I think you're being sarcastic, right? It's a terrible location for a transit hub.

Really? More terrible than the other proposed locations that currently have the same Zero Mass Transit utilization?

Nobody is in The Hill. It's not being utilized. It is relatively central to the city. Contruction there is deadlocked.

This is supposed to be about building up business and residence and population where none currently exisits in areas where it should.

According to all of you, Downtown is thriving. And the initial incarnation of OKC mass transit is only the first step.. What sense does it make to place it where there's an already thriving commercial population if you refuse to put it where Mass Transit is already proven to be used?

If you want to put it in a dead transit zone, then put it in a dead transit zone that needs a private industry boost.

Don't stick it where it will only serve a few elite residents who've already shown they won't use mass transit.

No. Not this thread, but threads that deal with public transportation. I believe the street car system is going to be a hard sell and it will take a long time and expansion of the system to be effective.

I think grade separations in that area would preclude transit hub development; at least one involving rail. It's not called The Hill for nothing.

The amount of space still undeveloped would open the door to some interesting alternate possibilities IMO. You have to actually drive around the site to grasp how much land is there. That said, streets, retaining walls and much mechanical infrastructure has been completed throughout the entire development. If someone decided to switch (development model) horses in midstream, the most cost-effective way of doing it would probably involve sticking with the basic layout and re-working the product. It could be done.

No. Not this thread, but threads that deal with public transportation. I believe the street car system is going to be a hard sell and it will take a long time and expansion of the system to be effective.

We already sold it. 54% - 46%.

I believe the street car system is going to be a hard sell and it will take a long time and expansion of the system to be effective.

I believe that the streetcar system is probably the only for-sure bet in the entire maps 3.

It is relatively central to the city

Relatively central compared to, say, Northwest Expressway. Not central to the CBD. Not central at all.

But I'm getting the distinct impression you're not a big fan of the street car and transit hub anyway, so I'll keep that in mind when I read your posts in the future.

Thanks for your input.

No. Not this thread, but threads that deal with public transportation. I believe the street car system is going to be a hard sell and it will take a long time and expansion of the system to be effective.

Well, the street car was among the most popular aspects of the MAPS ballot, so it's selling fairly well.

I would agree with you that the location, operating schedules and other aspects will determine how successful it is out of the gate.

But I'm getting the distinct impression you're not a big fan of the street car and transit hub anyway, so I'll keep that in mind when I read your posts in the future.

Thanks for your input.

lol

We already sold it. 54% - 46%.

yes, we're getting that distinct impression from the whole "Nyah Nyah, we won" attitude about it.

I'm sorry, but the people you're counting on using it where you guys want to build it don't live here. And the ones who do, have already shown that they're "too good" for public transport.

No. Not this thread, but threads that deal with public transportation. I believe the street car system is going to be a hard sell and it will take a long time and expansion of the system to be effective.

I'm completely baffled by the comments by you and fuzzytoad here.

The transit hub will be near the crossing of existing rail lines and right in the middle of the convergence of Bricktown, the new CC, and the CBD. What is all this talk about putting it where there is "zero mass transit utilization"?? I'm confused as to what you don't like.

They don't like transit..they're being facetious.

I'm completely baffled by the comments by you and fuzzytoad here.

The transit hub will be near the crossing of existing rail lines and right in the middle of the convergence of Bricktown, the new CC, and the CBD. What is all this talk about putting it where there is "zero mass transit utilization"?? I'm confused as to what you don't like.

Have you ever ridden the current Mass Transit in the middle of Bricktown? or where the new CC will be? Do you even know where it will be?

NOBODY uses the current system, despite the enourmous amount of street-level business already there!

The CBD is already booming, as many of you have mentioned, numerous times.. If the point of the transit system is to boost business, what possible point is there in centralizing it around an area which needs no boost??

You've got this Hills area which is basically destitute, despite all the new construction surrounding it. There's empty condo, after empty apartment building after empty storefront.

Yes, alot of it hasn't been completed, but it would be of you energize it with some MAPS funds.

I cannot fathom the point in energizing an already energized area. It simply sounds stupid. Especially when you've got a completely dead area mearly blocks away..

2nd and Russel is very "central" to OKC.. Not like NW expressway, like Soonerguru is suggesting.. It is ripe for new development.

The CBD is already booming, as many of you have mentioned, numerous times.. If the point of the transit system is to boost business, what possible point is there in centralizing it around an area which needs no boost??

Being a catalyst for development is not the primary reason for building transit, and that should be obvious. There must be a balance between serving the areas that need it and the areas that could benefit from TOD.

Relatively central compared to, say, Northwest Expressway.

That sounds like a horrible place for a Transit hub. Why would you even suggest it?

Being a catalyst for development is not the primary reason for building transit, and that should be obvious. There must be a balance between serving the areas that need it and the areas that could benefit from TOD.

Agreed, but the consideration should also lie with areas that would actually use it.

The CBD is already booming, as many of you have mentioned, numerous times.. If the point of the transit system is to boost business, what possible point is there in centralizing it around an area which needs no boost??
.

What you fail to realize is that the streetcar's route will connect undeveloped areas, developing areas, and developed areas. By connecting developed areas like Bricktown and the CBD to each other, you ensure ridership. By connecting Bricktown and the CBD to areas like Midtown and the Triangle/Maywood Park area (which includes the Hill), you help the newly developing areas thrive and grow more quickly. Further, you connect all of these areas to a place like the neighborhood south of I-40, where the park will go in, and you help a totally abandoned area start to turn around.

Don't be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. That's called trolling.

What you fail to realize is that the streetcar's route will connect undeveloped areas, developing areas, and developed areas. By connecting developed areas like Bricktown and the CBD to each other, you ensure ridership. By connecting Bricktown and the CBD to areas like Midtown and the Triangle/Maywood Park area (which includes the Hill), you help the newly developing areas thrive and grow more quickly. Further, you connect all of these areas to a place like the neighborhood south of I-40, where the park will go in, and you help a totally abandoned area start to turn around.

Don't be difficult just for the sake of being difficult. That's called trolling.

I don't fail to realize that.. What you fail to realize is that many places are being ignored simply because they aren't currently being utilized, or they're being utilized by the "wrong" people..

I don't feel as if I'm trolling... if I were, I'd be suggesting areas like NW Expressway.. sorta like what soonerguru is doing..

As many of you keep mentioning, this is just a first stage Transit System.. you can't possibly hope to connect ALL of Bricktown to ALL of the CBD and ALL of Midtown.. Nobody would expect that.. but you also can't hope for this to be successfull unless you connect SOME of the outlying areas in which there is no current development.. and why not put the hub of it where there is no population or finished development at all right now??

It's called a hub for a reason. It needs to be at the HUB of the city, not tucked away in a far corner of Deep Deuce. Same reason airport hubs are not in places like Lawton.


Agreed, but the consideration should also lie with areas that would actually use it.

You keep saying that. Where is it that you think people will use it if not downtown/midtown/bricktown??

You keep saying that. Where is it that you think people will use it if not downtown/midtown/bricktown??

because they don't use the existing services now.

I disagree with all of fuzzytoad's "points" but I can't help but find his posts hilarious. I like this version of the NTMers much better than iron (angry trolls) or gmwise (slogans and buzz words, no substance).

It's called a hub for a reason. It needs to be at the HUB of the city, not tucked away in a far corner of Deep Deuce. Same reason airport hubs are not in places like Lawton.


good point.. Then why not start the hub with our Airport? there's not a whole lot going on there as far as street-level business go..

While I know that's an asinine point, try to imagine the outcry from the elite class in this city there would be if that's where they put it, despite how much good it would do for this city...

I don't feel as if I'm trolling... if I were, I'd be suggesting areas like NW Expressway.. sorta like what soonerguru is doing..

Now you're just being a sophist. I didn't suggest it. I suggested that your version of "central" to OKC was less preposterous than Northwest Expressway, but still not hitting the definition of central.

Furthermore, you have no basis for your argument that the Hill site would serve any current transit users en masse.

Your joke is getting stale and your posts on this subject are not sincere. You're just taking potshots. How is that not troll-worthy?

I disagree with all of fuzzytoad's "points" but I can't help but find his posts hilarious. I like this version of the NTMers much better than iron (angry trolls) or gmwise (slogans and buzz words, no substance).

His posts are hilarious, in an obnoxious , ignorant and trolling kind of way.

:laughing_

I disagree with all of fuzzytoad's "points" but I can't help but find his posts hilarious. I like this version of the NTMers much better than iron (angry trolls) or gmwise (slogans and buzz words, no substance).

I'm not a NTMer. I don't live in OKC. I live in Edmond and I'm out of the state most of the year, so the new tax doesn't really affect me.

I couldn't vote on it, and I didn't participate in any of the MAPS3 discussions.

If the City benefits from it, then YAY. If it doesn't benefit from it, I think it will be due to the blank check wording of the ballot and the elitism attitude of many OKCers who blindly stand behind everything the City government does regardless of what should be done on behalf of the city as a whole.

Regardless you aren't taking the koolaid, damnit.


It's called a hub for a reason. It needs to be at the HUB of the city, not tucked away in a far corner of Deep Deuce. Same reason airport hubs are not in places like Lawton.

You keep saying that. Where is it that you think people will use it if not downtown/midtown/bricktown??

2 comments. That's also the reason airport hubs aren't in places like OKC, let alone Lawton. And where would fuzzytoad suggest people might use it if not downtown/midtown/bricktown.. well I'm VERY disappointed that he didn't suggest Cloud 9 (although the airport is close from an urbanist perspective, as well as a flight perspective). So shame on you indeed, fuzzytoad, if you're going to be our resident asinine astutely sarcastic MAPS detractor, you need to stop missing golden opportunities like that one..

Now you're just being a sophist. I didn't suggest it. I suggested that your version of "central" to OKC was less preposterous than Northwest Expressway, but still not hitting the definition of central.

Furthermore, you have no basis for your argument that the Hill site would serve any current transit users en masse.

Your joke is getting stale and your posts on this subject are not sincere. You're just taking potshots. How is that not troll-worthy?

My version of The Hills as being "central" to OKC is more preposterous than an area merely 3 blocks away?? Seriously?

Of course I have no basis for the Hill site serving as a transit site.. It's just as preposterous as Bricktown serving as a transit site en masse..

But at least it is destitute, half-developed and in need of an economy boost. Perhaps people will actually move there and actually use the transit system..

The areas you people are suggesting are more than idiotic. Nobody uses the current system in the areas you suggest, and you seem to think that simply having a transit system there on top of the current one will spurt some sort of mass-influx of people willing to shop for overpriced clothing and trinkets!

You have no clue where the new CC will be located, but you seem to assume it will be just outside the CBD and/or BT. It may very well be, but that's no reason to start planning to rip up currently well-established businesses with construction of streetcar lines in an attempt to boost business where there's already an economic boom.

By your own admission, this is the first stage of a massively detailed transit line, which will incorporated Norman, edmond, moore and other outlying areas.

It is retarded to locate the central hub for this in an area which is already succeeding, thus reducing the economic boon of that area when the new CC could potentially be located clear across town.

It is also moronic to place the crown jewel of this transit hub in an area already proven to shun all currently existing forms of mass transit.

There's already people who live in the more affluent areas of midtown rallying to keep the rail lines(which once existed there in the past) from reappearing in order to keep themselves separated from the mass of unwashed transit riders that will ultimately land on their doorsteps..

Simply put, you want Mass Transit in an area that has already proven they won't use it. You want Mass Transit to boost street-level business in an area that is already booming with street-level business.

Regardless you aren't taking the koolaid, damnit.



2 comments. That's also the reason airport hubs aren't in places like OKC, let alone Lawton. And where would fuzzytoad suggest people might use it if not downtown/midtown/bricktown.. well I'm VERY disappointed that he didn't suggest Cloud 9 (although the airport is close from an urbanist perspective, as well as a flight perspective). So shame on you indeed, fuzzytoad, if you're going to be our resident asinine astutely sarcastic MAPS detractor, you need to stop missing golden opportunities like that one..

I'm actually not familiar with that area, so yeah, shame on me..

because they don't use the existing services now.

You didn't answer the question.


good point.. Then why not start the hub with our Airport?

Because it needs to be connected to interstate and commuter rail, hence downtown along the Amtrak line.

I'm not exactly an urban planning master or anything, so bear that in mind. I do have a definite strong interest in urban planning, and am learning as I get more into it. So with that in mind, I think the whole point of a workable hub is this:

You're going to have to change trains on a multipath transit system. Changing trains is much less appealing than just taking your train in to the hub, getting out, and walking a short distance to where you want to go. So it would stand to reason that the hub would be nearby the current and/or expected critical mass of dense destinations. These areas, imo, would be somewhere near CBD for commuters, arts district (city hall, civic center, museums), Bricktown (entertainment, nightlife), Midtown (live, work, play, up-and-coming).

I think of taking rail into Chicago and walking out of Union Station. You walk out into the CBD, with the Sears Tower directly in front of you. Lots of stuff is within a few blocks, including tons of jobs, and a one mile walk through a nice urbanized walkable area, and you're at Michigan Avenue and Grant Park.

Thinking of here...I keep coming up with Santa Fe Station or some new creative reuse in the CBD. Somewhere with easy access to Bricktown, the CBD, and ideally the park. The Hill location, or east Bricktown in general, is too far away from the CBD to be effective, IMO. Santa Fe Station covers Bricktown better than The Hill would, and it places you in walking distance of most downtown towers.

A lot of this is being based in planning for future rail, but I think this needs to be done now, rather than later. I'd hate to see us turn this into another county jail. A little prelim work on proper location will make future use better, future costs lower, and keep the whole station futureproof.

Where the streetcar lines go out from there through the greater area will then serve to catalyze the development in areas that don't currently have it.

You didn't answer the question.


Sorry, misread your question..

I'd put it where city transit authorities have determined where the most dense amount of current transit(bus) use is and extend it's arms out along the most traveled paths.. I've been reading the City Council minutes and believe that areas was in the South side of OKC. I'm sure someone will be along to correct me, but it most certainly wasn't anywhere near the Downtown area..

I think we can all agree that the southside of OKC needs a tad bit more help spurring along economic growth than bricktown, midtown or the CBD need right now..


Because it needs to be connected to interstate and commuter rail, hence downtown along the Amtrak line.

Okay, that's an absolutely valid reason for not locating it near the airport. I'm not sitting here trying to sh!t on the whole Transit idea.. I think it's great. We're getting it anyway, according to the MAPS3 proposal. I just think putting the whole project in the bricktown area is a horrible idea when it comes to improving OKC as a whole.

I'm not exactly an urban planning master or anything, so bear that in mind. I do have a definite strong interest in urban planning, and am learning as I get more into it. So with that in mind, I think the whole point of a workable hub is this:

You're going to have to change trains on a multipath transit system. Changing trains is much less appealing than just taking your train in to the hub, getting out, and walking a short distance to where you want to go. So it would stand to reason that the hub would be nearby the current and/or expected critical mass of dense destinations. These areas, imo, would be somewhere near CBD for commuters, arts district (city hall, civic center, museums), Bricktown (entertainment, nightlife), Midtown (live, work, play, up-and-coming).

I think of taking rail into Chicago and walking out of Union Station. You walk out into the CBD, with the Sears Tower directly in front of you. Lots of stuff is within a few blocks, including tons of jobs, and a one mile walk through a nice urbanized walkable area, and you're at Michigan Avenue and Grant Park.

Thinking of here...I keep coming up with Santa Fe Station or some new creative reuse in the CBD. Somewhere with easy access to Bricktown, the CBD, and ideally the park. The Hill location, or east Bricktown in general, is too far away from the CBD to be effective, IMO. Santa Fe Station covers Bricktown better than The Hill would, and it places you in walking distance of most downtown towers.

A lot of this is being based in planning for future rail, but I think this needs to be done now, rather than later. I'd hate to see us turn this into another county jail. A little prelim work on proper location will make future use better, future costs lower, and keep the whole station futureproof.

Where the streetcar lines go out from there through the greater area will then serve to catalyze the development in areas that don't currently have it.

This thread has been officially hijacked (but threads on OKC Talk do kinda tend to meander through "all current subjects" during their lifespan), but it might be for the best. I would much rather talk about the streetcar and intermodal hub we ARE getting than The Hill, which I would rather not even exist..I can dream..

I like how you're thinking about a "Union Station" environment. I was reading your post and the whole time I was comparing it to the area around the old Santa Fe Depot..and let's just say I couldn't help snickering a little bit. Union Station in most cities is the life of activity.

You get off the train and you're in the midst of it all! In OKC, first let's pretend you could get off at Union Station..yeah. Now when you actually do get off at Santa Fe Depot you're smacked in the face by the ugliest street in all of OKC, E.K. Gaylord.

Across the street is the empty wall of the Cox Center. Why don't we renovate that wall -- as well as the side facing the Myriad Gardens. We don't talk about what a failure in planning the Cox Center was, but let's start talking about it now. We're still going to have the Cox Center AND its convention space long after we add a second convention center, so let's try and fix it by all means. The Cox squanders the most important frontage it has: the Myriad Gardens AND Santa Fe Depot. We could liven up E.K. Gaylord by fixing that side of the Cox Center, narrowing the street, making it more attractive, etc. I like how we've dressed up the tracks but it still means very little because Gaylord itself is deathly to cross and just as bad to look at.

Fixing Gaylord would go a LONG ways toward a "typical Union Station" environment at Santa Fe Depot, which is possible. Adding the restaurants in the old loading docks was a great idea.

I just think putting the whole project in the bricktown area is a horrible idea when it comes to improving OKC as a whole.

That's just not the case. If it were just going to be a circle around Bricktown, I would be in agreement, but it will connect Bricktown to underdeveloped areas like Midtown and Film Row.

This thread has been officially hijacked (but threads on OKC Talk do kinda tend to meander through "all current subjects" during their lifespan), but it might be for the best. I would much rather talk about the streetcar and intermodal hub we ARE getting than The Hill, which I would rather not even exist..I can dream..

I figured the thread was officially hijacked and over seeing as how The Hill is pretty effectively dead, without a single unit sold. It's either start over completely and make it into something that works, leaving the units already created as higher cost housing and building more mixed use throughout. If a true mixed use area could be built around it, with housing at reasonable prices, and they get sold and utilized, then possibly the existing high-end units *could* come close to their asking price. In other words, I think the Hill *would* sell, as long as it's not "the proposed Hill".

I live along Western Avenue due to the fact that I feel it's one of the most friendly, urban (in spirit if not in development), and walkable areas of OKC. I can get to a record store, bars, and dining within a short walk. It's missing a few things, but it is a very great neighborhood for someone wanting to have lots of access to walkable amenities without having to cross mega-expressways.

I don't think I'm alone in wanting that, and it's honestly kinda sad that you have to go to an area that's suburban in development (granted, it's 1920s city suburban in development as opposed to Edmond suburban) to really get that. Midtown is starting to get there (now that it has more businesses and the splendor that is McNellie's) and I would love to look at it when I feel like moving again.

From what I can see, The Hill offered no mixed usage, and it's like 6 or 7 blocks from the heart of Bricktown. To me at least, if you're going to sell this area, it needs to continue the true urban fabric to it. I wouldn't want to buy a home in downtown just to end up driving everywhere, which is where the Hill would have probably left me.

There, back on topic, and preaching to the choir at that. I say forget this place, get a good, solid transit system in place, and the transit system (with proper oversight and solid design review) will fix the root dilemma.

In places like Chicago, six blocks is a quick stroll. My daughters walk that far to get to the closest bus stop, and we frequently walk close to a mile to get to restaurants, the bank or Starbucks when I'm visiting. They're in very good shape, and enjoy the stroll.

I think Deep Deuce actually offers as much or more than Western, depending on what you're looking for. You can easily walk to Bricktown, to restaurants and/or clubs. You can walk to movies at the Harkins or bowling at Red Pin. You can walk to games at the Ford Center, over to the Myriad Gardens. I've walked to and from Trattoria on a nice evening, and it's biking distance from Midtown. There's no grocery store, but there is a cleaners within walking distance. And groceries are a short drive away over at 16th and Classen. It's not Chicago, but it's not bad.

I think there might be a couple of people who have bought units at the Hill. I don't know for sure, but there are a couple of lights on in the evenings, and at least one of them says "sold" in front of it. The concept of the Hill was allright, and in line drawings it didn't look that bad. They gave the townhouses names that sounded like downtown, so I can sort of see how OCURA might have gotten sucked in. I remember looking at the plans for a little while thinking they might be OK. It's just that in the flesh it looks a bit more like a Disney version of somebody's idea of townhouses of yesteryear, and on the inside they look a bit like more expensive tract homes in Edmond. To quote a friend: Oh to have their money and my taste!

I agree, and from, say, Block 42, you're a bit more conveniently located, along with the mixed use appearing through that area. Deep Deuce has made massive strides toward urban living in the past few years, and it makes me proud. It's great how so much positive change has occurred in such a short time period, and I know it'll go nowhere but up.

I think attitudes are changing and living is going to become more urban, throughout the US, but particularly here in the south, seeing as how we were so removed from urbanism in the past 50-60 years already. It's occurring because people are finding the value in this type of living again, after decades of people opting for the total suburban life in a bedroom community (and that's fine if you choose to live that way, no dig intended). I just see in people around me that this is wanted, be it in the area of Western Avenue, or in Deep Deuce, Midtown, or anywhere else in inner OKC. People want to live here again and they don't want to have to drive for every little thing. The green movement that is taking hold probably plays a large part in this, and maybe a bit of backlash to the amount of time everyone's spent in cars for so long.

I feel that well-designed transit and the right development is going to be the tipping point for all of this to just explode. You can see this in action in Dallas right now, granted on a larger scale.

Also, I stand corrected if units have sold at the Hill. I think I'm just parroting something that's been said before in this thread.

When there have been about two dozen or so units finished so far, and only 2 have possibly sold.. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say no units haven't sold, and it being wrong is only a technicality. Max, I didn't mean to call you out because it wasn't you that got us off topic, in fact, I couldn't care less that we're off topic..who wants to talk about The Hill? I was just prefacing my post with something kind of on-topic before joining in the transit discussion.

I agree, and from, say, Block 42, you're a bit more conveniently located, along with the mixed use appearing through that area. Deep Deuce has made massive strides toward urban living in the past few years, and it makes me proud. It's great how so much positive change has occurred in such a short time period, and I know it'll go nowhere but up.

I think attitudes are changing and living is going to become more urban, throughout the US, but particularly here in the south, seeing as how we were so removed from urbanism in the past 50-60 years already. It's occurring because people are finding the value in this type of living again, after decades of people opting for the total suburban life in a bedroom community (and that's fine if you choose to live that way, no dig intended). I just see in people around me that this is wanted, be it in the area of Western Avenue, or in Deep Deuce, Midtown, or anywhere else in inner OKC. People want to live here again and they don't want to have to drive for every little thing. The green movement that is taking hold probably plays a large part in this, and maybe a bit of backlash to the amount of time everyone's spent in cars for so long.

I feel that well-designed transit and the right development is going to be the tipping point for all of this to just explode. You can see this in action in Dallas right now, granted on a larger scale.

Also, I stand corrected if units have sold at the Hill. I think I'm just parroting something that's been said before in this thread.

I don't disagree at all, and I wasn't meaning to be argumentative about the Hill, but was rather merely commenting that I think there are a few people living there. When you're walking your dog a couple of times a day, you see things that others might not driving by.

I am very much in favor of mass transit, and also feel it is the key to making downtown living much more palatable to a larger number of people. I think mass transit actually encourages walkability, simply because one is rarely right at a stop. Once one is used to the concept of walking at all, it's a logical step to think nothing of adding a couple of extra blocks to the excursion. I've found that living downtown. It's so much easier to get around on foot, that the time it takes to cross from the Deep Deuce area to places like Trattoria are next to nothing. It becomes silly to think of getting in your car to go anywhere within a half mile to mile. When the weather is nice, it's a pleasant stroll.

A grocery store will be very nice, but really, it's no farther to drive to the store at 16th and Classen than I've driven to other grocery stores when living elsewhere. And, although it's not exactly a Whole Foods, it's serviceable. I would prefer to be able to walk or bike to the store, but it's not as if having to drive is any different than it's always been.

http://photos.newsok.com/2/showimage/515130/lead620/
Homes in The Hill area, in downtown Oklahoma City, is under construction Tuesday. PHOTO BY JACONNA AGUIRRE, THE OKLAHOMAN

Developers hope homes top a hill of downtown OKC rivals
STEVE LACKMEYER
Published: November 14, 2008

Bill Canfield admits he has kept pretty quiet about his contribution to downtown housing. But he says he’s ready to start talking about The Hill, which is the largest of the for-sale housing projects launched to date.

The first 24 residences at NE 2 and Russell Perry Avenue are set to be ready for buyers to begin moving in next month. Another 26 residences are in various stages of construction as Canfield continues his plan to build 150 upscale homes downtown.

"This is really a neighborhood,” Canfield said. "It’s been planned — the view won’t be obliterated by a low-end condo building going up between you and everybody else. The other projects are like outposts in the wilderness — this won’t be like that.”

Canfield said he shied away from marketing because of the lag in getting started — about two years — that stemmed from replacing early subcontractors who weren’t up to standards and site complications that faced all downtown housing projects the past few years.

"It’s hard to give people a list of features, construction quality, and then expect them to really know what’s it’s going to look like,” Canfield said.


Setting them apart

Model homes have been open for tours the past few months, however, and Michael Biddinger and First Source Real Estate have taken up the task of selling the residences. The first phase, which consists of smaller homes between 1,600 and 2,100 square feet, are selling for $420,000 to $559,000.
Larger units of up to 3,600 square feet include one unit, already reserved, selling for about $1 million.

Biddinger believes The Hill has a lot to set it apartfrom competitors — fully finished homes that feature granite countertops, 11-foot ceilings, seven-inch crown molding, wood floors, geo-thermal heating and air systems, and storm shelters.

The Hill also will offer 26 designs to choose from.

With residents set to move in, construction will start next year on a "town hall” that will feature a swimming pool, meeting rooms, exercise area and concierge services.

Canfield and Beddinger said they believe Oklahomans will take to urban living if given a chance to see what it’s like.

http://photos.newsok.com/2/showimage/515131/gallery_photo
Michael Biddinger, managing broker and Bill Canfield, principal in The Hill, stand in a home at 216 Russell M. Perry Ave. PHOTO BY JACONNA AGUIRRE, THE OKLAHOMAN



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It still makes me sick that Canfield was given this land by Urban Renewal over the Triangle Partners with their much better plan. Evidence the good ole boy system is still alive and well. There were plenty of the community at the meeting the day they reviewed proposals for this property and most were stunned who they picked.



Ha...that's the same Bill Canfield that Harrison Ford's character is based on in that new movie.

I work right around the corner from the Hill, and for the first time in months, there is equipment moving and people working on the front units today. Maybe they will actually complete the street side units now.

If I were one of the what looks like 2 occupants, I would be pretty hacked off at the way it has gone.

I work right around the corner from the Hill, and for the first time in months, there is equipment moving and people working on the front units today. Maybe they will actually complete the street side units now.

If I were one of the what looks like 2 occupants, I would be pretty hacked off at the way it has gone.

I'd be asking for my money back. Are we sure there are two occupants? The place does not look lived in at all.

Looking at the photo of the interior, the place looks so.......Edmond. The fixtures do not excite, although the black granite is nice. It seems the owners did little or no research of what people who desire a downtown lifestyle are actually looking for.

I'd be asking for my money back. Are we sure there are two occupants? The place does not look lived in at all.

Looking at the photo of the interior, the place looks so.......Edmond. The fixtures do not excite, although the black granite is nice. It seems the owners did little or no research of what people who desire a downtown lifestyle are actually looking for.

Yes, the corner unit at 2nd is occupied. Kinda creepy.

It may be a situation that people are living there without actually having closed on the units.

I say this because the exact same thing happened to me... I signed a letter of intent to buy a condo (this was about 25 years ago) in a new development. The construction was well behind schedule and my particular unit wasn't going to be ready for awhile. So, they let me move into another unit while they continued to work on the complex.

I ended up living there alone for about six months before the whole place went belly-up.

In the end, I just moved out and was even able to get my deposit money back. Hopefully the people living at The Hill have a similar arrangement.

I'm in Tulsa and been gone awhile... what's with the hardcore opposition to The Hill project? Is it that it has run late? Because everything usually runs late in OKC. Is it because of the 'not-urban-enough' aspect? Isn't at least a higher density area? I remember people thinking that the land could have been used more effectively... I'd like to know concisely what you guys' big beef is.

I drove by today just to see how it was looking and there was a crew working on the roadside units. I know some people have said they look ugly, but I think those roadside units are actually pretty nice looking.

I drove around the back and they now have the unfinished units completely gated off with no access. Last time I drove through, you could go back there and see the progress they were making--which is to say, none. Perhaps the crew working on them signifies the construction is picking up again. Perhaps it means nothing (it was actually a small crew).

I was told by someone knowledgeable that The Hill was unable to close because of issues with the plat, legal documents etc. Those have all been resolved and several I think have now closed in the last weeks with more pending.
And there is no bank debt on the property.

Ha...that's the same Bill Canfield that Harrison Ford's character is based on in that new movie.

Not unless the character name was changed. He plays "Dr. Stonehill".

I'm in Tulsa and been gone awhile... what's with the hardcore opposition to The Hill project? Is it that it has run late? Because everything usually runs late in OKC. Is it because of the 'not-urban-enough' aspect? Isn't at least a higher density area? I remember people thinking that the land could have been used more effectively... I'd like to know concisely what you guys' big beef is.

It's become a quagmire. The units will never sell at this rate. Construction stopped because Canfield can't pay the contractors, so everything around the finished units is a huge mud pit. It will never be finished. The site is ruined because it used up all of the frontage and turned the rest into a mud pit. The quagmire could have been avoided by picking a more reasonable proposal. We got the crappiest out of all of the proposals in the first place. We hate these town homes in the first place. They aspire to be too traditional and they look awkward.

Not unless the character name was changed. He plays "Dr. Stonehill".
Actually, that's exactly what happened (http://harrisonfordonline.com/?p=1588).

Thanks for the link. Of course Hollywood wouldn't want the world to know that a cure was found in backwater Oklahoma.

Thanks for the link. Of course Hollywood wouldn't want the world to know that a cure was found in backwater Oklahoma.

Tinfoil hat alert.

I noticed there are three townhouses listed as sold in one of The Hill's ads in a local magazine. So, I drove by and, sure enough, there are at least two with curtains, and I can see furniture in one of them. Hopefully the developers will spent the proceeds from the sales to finish the exteriors of some of the ones that are unfinished.

I wonder if there's any kind of discount for buying one of the units that won't be finished. It can be kind of a neat "do it yourself" project lol.

I suspect there's a discount for buying any of them, but don't know that for sure. I suppose I could look up their purchase prices and compare them to the prices on the website, but I'm feeling lazy....

These are great looking. I remember what this area used to look like!

These are great looking. I remember what this area used to look like!

I like them also. They remind me of San Francisco's Mission District. I guess S.F. just isn't urban enough for some.

http://www.filminamerica.com/Movies/HouseOfSandAndFog/house19.jpg

http://www.sfcityguides.org/images/guidelines/schroeder.jpg

It's become a quagmire. The units will never sell at this rate. Construction stopped because Canfield can't pay the contractors, so everything around the finished units is a huge mud pit. It will never be finished. The site is ruined because it used up all of the frontage and turned the rest into a mud pit. The quagmire could have been avoided by picking a more reasonable proposal. We got the crappiest out of all of the proposals in the first place. We hate these town homes in the first place. They aspire to be too traditional and they look awkward.

WOW, i remember when they first started working on this nearly FOUR years ago(Summer of 06). I lived in Deep Deuce and they had a sales office there. Sad to see the project took a dirt nap, but not suprised at all.

I think the main problem with the Hill is they priced them like they would be in San Fran. (almost)

I think the main problem with the Hill is they priced them like they would be in San Fran. (almost)

I think that is the biggest problem. They are way over priced for their location. For what they are asking they should be a lot closer to the Canal.

I suspect there's a discount for buying any of them,


:LolLolLol:LolLolLol

I think the main problem with the Hill is they priced them like they would be in San Fran. (almost)

Well they're fixing to be priced like they would be in Lawton. (almost)