Remember this zoning request? It's by the Lexington neighborhood. Well, it's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaack. Yep, it's back on the city council agenda (item 6.d.1) for Tuesday. Interesting tidbits in the packet for this zoning request. Apparently the land was donated to the Oklahoma Christian University in 1985 and if I'm reading everything right, the college, not Sooner Traditions, still owns it pending rezoning of the land for apartments (which nearby neighbors are protesting). So, here's the question: does the university's involvement here change anything? I wonder what happens when nearby residents learn who really owns the land? The main concern of residents is that apartment complexes tend to place a strain on nearby schools and almost inevitably end up being disposable developments.

Remember this zoning request? It's by the Lexington neighborhood. Well, it's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaack. Yep, it's back on the city council agenda (item 6.d.1) for Tuesday. Interesting tidbits in the packet for this zoning request. Apparently the land was donated to the Oklahoma Christian University in 1985 and if I'm reading everything right, the college, not Sooner Traditions, still owns it pending rezoning of the land for apartments (which nearby neighbors are protesting). So, here's the question: does the university's involvement here change anything? I wonder what happens when nearby residents learn who really owns the land? The main concern of residents is that apartment complexes tend to place a strain on nearby schools and almost inevitably end up being disposable developments.

Hmm never heard of that - I do believe that OC has done lots of land deals in the past - I believe they owned most of the land around campus that has eventually become neighborhoods and such - didn't know they owned any that far off.

If they're going to put anything student-oriented there you're going to see the nearby residents go from upset to downright angry. It might be the OKC take of the infamous Stillwater "Campus Crest" proposal.

Spartan, this is far off from the campus - Sooner Traditions, which did the apartment complex at Western and NW 178, apparently has a deal to buy the land if the rezoning goes through.

Oh okay. I think that one thing OKC needs to look at doing is having a designated area for apartments, and just putting all of the apartments there. There's a lot of land around NW 122nd that they could just designate as the dumping grounds for apartment complexes. It would be similar to the area just east of the Central Expressway in Dallas, around Northwest Highway.

Spartan's proposal may sound dramatic, but such an idea might have merit. One reason the land along 122nd east of Penn hasn't really developed is because it is in the OKC school district. Apartments that naturally draw younger singles, rather than families, could be a good fit for that area and would open up more density along that part if the turnpike. Let's let the area north of Quail Springs develop into more higher-end housing. It already has some substantial pockets of affluence. I admit I don't know about the ownership of the land in question, but if I were in the market for a higher end home I probably wouldn't want a disposable development in my backyard either.

Oh okay. I think that one thing OKC needs to look at doing is having a designated area for apartments, and just putting all of the apartments there. There's a lot of land around NW 122nd that they could just designate as the dumping grounds for apartment complexes. It would be similar to the area just east of the Central Expressway in Dallas, around Northwest Highway.

Why does everything have to be "like Dallas does it?" If you people like Dallas so much, then move there. We can live without you. Oklahoma City does things just fine.

Even if God owned the land, if enough people protest, the zoning request would be denied.

Spartan's proposal may sound dramatic, but such an idea might have merit. One reason the land along 122nd east of Penn hasn't really developed is because it is in the OKC school district. Apartments that naturally draw younger singles, rather than families, could be a good fit for that area and would open up more density along that part if the turnpike. Let's let the area north of Quail Springs develop into more higher-end housing. It already has some substantial pockets of affluence. I admit I don't know about the ownership of the land in question, but if I were in the market for a higher end home I probably wouldn't want a disposable development in my backyard either.

Well ultimately it's all disposable way up there, but that's neither here nor there.

This is the thing that we don't do that everywhere else does: We don't generally have regions designated for certain types of development. We just differentiate between density, and that's it. Trailer park, executive housing, mid-level housing, entry level new housing, single family residence is all the same to us, or in the eyes of planning here, at least.

And it's not about "being just like Dallas." Smooth, I don't know where you people come from, but you definitely aint smooth. What it's about is a better way of doing things than the modus operandi that's been established here for decades, which obviously could work a little better. Dallas is just an example that people are familiar with that helps some people better understand the idea and visualize it. If you just think we're trying to turn OKC into Dallas then you just need to move to Dodge (because growth will happen regardless) or quitcha bitchin.

The main concern of residents is that apartment complexes tend to place a strain on nearby schools and almost inevitably end up being disposable developments.[/QUOTE]

Apartment complexes will put a strain on nearby schools no matter where they're built. The only solution to that would to have no apartments. Putting them all in a very dense area is not a good solution either. Just look at the area south of NW Expressway and between MacArthur and Rockwell. It's almost solid apartments and hardly an ideal development area.

How is it hardly an ideal development area? Isn't that right where Hideaway put in a new restaurant that's doing gang busters business? And there isn't any residential development there because there's no room left.

How is it hardly an ideal development area? Isn't that right where Hideaway put in a new restaurant that's doing gang busters business? And there isn't any residential development there because there's no room left.

I mean that the apartment areas are hardly ideal development not that other businesses might not develop in the general area. If you drive through there even though it's in a fairly nice area of OKC, many of the apartments are starting to look like slums. I work and live near there so I'm very familiar with the area. A few apartment complexes are well maintained or being renovated but many aren't.

Hideaway is along NW Expressway and not really near the apartments.

I just think this is a good argument for not congregating too many apartments is one area unless we are talking about a high density development area in downtown which is a whole different subject.

Spartan, I hear you about the area north of Quail Springs. But if memory serves, there are some very expensive homes ringing the 150th and Western intersection. Not every housing development up there is tract homes. Newer single families, even if they are closer to "starter" level aren't what gets me about the "disposable" mentality. What I hate to see are Sonics, 7-11s and small, cheap strip malls on every corner. I seem to remember this in that part of town, open land for half a mile, then -poof- a brand new Dollar General or self-storage unit or gas station. I just wish the more thoughtful developments would cluster more. Of course that's very hard when different property owners are selling land at different times and there is no comprehensive plan for what kinds of things should be where. Which means we are saying the same thing.

Why does everything have to be "like Dallas does it?" If you people like Dallas so much, then move there. We can live without you. Oklahoma City does things just fine.

Even if God owned the land, if enough people protest, the zoning request would be denied. Well smooth, that is because Dallas for the most part does things right, and OKC does not. As far as "We can live without you" mentality, that's fine,however did you see in todays paper that UPS will be closing the district office in OKC and merging it into the larger Dallas office? Keep that attitude up. Your attitude is what will continue to hinder OKC ever being a major city or a corporate haven for jobs. I live in Dallas and am originally from OKC and there are thousands of Okies that make there home in Dallas. OKC never will compete with Dallas because Dallas "always" wins with the big corporate relocations and regional offices and we have a major airport OKC does not.

Well smooth, that is because Dallas for the most part does things right, and OKC does not. As far as "We can live without you" mentality, that's fine,however did you see in todays paper that UPS will be closing the district office in OKC and merging it into the larger Dallas office? Keep that attitude up. Your attitude is what will continue to hinder OKC ever being a major city or a corporate haven for jobs. I live in Dallas and am originally from OKC and there are thousands of Okies that make there home in Dallas. OKC never will compete with Dallas because Dallas "always" wins with the big corporate relocations and regional offices and we have a major airport OKC does not.

You failed to mention that in addition to OKC never competing with Dallas because "they always win the big corporate relocations" that OKC will never match Dallas' unemployment rate, higher crime rates, terrible traffic congestion, higher average home cost, etc:
I like Dallas/Ft. Worth, it's a nice place to visit. I'll just stay in "Podunk" OKC with my family and my attitude.

Oh okay. I think that one thing OKC needs to look at doing is having a designated area for apartments, and just putting all of the apartments there. There's a lot of land around NW 122nd that they could just designate as the dumping grounds for apartment complexes. It would be similar to the area just east of the Central Expressway in Dallas, around Northwest Highway.
OKC has this, its Lyrewood and is one of the worst areas of the city. A lot of people have no idea that it exists because it is sort of hidden. I would say its a big part of the NW OKC's problems that were mentioned in Pete's tour of OKC thread. That area has brought a lot of very good neighborhoods way, way down.

What I hate to see are Sonics, 7-11s and small, cheap strip malls on every corner. I seem to remember this in that part of town, open land for half a mile, then -poof- a brand new Dollar General or self-storage unit or gas station. I just wish the more thoughtful developments would cluster more. Of course that's very hard when different property owners are selling land at different times and there is no comprehensive plan for what kinds of things should be where. Which means we are saying the same thing.

Yes because everyone knows that people who are well off dare not eat at sonic or get gas at 7-11?

I kind of see some of your other points - the reason I don't like strip malls at the moment is because it seems foolish to build more when half of the space is empty right now anyway....but everyone needs gas - and everyone needs to eat.

OKC has this, its Lyrewood and is one of the worst areas of the city. A lot of people have no idea that it exists because it is sort of hidden. I would say its a big part of the NW OKC's problems that were mentioned in Pete's tour of OKC thread. That area has brought a lot of very good neighborhoods way, way down.

I have friends who had the unfortunate experience of living in that area for a few months about 20 years ago. They nicknamed the street "Firewood Lane" because there were so many apartment fires during the short time they were there.

I can't think of a single area where loads of apartments all together is a good idea. I'm pretty sure the area the person mentioned earlier is Lyrewood and that is a TERRIBLE neighborhood. That could easily happen along that 122nd corridor if you put in tons of apartments.

I-240 is another great example of this. It is simply a string of apartments that have become drug havens and full of violence.

People need to be honest about not wanting apartments built in their area, when it's clear they are talking about the people that live in apartments. It's a shame so many have this "Not in My Backyard Mentality". There's probably just as many that live in apartments that don't want new, large homes built near them, don't want to deal with the "better than thou mentality". Actually I take that last part back, apartment dwellers are more caring and open minded, they'll even tolerate snobs.

I wonder if the problem is that developers aren't just allowed, but encouraged, to build these things in mass quantities in small areas, then let them deteriorate, and then build up in new areas, leaving blight in their wake with ownership reverting to slum lords who have little or no regard to quality of life or community well being. Is it really shameful to not want Lyrewood in your backyard?
Take a look at the crimetracker results for Lyrewood Lane: Crime Tracker - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports | (http://www.kwtv.com/global/Category.asp?c=161407)

I wonder if the problem here isn't so much the idea of building apartments and the residents who move in initially as it is people know the track records of the developers who do these projects and realize that they are in it for the short term money and don't see apartments as houses, where they can appreciate in value, but like a car that can eventually be junked out and discarded, which then leads to them becoming sources of blight and crime.

Actually I take that last part back, apartment dwellers are more caring and open minded, they'll even tolerate snobs.

Also more likely to assault, rape and burglarize you too. Check out the crime tracker for reasons why people don't want apartments built near them.

Well obviously apartments bring crime. Duh. Congrats to the person in BC 1000 that figured that one out. I'm saying to have one big area of apartments instead of adding them everywhere.

There's probably just as many that live in apartments that don't want new, large homes built near them, don't want to deal with the "better than thou mentality". Actually I take that last part back, apartment dwellers are more caring and open minded, they'll even tolerate snobs.

HAHAHA that is the funniest thing I've read on here this year - Don't you dare build something nice near here!

"What my apartment complex really needs are more conveniently-located crackhouses."

"What my apartment complex really needs are more conveniently-located crackhouses."

:bow:

I know it's old, and I risk ruining it with this, but I just wanted to let Matt know that my apartments' crackwhores would kick his apartments' crackwhore's ass.

I know it's old, and I risk ruining it with this, but I just wanted to let Matt know that my apartments' crackwhores would kick his apartments' crackwhore's ass.

Hey, why do you think I've been trying to get out of my lease?!

Well obviously apartments bring crime. Duh. Congrats to the person in BC 1000 that figured that one out. I'm saying to have one big area of apartments instead of adding them everywhere.

Housing of any kind brings crime although admittedly in varying amounts. I wonder which has the higher crime rate, Nichols Hills or Union City.

Probably Union City. Not the prettiest town.

Probably Union City. Not the prettiest town.

Pretty has nothing to do with it. Let me see now, if I was a burglar or a car thief which place would look more attractive?

Well one would be a lot harder than the other, that's for sure. Plus Nichols Hills Police carry assault weapons on them..

Clusters of large apartments bring crime. NW 122nd & N Penn Ave is like living in the "hood" compairabe to Lyrewood Ln. My daughter (student) is fed up with the "home boy's" around her. So maybe new apartments built in a new area will take care of her problems for a while till the homeys start lookin' for a new Crib to trash out.

I got to Union City all the time! My tractor didn't get stolen, so I would say Nichols Hills is the hotspot for crime.

Well one would be a lot harder than the other, that's for sure. Plus Nichols Hills Police carry assault weapons on them..

Not sure, but I hear that Gucci makers their holsters.

Clusters of large apartments bring crime. NW 122nd & N Penn Ave is like living in the "hood" compairabe to Lyrewood Ln. My daughter (student) is fed up with the "home boy's" around her. So maybe new apartments built in a new area will take care of her problems for a while till the homeys start lookin' for a new Crib to trash out.

122nd and Penn isn't a great area but it isn't anywhere near as bad as Lyrewood. Lyrewood had a large amount of transplants from either Houston or New Orleans (can't remember which one) and it transplanted a ton of gangsters to that area that was already bad.

I know Lyrewood is considered on par with some of the worst parts of OKC.

Maybe Burberry or Lacoste. I mean come on, what is this Beverly Hills? Gucci is too gauche for Nichols Hills.

I don't really care where they build apartments but I would really like to see a highrise downtown with rent under 1k per month for 1200 sqft or so(on at least the 30+ floors). Can it be done? How about a version of the twin towers topping at around 40 stories each? Street level retail,night clubs,gym,pool ect. with 7-8 floors of parking.Or am I dreaming?

Lyrewood is an excellent example of the dangers of clustering apartments. That area is downright scary and it was new and nice 30 years ago.

Well we've already lost NW 122nd and Penn. As soon as you cluster 2 apartments, there goes the neighborhood..let alone 5 or 6 like around NW 122nd and Penn. We should just confine apartments to areas that are already infested. Or encourage them to go downtown.

Well we've already lost NW 122nd and Penn. As soon as you cluster 2 apartments, there goes the neighborhood..let alone 5 or 6 like around NW 122nd and Penn. We should just confine apartments to areas that are already infested. Or encourage them to go downtown.

Can we just go ahead and wall that whole area off already? Kind of like a much- smaller scale version of Escape from New York?

Only if we can add fight scenes like the one in "They Live." (John Carpenter movies rock!)

You're right on the mark about Lyrewood.

I don't really care where they build apartments but I would really like to see a highrise downtown with rent under 1k per month for 1200 sqft or so(on at least the 30+ floors). Can it be done? How about a version of the twin towers topping at around 40 stories each? Street level retail,night clubs,gym,pool ect. with 7-8 floors of parking.Or am I dreaming?

I hope that dream comes true! I would be all over that development!

Dense, nicer apts. like Deep Deuce that aren't cut off from the surrounding neighborhoods is what is needed in OKC. It's the typical cookie cutter apt. complexes that can quickly turn into slums, and especially if they only have one way in/out like many do and walled off from surrounding hoods.

I don't really care where they build apartments but I would really like to see a highrise downtown with rent under 1k per month for 1200 sqft or so(on at least the 30+ floors). Can it be done? How about a version of the twin towers topping at around 40 stories each? Street level retail,night clubs,gym,pool ect. with 7-8 floors of parking.Or am I dreaming?

I wouldn't count on it very soon but this is the type of development you should start to see around a downtown park and nearer the river. The "pioneers" will be the best deals. Wish I had $100 million to spend because I would almost be willing to invest it in such a project.

I disagree with 100% of the above post. The pioneers will be the worst deals for lack of market competition, and likewise, I don't think we will see high rise apartments get built anywhere in the C2S area for a long time.

What people don't realize is that development is done organically..the areas around downtown currently are developing organically, so they will soon see bigger projects. The C2S task force lands is an area that does not currently exist. Keep that in mind.

If I had $100 million I would invest it in low-rise Bricktown residential/mixed-use, with residential build out all in the first phase, retail later. Perhaps a project like the Steel Yard or Bricktown Village.

Lyrewood is an excellent example of the dangers of clustering apartments. That area is downright scary and it was new and nice 30 years ago.

I found it interesting that a woman working for one of the apartment complexes in this area came into my office today. She was passing out flyers and promoting her complex. She was talking about how much renovation had been done and made sure to mention the fact that they weren't taking any more Section 8 housing. That may help her complex but there are hundreds of units in that area that will stay the same.

IF you build an apartment complex that isn't totally sustainable it WILL be the Section 8 housing of tomorrow. In fact the city should seriously consider renaming multi-family suburban housing zones to "multi-family housing and future Section 8 housing zone" just to make it known to everyone that doesn't get it.