time you have.

but the real issue is that you can put a sidewalk or a new sidewalk anywhere in the city connecting everything making it all "walkable," but most people will still want to drive. if its stupid cold outside or stupid hot, Im driving. If not, ill contemplate a walk.

Why would you WANT to walk in most parts of the city? There is no good reason for it. Now, if goods and services are nearby and the walk is safe, rewarding and interesting, many more people WOULD walk, if even only occasionally. Good suburban development can involve planned proximity to those goods and services. When done well, it provides a small-town feel where you can walk out of your house, stroll past your neighbors' homes for a block or two, turn a corner and be smack dab in the middle of an attractive commercial area where you can buy essentials, grab coffee or lunch, say hi to your neighbors, stroll around (because it is appealing to do so) and walk back home. OR you can hop in your car, drive onto a feeder road, hit an expressway and be anywhere else in town. That is a GOOD SUBurban experience that - for the most part - we don't even OFFER in this city. This is a quality of life amenity that is nonexistent here.

OUR suburban experience mostly involves, as you say, driving everyplace. If you are stupid enough to try to walk somewhere you will generally have to walk through endless streets and cul-de-sacs until you emerge on a feeder road that is really more like an expressway, only to find that you are a mile (or miles) from the services you are looking for. No WONDER everyone prefers to drive...

The issue is that overall, we've given TOO much advantage to the car over the pedestrian, in these areas.

Not every thing needs to be pushed up to the street blah blah blah. But How many parking spots do we have that we don't need in this area? I'll tell you right now, the Target parking lot feels like it has acres worth of wasted space, and the development with Whataburger/D&Bs/etc. has way more parking than necessary. We are so accommodating to the car in OKC that we develop our lots so that 5 days out of the year (the 5 busiest days of Christmas shopping) people can still find 2 or 3 parking spots when trying to go somewhere instead of the normal 10 to 15. It's a heinous use of resources.

The orientation of buildings on lots makes walking incredibly uncomfortable and undesirable. It's impossible to walk to a development without walking in a parking lot. And it's ridiculous because it's totally unnecessary.

Take the Ferguson for instance. They could remove the front 2 to 4 spaces and extend and landscape the sidewalk from the street to the building. It would cost them no more than 4 parking spaces (and I assure you that's not going to break the bank), but if that standard was applied to every building in this area of town, it would do wonders to change the culture of how people operate in OKC.

But kudos to this design for structuring their parking UNDER the building. That's a good use of space. Those are the types of things that we need to see in this area of town. Parking garages and more development would be wonderful as well.

PluPan, while I think there ARE a few lock-step urbanists here, I don't believe that is where the disconnect exists. I think the reason you see so many people bristle when you champion wide multi-lane raceways and massive parking lots is that most of the posters here are focused on making great PLACES, and making OKC a great PLACE. Freeways and expressways aren't great places. They merely serve to get you quickly from one place to another, and more often than not ugly things up and make places LESS accessible for many other people in the bargain.

There has been and will never be a parade down Northwest Expressway. Memorial Road will never appear on a post card. Simply put, they're not great PLACES.

There is no question that suburbs can be done well (or at the very least, better), but they haven't been done well here, and there are no sigs that is changing. Most people who post here have come to understand that big wide limited access roads, giant parking lots and big box developments are not a panacea, perhaps not even desirable, and that they are things that we already have PLENTY of. THAT is why you are hearing a backlash when you post about such things in glowing terms.

It's not even favoring one lifestyle over the other. Look at what we have. We have an endless prairie that gave way to suburban sprawl. We don't have a whole lot of urban living. In the interest of choice, what we need to do to continue our momentum is obvious. Nobody will cancel a move to OKC anytime soon for lack of available ranch or colonial houses.. But many successful people today are also looking for townhomes and industrial lofts and they would rather live in Kansas City or Denver if their lifestyle here would be lacking.

You seem to be debating yourself in many of these posts, but it sounds like our ideal isn't too far apart. We both want suburbs to succeed as quality places and urban neighborhoods to thrive and keep growing. NW Expwy and the whole box between Lake Hefner and Penn Square is a chance for a do-over and to maybe make the area into a smaller version of Uptown Houston or Dallas or Buckhead in Atlanta.

This area has an interesting combo of mixed uses and sheer density, and I think the time is right. If we're going to succeed at city-wide LRT or commuter rail we will need nodes of density and activity to create strong connections between. This would be very successful.

It's not even favoring one lifestyle over the other. Look at what we have. We have an endless prairie that gave way to suburban sprawl. We don't have a whole lot of urban living. In the interest of choice, what we need to do to continue our momentum is obvious. Nobody will cancel a move to OKC anytime soon for lack of available ranch or colonial houses.. But many successful people today are also looking for townhomes and industrial lofts and they would rather live in Kansas City or Denver if their lifestyle here would be lacking.

You seem to be debating yourself in many of these posts, but it sounds like our ideal isn't too far apart. We both want suburbs to succeed as quality places and urban neighborhoods to thrive and keep growing. NW Expwy and the whole box between Lake Hefner and Penn Square is a chance for a do-over and to maybe make the area into a smaller version of Uptown Houston or Dallas or Buckhead in Atlanta.

This area has an interesting combo of mixed uses and sheer density, and I think the time is right. If we're going to succeed at city-wide LRT or commuter rail we will need nodes of density and activity to create strong connections between. This would be very successful.

Very well said, Nick. I agree.

Debating MYSELF? Do you have PluPan on ignore or something?

I think sprawl is the wrong word for OKC. When I am up on the 10th floor at work, I see more trees than I do streets, houses and buildings.

You're right; it doesn't mean everyplace HAS to be walkable. But I still don't think you grasp what "walkable" means from a planning perspective. A place can be SAFE to walk but still not be a place where people WANT to walk (i.e. "walkable"). Simply having good sidewalks means a place has accessibility. It's confusing. Personally, I don't think "walkable" is a good term for what we are trying to describe, but is the one that we are stuck with. On the surface it literally means "a place where you are ABLE to WALK." From a planning perspective, however, it means "a place where people WANT to walk." There is a difference.I think I have the general concept of what walkability means(maybe not, idk), but as far as making this area walkable in the sense of how I am thinking of it, I'm not understanding how to do that without an extreme overhaul that would seriously hinder the efficiency of moving and getting cars through here and to the destinations that are here. I think whenever I say something like that, people seem to think I am against urbanism which is not the case I promise you.

Debating MYSELF? Do you have PluPan on ignore or something?

Oh sorry, that's who I thought I was replying to lol..


I think sprawl is the wrong word for OKC. When I am up on the 10th floor at work, I see more trees than I do streets, houses and buildings.

Would love to hear what city you're looking at..

Why would you WANT to walk in most parts of the city? There is no good reason for it. Now, if goods and services are nearby and the walk is safe, rewarding and interesting, many more people WOULD walk, if even only occasionally. Good suburban development can involve planned proximity to those goods and services. When done well, it provides a small-town feel where you can walk out of your house, stroll past your neighbors' homes for a block or two, turn a corner and be smack dab in the middle of an attractive commercial area where you can buy essentials, grab coffee or lunch, say hi to your neighbors, stroll around (because it is appealing to do so) and walk back home. OR you can hop in your car, drive onto a feeder road, hit an expressway and be anywhere else in town. That is a GOOD SUBurban experience that - for the most part - we don't even OFFER in this city. This is a quality of life amenity that is nonexistent here.

OUR suburban experience mostly involves, as you say, driving everyplace. If you are stupid enough to try to walk somewhere you will generally have to walk through endless streets and cul-de-sacs until you emerge on a feeder road that is really more like an expressway, only to find that you are a mile (or miles) from the services you are looking for. No WONDER everyone prefers to drive...

Great points. I think if we had what you're talking about, areas where people want to walk, the ability to walk out of our house, stroll past the neighbors and turn the corner to an attractive commercial area, we could solve more than one problem. We would use less gas, we'd have a higher quality of living and we'd lose weight/become healthier. Most people don't like to walk purely for exercise. But if they can stroll down to commercial area and get a coffee or grab a gallon of milk etc., they'll do it.

The thing is, none of us on here appear to be urban planners, developers or movers and shakers. How do we affect this change? How do we get those who write the building codes, those who develop living and shopping areas, those with the political weight to start demanding and building developments like what Urbanized described?

As of last night it doesnt look like any demo work has started. Just some chain link put up.

We also need to understand this area as a community with it's own needs, and for far too long answering those has been dictated by those driving out to points further NW. Similarly, I concede that it's also not for the downtown crowd to answer this area's needs - but we need to put decision making for this area in the hands of the multitudes of high rise apartment and condo dwellers and office workers who use this neighborhood. They should be given the ability to harness this area's very high density levels and make something walkable of it.

If I could have "like"d this post I would have. I'd co-opt it one step further. I think that OKC is very fortunate to have many well identified smaller communities (MidTown, Deep Deuce, Founders, Capitol Hill, etc.). That's a great focus and I hope this community gets it's personality back.

How do we get those who write the building codes, those who develop living and shopping areas, those with the political weight to start demanding and building developments like what Urbanized described?

Stay informed, and show up (email or in person) when something comes to commissions and council. Show up to planning meetings seeking public input. You'd be surprised how much a single letter to a councilman can affect things.

Proposed apartments near your neighborhood? Write an e-mail that says 'I don't know about apartments, but I'd love to have a walkable destination in my area. Maybe the apartments could be designed in a way that makes them a walkable destination including retail.'

etc etc. Write an e-mail even when nothing is proposed yet, describing what you wish your area would evolve into. All your commissioners and councilors. It really does work. Or at least, make a difference.

Would love to hear what city you're looking at..

Spartan, probably it's the one he actually lives and works in. Are you saying he is lying? I've seen numerous pictures posted here showing OKC from an elevated location where you mostly see trees.

Spartan, probably it's the one he actually lives and works in. Are you saying he is lying? I've seen numerous pictures posted here showing OKC from an elevated location where you mostly see trees.

Well I don't know him personally so I don't know what he sees. It was mostly a joke bc OKC isn't the most forested city, but I still don't appreciate you putting the word "lying" in my mouth. You've been a cantankerous poster lately.

If you look at pretty much any city from a mid-rise building, it will appear dense with trees...it's simply a matter of perspective.

Sprawl and trees are not mutually exclusive. And Cuatro is right. It's not like OKC is heavily forested. Quite the opposite, really.

Yeah sorry I really just meant it as an idle, passive, inconsequential little joke - didn't mean to change discussion. Back to NWX/May!

If you think OKC has a lot of trees, you've obviously never been to ATl lol

Well I don't know him personally so I don't know what he sees. It was mostly a joke bc OKC isn't the most forested city, but I still don't appreciate you putting the word "lying" in my mouth. You've been a cantankerous poster lately.

I didn't put the word "lying" in your mouth. I merely asked if that was what you thought because you gave no indication of making a joke. As far as being a cantankerous poster, you would certainly be an expert on that. :)

And yes, enough of that. Back to the Tiffany Apartments.

Ok

The fence has been up a while and the sign that has partially blown off says Cowen Construction. Cowen is out of Tulsa. Here is a link the project on their website.

Blog - Cowen Construction - page 15 (http://www.cowenconstruction.com/blog/page/15/)

They are calling it H20 Boutique Apartments. This place just keeps changing. The drawings look totally different as well.

Disappointing. Doesn't look like they are going to build that roof top bar either.

The property hasn't changed hands.

From the renderings posted in January 2014, looks just renovation without addition.

http://www.cowenconstruction.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/SD-Exterior-Views-5.jpg

Christ, that's effing hideous.

I know you have to have deep pockets for a good renovation, but I find it baffling that the renderings from earlier didn't drum up more interest and couldn't be completed. That would have been first rate for this project. Now we're back to more amateur trash.

Wow... please be kidding. This was awesome and now some firm from Tulsa is taking over and we're getting this?

I'm not ready to say this is bad. It could just be the rendering. Or perhaps Tulsa just doesn't want us to have nice things.

:D

I know the news about the addition sucks; but really what's wrong with this renovation? It adds glass, two or more contrasting colors, plus two or more different surface textures. That's basically the criteria for modern buildings these days. Put me in the category of hating the addition news and what could've been, but I like the renovation.

I like it a lot.

Gotta say that while disappointed I will take this over what I currently see everyday.

It is a dramatic improvement.