View Full Version : OU Projects
ou48A 07-17-2013, 10:45 AM So you're saying that no professionals that live near campus? I'll disagree with that, since there are many large homes with large values surrounding many areas of campus.
Where did I say that no professionals live near OU....? Clearly they do but a lot more would live near OU if they could..... Right now it takes way to much time daily for a high number of higher income people to live their and commute to a job. Its not a realistic option for many. But make it more accessible and more people will find it more desirable..... the property values will increases to a point that we will see far more redevelopment with some of being high density.
Geographer 07-17-2013, 10:49 AM Where did I say that no professionals live near OU....? Clearly they do but a lot more would live near OU if they could..... Right now it takes way to much time daily for a high number of higher income people to live their and commute to a job. Its not a realistic option for many. But make it more accessible and more people will find it more desirable..... the property values will increases to a point that we will see far more redevelopment with some of being high density.
Street connectivity and flow along lindsey (without widening) are the keys to all of those :cool:
I will say though that land values are already pretty high...look at zillow and zoom in on the neighborhood just west of campus....not unlike home values you find in some of the other neighborhoods west of the interstate.
venture 07-17-2013, 10:54 AM So you're saying that no professionals that live near campus? I'll disagree with that, since there are many large homes with large values surrounding many areas of campus.
The only issue you have brought up is connectivity of neighborhood streets to the rest of Norman. That's a problem rooted in the suburban street pattern found in Norman, IE west of berry (if we're talking strictly in the campus area). Like I said in a previous post, the issue is STREET CONNECTIVITY, not the "antiquity of streets" or the size of streets. If you connect your streets better, people have MULTIPLE options of getting around instead of 1 major road, lindsey. That's the root of the problem, street connectivity. The street is plenty big, there's just not enough connected through streets. Connected Streets combined with Lindsey's street lights are the problem...the latter can be fixed with roundabouts at major intersections, the former will be harder to solve.
But let's be sure and understand the root problem, it isn't capacity......it's connectivity.
Look at the picture I've attached, you can see that there are only two streets that connect ALL the way through, consistently, from 24th SW to campus. Street connectivity is Norman's biggest problem, linking western shopping/interstate to campus. 4135
I get what you are saying here. I use to live at Elmwood and Chautauqua. I would have loved for Flood to go all the way through, but Hoover and Elmwood streets in that area run East-West whereas everything else is North-South. However, all the years I lived over there, it never too me more than 10 minutes to get to the interstate. Does it back up at peak times during the day? Indeed. You plan around that just like you do rush hour in OKC.
As far as people with money living near Campus in the Central Norman area...the comment made was just done out of pure ignorance to the houses in that area. Thankfully Zillow is available to show what the approximate values are there. IN the area from Berry to Pickard, to the south of Lindsey, those houses range from $250K up to $916K...with a large number in the 400-500K range. Moving east of there towards campus you have several 300-500K houses mixed in with the older 100-200K homes. Campus Corner area you are looking at prices from 194K to 316K on a few streets dropping to the typically 100-200K homes as you move east of there.
Doesn't really seem like people are eliminating this area as a place to live. Since I first moved to the area many years ago, there have been numerous high dollar homes built. Home values in that area have gone up pretty significantly over the years. When I first moved in I bought my house there for around $60K...that house sold last year for $125K. Not too shabby of an increase IMO.
ou48A 07-17-2013, 10:55 AM The only issue you have brought up is connectivity of neighborhood streets to the rest of Norman. That's a problem rooted in the suburban street pattern found in Norman, IE west of berry (if we're talking strictly in the campus area). Like I said in a previous post, the issue is STREET CONNECTIVITY, not the "antiquity of streets" or the size of streets. If you connect your streets better, people have MULTIPLE options of getting around instead of 1 major road, lindsey. That's the root of the problem, street connectivity. The street is plenty big, there's just not enough connected through streets. Connected Streets combined with Lindsey's street lights are the problem...the latter can be fixed with roundabouts at major intersections, the former will be harder to solve.
But let's be sure and understand the root problem, it isn't capacity......it's connectivity.
Look at the picture I've attached, you can see that there are only two streets that connect ALL the way through, consistently, from 24th SW to campus. Street connectivity is Norman's biggest problem, linking western shopping/interstate to campus. 4135
Better street connectivity such as you suggest would help but its far from the only solution. Its like a few drops in the bucket compared to what's really needed..... and to do what you suggest you would need to demolish several homes and that's been something that a small but vocal minority has opposed for projects that would provide far greater benefit such as adding 4 lanes on Lindsey all the was to campus.
I drove around these neighborhoods just yesterday evening in light rain, these are antiquated streets by and reasonable standard.
It's time to build the Front Street fly over.
HangryHippo 07-17-2013, 10:56 AM Better street connectivity such as you suggest would help but its far from the only solution. Its like a few drops in the bucket compared to what's really needed..... and to do what you suggest you would need to demolish several homes and that's been something that a small but vocal minority has opposed for projects that would provide far greater benefit such as adding 4 lanes on Lindsey all the was to campus.
I drove around these neighborhoods just yesterday evening in light rain, these are antiquated streets by and reasonable standard.
It's time to build the Front Street fly over.
Front Street flyover?
Geographer 07-17-2013, 10:59 AM Better street connectivity such as you suggest would help but its far from the only solution. Its like a few drops in the bucket compared to what's really needed..... and to do what you suggest you would need to demolish several homes and that's been something that a small but vocal minority has opposed for projects that would provide far greater benefit such as adding 4 lanes on Lindsey all the was to campus.
I drove around these neighborhoods just yesterday evening in light rain, these are antiquated streets by and reasonable standard.
It's time to build the Front Street fly over.
I will be greatly disheartened if Lindsey is widened...it's like treating a heart problem with medicine but then right after going out and eating a cheeseburger. It's treating some symptoms but not the root of the problem, or at least not understanding the root of the problem.
ou48A 07-17-2013, 11:24 AM I will be greatly disheartened if Lindsey is widened...it's like treating a heart problem with medicine but then right after going out and eating a cheeseburger. It's treating some symptoms but not the root of the problem, or at least not understanding the root of the problem.
The widening of Lindsey in this area is inevitable. There is absolutely nothing special or sacred about it that can't essentially be recreated and made better for ten's of thousands... People are way to in love with a hand full of trees.... most of which could with a little effort could be transplanted. Take the needed land on the north side of the street and it will have minimal impact.
Lindsey street is scheduled to be widened from Berry westward in a few years.
Its only natural that the vast majority will demand that the rest of Lindsey eventually be widened too.
HangryHippo 07-17-2013, 11:26 AM Before Lindsey is widened in this area, I want to see a Lindsey St. underpass of the railroad tracks just west of Classen.
ou48A 07-17-2013, 11:26 AM Front Street flyover?
The Front Street Fly over was talked about many, many years ago. It was basic an elevated limited access state highway from near the Brooks and Boyd street area that followed the rail road tracks north to connect with Flood Street north of Robinson Street. There are very few homes or buildings in the way.
ou48A 07-17-2013, 11:34 AM Before Lindsey is widened in this area, I want to see a Lindsey St. underpass of the railroad tracks just west of Classen.
I don't disagree, but both are needed.
The state should help Norman and OU by making Lindsey a state highway from I-35 east though campus.
Geographer 07-17-2013, 11:36 AM The widening of Lindsey in this area is inevitable. There is absolutely nothing special or sacred about it that can't essentially be recreated and made better for ten's of thousands... People are way to in love with a hand full of trees.... most of which could with a little effort could be transplanted. Take the needed land on the north side of the street and it will have minimal impact.
Lindsey street is scheduled to be widened from Berry westward in a few years.
Its only natural that the vast majority will demand that the rest of Lindsey eventually be widened too.
LOL. It isn't inevitable. There is absolutely something special about the area west of Berry as well. Great homes, great atmosphere, great transition to campus. I'm not in love with trees, I'm in love with the feel of Lindsey east of Berry. It absolutely can be improved WITHOUT widening. Lindsey street is currently about to undergo a transformation, you're correct...however, did you know that it may not be to the original 4-5 lane road? There are discussions and possible plans-to-be for a complete streetscape project for Lindsey that does not include simply widening the road....I'm telling you, the traffic comes from the constant stop/go of the street lights, not from the current road form. It just needs roundabouts to replace the street lights so there is constant flow of traffic, c'mon now.
EDIT: For the record, traffic counts have actually been FALLING along lindsey over the last 12 years...so why widen the road?
venture 07-17-2013, 11:37 AM The widening of Lindsey in this area is inevitable. There is absolutely nothing special or sacred about it that can't essentially be recreated and made better for ten's of thousands... People are way to in love with a hand full of trees.... most of which could with a little effort could be transplanted.
With pretty high costs. What is wrong with have an area full of trees? I understand you may enjoy your spartan subdivision lot up on NW Tecumseh, but that isn't for everyone. If you don't like trees...don't live in Central Norman. Easy as that.
Take the needed land on the north side of the street and it will have minimal impact.
Lindsey street is scheduled to be widened from Berry westward in a few years.
Its only natural that the vast majority will demand that the rest of Lindsey eventually be widened too.
Exactly what land on the north side of Lindsey are you talking about? Have you even been to that area? Your ignorance is showing. The houses on the north side of the street are much closer than those on the south side. Still...you are talking about taking a significant portion of the front yards of many folks. Would you be willing to give up 50% of your front yard to have a street run through it?
If we are going to do anything to Lindsey, it would be to add a center lane for a street car rail system and that's it. Anything more than that isn't needed. All you are going to do is cause more traffic to stack up in that area instead of reduce it.
I say we leave it up to the property owners and those that actually want to live there.
venture 07-17-2013, 11:41 AM LOL. It isn't inevitable. There is absolutely something special about the area west of Berry as well. Great homes, great atmosphere, great transition to campus. I'm not in love with trees, I'm in love with the feel of Lindsey east of Berry. It absolutely can be improved WITHOUT widening. I hate to sound pompous, but I actually do know what I am talking about. Lindsey street is currently about to undergo a transformation, you're correct...however, did you know that it may not be to the original 4-5 lane road? There are discussions and possible plans-to-be for a complete streetscape project for Lindsey that does not include simply widening the road....I'm telling you, the traffic comes from the constant stop/go of the street lights, not from the current road form. It just needs roundabouts to replace the street lights so there is constant flow of traffic, c'mon now.
I would love to see roundabouts replace the lines east of Berry. It definitely would make more sense and would have minimal impact on the neighborhood. Not to mention the creativity you could get with decorating them. The issue then hits again when you enter campus on how to handle those lights which are there for pedestrian traffic. I would like to see walkways similar to the elevated ones in Las Vegas, but you have to worry about truck traffic and clearance.
ou48A 07-17-2013, 12:49 PM did you know that it may not be to the original 4-5 lane road? There are discussions and possible plans-to-be for a complete streetscape project for Lindsey that does not include simply widening the road
So are you trying to say that the City of Norman leaders lied when the city’s voters passed a bond issue to widen “Lindsey Street from Interstate 35 to Berry Road would increase driving lanes to four, include a center turn lane”.
Doing anything but what was voted on is tantamount to a lie and those responsible deviating from what was voted on and passed should be help personally responsible.
There is nothing here that I haven't seen in over a hundred other locations and what ever it is can be rebuilt, but with a widen street.
Lindsey Street widening plan unveiled in Norman | News OK (http://newsok.com/lindsey-street-widening-plan-unveiled-in-norman/article/3658465)
ou48A 07-17-2013, 12:55 PM EDIT: For the record, traffic counts have actually been FALLING along lindsey over the last 12 years...so why widen the road?
Your thoughts that Lindsey street traffic is not growing worse is not the reality according to the quoted information.
“Traffic will continue to increase by about 1 to 2 percent each year, “and it's already highly congested and uncomfortable. It's only going to get worse,” she said.”
As the article discusses this is a serious safety issue. The congestion its self is a serious safety issue that very seriously slows emergency response times. The congestion also causes pollution and lost productivity and commerce.
All of this combined is not worth a few old homes and a few trees on the north side of Lindsey street.
Lindsey Street widening plan unveiled in Norman | News OK (http://newsok.com/lindsey-street-widening-plan-unveiled-in-norman/article/3658465)
ou48A 07-17-2013, 12:59 PM Lindsey Street widening plan unveiled in Norman | News OK (http://newsok.com/lindsey-street-widening-plan-unveiled-in-norman/article/3658465)
Engineer Bret Cabbiness said the plan is designed to correct chronic flooding problems and dangerous traffic conditions on the one-mile strip along Lindsey, which now has two driving lanes and a center turn lane.
The Lindsey Street corridor has the highest accident rate in the city and a crash rate three times the national average for similar type roads, said Nikki Tiner of Garver LLC.
About 21,000 vehicles travel that stretch of Lindsey every day, with accidents occurring at the rate of about one every four days, Tiner said.
Geographer 07-17-2013, 01:03 PM Your thoughts that Lindsey street traffic is not growing worse is not the reality according to the quoted information.
“Traffic will continue to increase by about 1 to 2 percent each year, “and it's already highly congested and uncomfortable. It's only going to get worse,” she said.”
As the article discusses this is a serious safety issue. The congestion its self is a serious safety issue that very seriously slows emergency response times. The congestion also causes pollution and lost productivity and commerce.
All of this combined is not worth a few old homes and a few trees on the north side of Lindsey street.
Lindsey Street widening plan unveiled in Norman | News OK (http://newsok.com/lindsey-street-widening-plan-unveiled-in-norman/article/3658465)
I do not know where these people getting those numbers because they have actually been decreasing, look at traffic counts of the past decade.
There is definitely time to change the format of the street and yes it is being discussed and no it isn't illegal.
The OU IQC held a meeting on "Livable Lindsey Streetscape" a couple of week ago with a streetscape expert...In attendance were the city's contracted engineering firm, the mayor, and a couple of council members. There is definitely consideration of a revamp of the project.
Like I said, we're taking medicine for a heart problem instead of stop eating cheeseburgers. If you want to induce and create more traffic then by all means widen Lindsey. If you want to correct the current problem, replace street lights with roundabouts and have traffic continuously flow. I walked from my office on campus to my car in the parking lot and drove to Johnny Carino's for lunch today on the west side of I-35 off of Lindsey. Do you know how long it took me? I timed myself: 11 minutes and 35 seconds...actual drive time was around 9 minutes (and I hit 4 lights). So your assertion that it takes 20-30 minutes to get from campus area to shopping on the west side is a little overstated...unless it's rush hour..then plan accordingly (like you do anywhere else).
EDIT: here are your traffic counts for Lindsey over the past 10 years....DECREASING. 4145
BoulderSooner 07-17-2013, 01:12 PM there is about 0% chance that it is not made 2 driving lanes in each direction
Geographer 07-17-2013, 01:15 PM there is about 0% chance that it is not made 2 driving lanes in each direction
I'm not saying it won't happen...but what I am saying is that there are other things being considered now than simply making it look like robinson or any arterial street on the west side.
BoulderSooner 07-17-2013, 01:16 PM I'm not saying it won't happen...but what I am saying is that there are other things being considered now than simply making it look like robinson or any arterial street on the west side.
making it look like robinson was never the plan .... extra lanes plus bike lanes plus sidewalks was always the plan
ou48A 07-17-2013, 01:18 PM I do not know where these people getting those numbers because they have actually been decreasing, look at traffic counts of the past decade.
They have their fact straight and the reason why I know they do is because OU and the city of Norman has been growing by something like 1000 to 1500 people per year for decades. That adds up to increased traffic on the same roads that have seen little to no improvement and do nothing but keep getting more and more congested and more dangerous. Since I first put eyes on Lindsey street in the mid 1960's my own eyes don't lie to me.
Try going to the west side at the same time of day in about 2 months when class is in session at OU and you will see why its a big problem for busy people who don't have the luxury of time.
Geographer 07-17-2013, 01:20 PM They have their fact straight and the reason why I know they do is because OU and the city of Norman has been growing by something like 1000 to 1500 people per year for decades. That adds up to increased traffic on the same roads that have seen little to no improvement and do nothing but keep getting more and more congested and more dangerous. Since I first put eyes on Lindsey street in the mid 1960's my own eyes don't lie to me.
Try going to the west side at the same time of day in about 2 months when class is in session at OU and you will see why its a big problem for busy people who don't have the luxury of time.
Sigh, even with hard data....
ou48A 07-17-2013, 01:27 PM Sigh, even with hard data....
Bring your linked information......
Lying is unacceptable. Doing anything but 2 lanes in each direction would be a lie. Not doing what the people voted for is a lie.
Heaven help those who would feel the back lash on this because it would likely be serious and likely get personal.
Geographer 07-17-2013, 01:28 PM Bring your linked information......
Lying is unacceptable. Doing anything but 2 lanes in each direction would be a lie. Not doing what the people voted for is a lie.
Heaven help those who would feel the back lash on this because it would likely be serious and likely get personal.
Side Joke: Isn't that what politicians do all the time? ;) not doing what people voted for.
Seriously though, projects and designs change multiple times throughout the process.
Wouldn't it have been a lie as well if city people sold this based on false information? ...such as "expected" increase in traffic...when traffic has been decreasing for a decade.
venture 07-17-2013, 02:10 PM making it look like robinson was never the plan .... extra lanes plus bike lanes plus sidewalks was always the plan
I don't think he is disputing that. I think he is point out that the overall look it was is in flux. There is plenty of talk of doing away with turn lanes completely (reported in the Transcript) in favor of a landscaped median. It would also be advantageous to eliminate as many curb cuts as possible and force people to utilize the side streets that are available.
They have their fact straight and the reason why I know they do is because OU and the city of Norman has been growing by something like 1000 to 1500 people per year for decades. That adds up to increased traffic on the same roads that have seen little to no improvement and do nothing but keep getting more and more congested and more dangerous. Since I first put eyes on Lindsey street in the mid 1960's my own eyes don't lie to me.
Try going to the west side at the same time of day in about 2 months when class is in session at OU and you will see why its a big problem for busy people who don't have the luxury of time.
Hmm. Trey sure did just link the hard data for traffic on Lindsey and unless the laws of math have been redone, those numbers are decreasing. We also have to keep in mind that Central Norman is pretty mature when it comes to development and much of the growth is in the suburban sprawl areas. Of course the next logical step for Central Norman is high density developments which will only succeed with proper mass transit planning.
I do wonder how many times you actually drive through campus during the day? I actually live just off Lindsey and transit through there during the school year - during rush hour - and it has never taken me this phantom 30 minutes to get across.
ou48A 07-17-2013, 03:47 PM Side Joke: Isn't that what politicians do all the time? ;) not doing what people voted for.
Seriously though, projects and designs change multiple times throughout the process.
Wouldn't it have been a lie as well if city people sold this based on false information? ...such as "expected" increase in traffic...when traffic has been decreasing for a decade.
The linked information that I provide shows that traffic is increasing and when combined with the fact that Normans population has grown significantly since 2000 along with increased OU enrollment I am going to believe published information over your opinion. If you have links of document substance please post them.
They might tweak the Lindsey project, but not building 2 lanes in each direction from Berry west would represent lie.... because that's how it was sold to the voters.... And no a lie is not done too often at the local city level on something this major and even if its done elsewhere that doesn’t make it right for Norman & OU.
All this reminds me of the time in 1979 when a person with a PHD told me that we didn't need any more parking lots or any parking garages at OU. When I ask why he said that nobody would be driving cars in twenty to thirty years. Just like we see now that was an example of a person who thought he was was a lot smarter than he really was with his short sighted views that only hinder good growth, prosperity and even higher density living for a much larger segment of the population.
There are a ton of older rent houses in the area that could be torn down and redeveloped but the congestion issues makes this land less desirable for many.
I know that in several more years (if the wife will let me) that I wouldn’t mind living in a higher end condo complex provided that it had enough of the right amenity's and if it was not too close to the RR tracks. We will have more time to spend and less desired to do yard work at that point in our lives.
On edit: I see your edited linked traffic numbers..... This is not significantly different.... It's a small bump in the road. The trend of over all increased traffic is still likely to continue..... Particularly as Norman and OU keep growing.
Geographer 07-17-2013, 05:32 PM The linked information that I provide shows that traffic is increasing and when combined with the fact that Normans population has grown significantly since 2000 along with increased OU enrollment I am going to believe published information over your opinion. If you have links of document substance please post them.
They might tweak the Lindsey project, but not building 2 lanes in each direction from Berry west would represent lie.... because that's how it was sold to the voters.... And no a lie is not done too often at the local city level on something this major and even if its done elsewhere that doesn’t make it right for Norman & OU.
All this reminds me of the time in 1979 when a person with a PHD told me that we didn't need any more parking lots or any parking garages at OU. When I ask why he said that nobody would be driving cars in twenty to thirty years. Just like we see now that was an example of a person who thought he was was a lot smarter than he really was with his short sighted views that only hinder good growth, prosperity and even higher density living for a much larger segment of the population.
There are a ton of older rent houses in the area that could be torn down and redeveloped but the congestion issues makes this land less desirable for many.
I know that in several more years (if the wife will let me) that I wouldn’t mind living in a higher end condo complex provided that it had enough of the right amenity's and if it was not too close to the RR tracks. We will have more time to spend and less desired to do yard work at that point in our lives.
On edit: I see your edited linked traffic numbers..... This is not significantly different.... It's a small bump in the road. The trend of over all increased traffic is still likely to continue..... Particularly as Norman and OU keep growing.
Enjoy your line of thinking :) I hope it works well for you.
venture 07-17-2013, 05:48 PM I'm confused.
The linked information that I provide shows that traffic is increasing and when combined with the fact that Normans population has grown significantly since 2000 along with increased OU enrollment I am going to believe published information over your opinion. If you have links of document substance please post them.
On edit: I see your edited linked traffic numbers..... This is not significantly different.... It's a small bump in the road. The trend of over all increased traffic is still likely to continue..... Particularly as Norman and OU keep growing.
Which he provided documented proof about 2 hours ago on his original post (it was a quick edit IIRC) but was apparently overlooked.
Umm. A 3000 cars per day decline over the last 10 years...I think that is pretty significant. Small bump in the road? It's be decreasing for 10 Years.
http://www.weatherspotlight.com/screencap/jul13/lindseytraffic.png
Trend overall? I might be young in comparison, but I think we all learned the same meaning of trend.
trend(trhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifnd)n.1. The general direction in which something tends to move.
2. A general tendency or inclination.
There hasn't been any upward tick in 10 years...so where is this upward trend?
All this reminds me of the time in 1979 when a person with a PHD told me that we didn't need any more parking lots or any parking garages at OU. When I ask why he said that nobody would be driving cars in twenty to thirty years. Just like we see now that was an example of a person who thought he was was a lot smarter than he really was with his short sighted views that only hinder good growth, prosperity and even higher density living for a much larger segment of the population.
Indeed. So what happened? The car loving baby boomer generation loved their suburban utopias and alas - we got stuck with what we have now. Was he short sighted or was the generation that is now being replaced (in power) selfish and lazy?
Also. We obviously have a battle going on here and not to get too morbid, but should our tax dollars and planning time be used to handle the next 5-10 years or the next 40-50 years? It is easier for some to say they want it a certain way or it has to be this way because of what is going on right now, but they are only going to be living with it for another 10-20 years...the rest of us are here for another 40-60 years.
What is wrong with doing it right the first time, planning for the long term...instead of doing a patch job that in 20 years we are going to be regretting. Norman's population is only going higher, as pointed out, so we need to be making the decisions now to foster high density development (with small footprints) in order to accommodate that. That means better housing developments and more investment in mass transit/rail.
There are a ton of older rent houses in the area that could be torn down and redeveloped but the congestion issues makes this land less desirable for many.
I know that in several more years (if the wife will let me) that I wouldn’t mind living in a higher end condo complex provided that it had enough of the right amenity's and if it was not too close to the RR tracks. We will have more time to spend and less desired to do yard work at that point in our lives.
Really? So let's take a stroll down Lindsey from Berry.
Berry to Pickard: 12 homes. One house on the SOUTH side of Lindsey built in 1950 with a value of $83K. It is between a house valued at $916K and $314K. Only 3 other homes in that area are below $200K and are higher than $144K.
Pickard to Flood: 8 homes...1 is 63k the rest are between $123K and $284K. The highest value one is on the North side of the street.
Flood to Lahoma: 6 homes...257k, 115k, 264k, 177k, 120k, and 225k. Two of the higher valued homes are north and one is south.
Lahoma to Chautauqua: 8 homes, including a frat house I believe it is. Two of the homes on the south side are worth over $400K, north side they are between $112k to $175k.
Chautauqua to College: 3 homes...202k, 350k, 293k. With those right along the street - not really the old cheap rental houses being spoken of.
Beyond that you have mostly commercial property.
So...
1) If this is so undesirable, how are property values so high.
2) If people didn't want to live here, why are people building near million dollar homes in this area (the most expensive one isn't 10 years old yet).
3) How it is justified to spend over $3 million (going by market rate) buying the homes on the north side just to add more traffic and congestion to the area that will negatively impact property values?
I think this is just a simple generational divide. The younger ground (40 and under) is taking over more responsibility running the city and we want it to be done right for us as we age and for those that start families. The baby boomers are wanting what has felt comfortable for them over the years and don't want to break the addiction of their cars, sprawl and other wastes.
Geographer 07-17-2013, 06:01 PM very well said.
CaptDave 07-17-2013, 07:13 PM I think this is just a simple generational divide. The younger ground (40 and under) is take over more responsibility running the city and we want it to be done right for us as we age and for those that start families. The baby boomers are wanting what has felt comfortable for them over the years and don't want to break the addiction of their cars, sprawl and other wastes.
This is germane to just about every discussion of development and infrastructure. It is becoming clear that "needs" of 30 years ago are often just "wants". Even in the face of objective data, there will be segments of the population convinced they are entitled to their wants. More people are becoming less willing to sacrifice quality of life in urban areas to enable escape to suburbia. Suburban living is not going to disappear and will always be the choice of many people, but it is long past time to decrease the nearly exclusive emphasis of infrastructure investment to facilitate high speed movement to the 'burbs. (I am over 40 so don't lump all of us into that group!)
venture 07-17-2013, 07:53 PM This is germane to just about every discussion of development and infrastructure. It is becoming clear that "needs" of 30 years ago are often just "wants". Even in the face of objective data, there will be segments of the population convinced they are entitled to their wants. More people are becoming less willing to sacrifice quality of life in urban areas to enable escape to suburbia. Suburban living is not going to disappear and will always be the choice of many people, but it is long past time to decrease the nearly exclusive emphasis of infrastructure investment to facilitate high speed movement to the 'burbs. (I am over 40 so don't lump all of us into that group!)
Dave...wouldn't never lump everyone in to that, but I think the generalization is somewhat appropriate since it was during the 70s/80s and such that we saw the flight to the burbs. Look at how many cities in this country, even OKC, that had some form of street car or light rail system in the central urban areas at some point in the past. Then it all went away in those cities that experienced the flight from the core.
Just the facts 07-17-2013, 08:23 PM All this reminds me of the time in 1979 when a person with a PHD told me that we didn't need any more parking lots or any parking garages at OU. When I ask why he said that nobody would be driving cars in twenty to thirty years. Just like we see now that was an example of a person who thought he was was a lot smarter than he really was with his short sighted views that only hinder good growth, prosperity and even higher density living for a much larger segment of the population.
The times are changing again. You have become your 1979 professor. Ponder on that for a few minutes.
ou48A 07-17-2013, 09:10 PM The times are changing again. You have become your 1979 professor. Ponder on that for a few minutes.
I think very definitively not. There are more cars and parking spaces on or near OU's main campus than ever and many times than the amount compared to 1979.
As OU and Norman continue to grow so will the traffic. Besides it wasn't my professor it was a relative who is still working very hard and well past his normal retirement years. But there are a lot of well meaning professors who are full of it.....particularly when it comes to economics, creating prosperity and transportation.
venture 07-17-2013, 09:30 PM I think very definitively not. There are more cars and parking spaces on or near OU's main campus than ever and many times than the amount compared to 1979.
As OU and Norman continue to grow so will the traffic. Besides it wasn't my professor it was a relative who is still working very hard and well past his normal retirement years. But there are a lot of well meaning professors who are full of it.....particularly when it comes to economics, creating prosperity and transportation.
Norman's population grew 15% since 2000. Lindsey Streets traffic, in that same time frame, has decreased 14%. Why are you having issues understanding these documented and measurable facts?
Sure there are more cars on the OU campus. How many of those are using Highway 9 to go to I-35 though? Trey might have those numbers. Wouldn't it be a more logical plan to further develop CART and possible street car systems through Norman that link up with a Commuter Rail line to OKC? Make safety improvements to Lindsey, but traffic trends indicate that there is no need to 4-lane Lindsay to campus.
kevinpate 07-18-2013, 06:49 AM One reason I can think of to 4 lane Lindsey. So folks coming in to campus from NW Norman area (or from farther north and jumping off at Tecumseh, can have a four lane route down 36, past main, make the curve and then keep the 4 lane on down Lindsey.
Please note i am not saying it is a compelling reason, just a reason.
Geographer 07-18-2013, 07:49 AM Norman's population grew 15% since 2000. Lindsey Streets traffic, in that same time frame, has decreased 14%. Why are you having issues understanding these documented and measurable facts?
Sure there are more cars on the OU campus. How many of those are using Highway 9 to go to I-35 though? Trey might have those numbers. Wouldn't it be a more logical plan to further develop CART and possible street car systems through Norman that link up with a Commuter Rail line to OKC? Make safety improvements to Lindsey, but traffic trends indicate that there is no need to 4-lane Lindsay to campus.
Imhoff Road (which is the road off of Highway 9 that many students take to the Lloyd Noble Center to park): 4147 You can see that Imhoff traffic is decreasing as well.
Highway 9 (this traffic count is taken on highway 9 between the Imhoff exit and Chautauqua exit): 4148 It has been increasing here, but I will attribute much of that to new development on the south and SE side of Norman, although more people could be taking it to campus as well...but where this traffic count was taken, it's not the most direct route to campus or LNC.
BG918 07-18-2013, 08:27 AM One reason I can think of to 4 lane Lindsey. So folks coming in to campus from NW Norman area (or from farther north and jumping off at Tecumseh, can have a four lane route down 36, past main, make the curve and then keep the 4 lane on down Lindsey.
Please note i am not saying it is a compelling reason, just a reason.
4-lane Lindsey west of I-35 doesn't have turn lanes. I would be okay with a 4-lane Lindsey from 24th to campus if it was just 4 lanes, no center turn lane, with a left turn lane only at major intersections like McGee, Berry and Jenkins. There is already a center turn lane for most of this distance, so getting rid of that and adding two lanes is not really widening it much. The big improvement would be new sidewalks along the entire stretch, and new trees and lighting.
And while I like the idea of bike lanes on Lindsey I think they would be better used on less busy streets like Boyd, Chautauqua, Elm and Brooks (which already has them in some parts). If the city decided to 2-way Main and Gray then that would be another good place for a bike lane, as well as on University connecting Main to Boyd.
Dustin 07-28-2013, 09:29 PM New state of the art student housing building, Headington Hall.
https://sphotos-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/992938_10152489996942281_623638517_n.jpg
mugofbeer 07-28-2013, 09:45 PM I have been to a number of games in recent years and always approach from the North. I saw this from the Stadium while under construction but haven't seen it at this distance. VERY nice structure! I recall there were some proposals for privately owned residential not far from this location - east on Lidsey maybe? Whatever happened to those plans?
ou48A 07-28-2013, 11:21 PM I have been to a number of games in recent years and always approach from the North. I saw this from the Stadium while under construction but haven't seen it at this distance. VERY nice structure! I recall there were some proposals for privately owned residential not far from this location - east on Lidsey maybe? Whatever happened to those plans?Building nice condos was the plan... At one point I was interested. They old apartments there had become a place where shady characters had been hanging out. Boren wanted to get rid of them. Some say that he used the condes as an excuse to tear the old apartments down. They economy took a nose dive and nothing has happened....
I have always though that a very nice 4 star hotel and a large condo complex that was priced high enough to keep most students out would do well some where near OU but not to close to the RR tracks
ou48A 07-28-2013, 11:24 PM Scout.com: OU's new student housing opens (http://oklahoma.scout.com/2/1310812.html)
Suggested reading on OU's new Headington Hall
ou48A 07-28-2013, 11:30 PM I love this! Its part of the new Headington Hall at OU.
Its called the Guardian. Its a very nice touch IMHO.
*
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BQI9qhxCQAA7yo0.jpg:large
Snowman 07-29-2013, 12:04 AM I love this! Its part of the new Headington Hall at OU.
Its called the Guardian. Its a very nice touch IMHO.
Hope he got permission to leave the capital dome :D
BG918 07-29-2013, 04:30 PM Headington Hall is a first class facility. I hope it becomes the basis for what future OU student housing projects look like in the Asp & Lindsey area.
What are the plans for the existing athletic dorms (Wilkinson House, etc)?
HangryHippo 07-29-2013, 04:34 PM Headington Hall is a first class facility. I hope it becomes the basis for what future OU student housing projects look like in the Asp & Lindsey area.
What are the plans for the existing athletic dorms (Wilkinson House, etc)?
Headington Hall is amazing! While there are a few things I would have done differently, it's a top notch facility that I, too, hope serves as a model for future OU housing.
I think the plan for the existing buildings is one is going to be torn down and the other is going to be reworked into offices for athletic staff. That was the last I heard anyway.
venture 07-29-2013, 04:43 PM Would love to see the features expanded to new structures to replace the other dorms. Walker was nice an all, but I still didn't care of it 15 years ago. Would like to see them tear down the existing towers and construct new high density structures.
ou48A 07-29-2013, 05:07 PM Headington Hall is amazing! While there are a few things I would have done differently, it's a top notch facility that I, too, hope serves as a model for future OU housing.
I think the plan for the existing buildings is one is going to be torn down and the other is going to be reworked into offices for athletic staff. That was the last I heard anyway.
I'm also hearing that the Bud will be reconfigured and turned into office space.
I have heard that the other 2 dorms will be torn down.
ou48A 07-29-2013, 05:07 PM To replace the towers and Cate Center with dorms similar to the Headington would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars. I have a hard time believing the state would cough up that much money for OU anytime soon.
The Headington cost $75 million dollars. Its being paid for by donations and by bonds that the athletic department will be responsible for paying down, but out of the 380 total students who will live there only 180 are athletes.
Bunty 07-30-2013, 01:29 AM To replace the towers and Cate Center with dorms similar to the Headington would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars. I have a hard time believing the state would cough up that much money for OU anytime soon.
The Headington cost $75 million dollars. Its being paid for by donations and by bonds that the athletic department will be responsible for paying down, but out of the 380 total students who will live there only 180 are athletes.
While none are as nice as the Headington, how the heck did OSU get so much money to build new student housing in recent years? It's already planned in a couple of years to bring down the old twin 12 story dorms--Kerr-Drummond, and replace them with new student housing.
kevinpate 07-30-2013, 06:18 AM While none are as nice as the Headington, how the heck did OSU get so much money to build new student housing in recent years? It's already planned in a couple of years to bring down the old twin 12 story dorms--Kerr-Drummond, and replace them with new student housing.
Wasn't that a part of T Boone Pickens rather massive donation a while back?
ou48A 07-30-2013, 11:10 AM While none are as nice as the Headington, how the heck did OSU get so much money to build new student housing in recent years? It's already planned in a couple of years to bring down the old twin 12 story dorms--Kerr-Drummond, and replace them with new student housing.
I'm not sure how OSU paid for their new dorms but OU spent about 100 million on refurbishing the towers about 10 or so years ago. There was a rumored 100 million dollar anonymous donation given to OU about this time. The rumored donor was Helen Walton of WMT.
While it would be very nice to have all the dorms on camps look like the Headington, short of a major new donation OU is probably not going to do anything for many years.
There are too many other bigger priority’s and not nearly enough money.+ OU's bond debt is pretty high and state funding can not be counted on.
Besides, with the rising cost of attending collage and with such poor job prospects with way too many degree programs and now with so many more classes now being offered on line, I'm not so sure that poring massive amounts of money into all new dorms is as wise of investment as it would be to increase the quality of the university’s academics and research capability's that would spin off high wage jobs and offer royalty opportunity's?
HangryHippo 07-30-2013, 11:13 AM I'm not sure how OSU paid for their new dorms but OU spent about 100 million on refurbishing the towers about 10 or so years ago. There was a rumored 100 million dollar anonymous donation given to OU about this time. The rumored donor was Helen Walton of WMT.
While it would be very nice to have all the dorms on camps look like the Headington, short of a major new donation OU is probably not going to do anything for many years.
There are too many other bigger priority’s and not nearly enough money.+ OU's bond debt is pretty high and state funding can not be counted on.
Besides, with the rising cost of attending collage and with such poor job prospects with way too many degree programs and now with so many more classes now being offered on line, I'm not so sure that poring massive amounts of money into all new dorms is as wise of investment as it would be to increase the quality of the university’s academics and research capability's that would spin off high wage jobs and offer royalty opportunity's?
Also, I don't think the renovations to the dorm towers started until 2005 and they were supposed to take place gradually over the next 6 years... Ideally, OU would have saved the $100 million donation and put it to much better use. They should have razed the dorm towers and used the donation to do something better. That whole part of campus south between Asp and Elm (?) should be razed. Lots of hideous architecture in that area.
What is OU's current bond debt? Also, does anyone know the current value of OU's endowment? The only number I come across is outdated by at least 2 years.
Geographer 07-30-2013, 11:15 AM What is OU's current bond debt? Also, does anyone know the current value of OU's endowment? The only number I come across is outdated by at least 2 years.
Are you talking University-wide debt? Or Athletics Department Debt?
HangryHippo 07-30-2013, 11:17 AM Are you talking University-wide debt? Or Athletics Department Debt?
Let's go with both if you have the current numbers for each of them.
ou48A 07-30-2013, 11:40 AM :rolleyes:
ou48A 07-30-2013, 11:42 AM While none are as nice as the Headington, how the heck did OSU get so much money to build new student housing in recent years? It's already planned in a couple of years to bring down the old twin 12 story dorms--Kerr-Drummond, and replace them with new student housing.
Fitch Rates Oklahoma State University Revenue Bonds 'AA'; Outlook Stable | Finance ? paidContent (http://finance.paidcontent.org/paidcontent/news/read?GUID=24672575)
Fitch assigns an 'AA' rating to the series 2013B and C general revenue bonds (the bonds) to be issued in the amount of $96 million by the Regents of the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges on behalf of Oklahoma State University (OSU, or the university):
The bonds will be sold on a negotiated basis on or about the week of July 22nd and the proceeds will be used to refund certain OSU's series 2003 outstanding revenue bonds, fund the construction of several projects including a civil engineering building, a veterinary medicine academic center, a library storage facility, student housing and pay costs of issuance.
In addition, Fitch affirms the 'AA' rating on OSU's $262.5 million of outstanding general revenue bonds.
The Rating Outlook is Stable.
SECURITY
The bonds are secured by a pledge of all legally available revenues, excluding revenues appropriated by the legislature from tax receipts. ..
ou48A 07-30-2013, 11:50 AM Also, I don't think the renovations to the dorm towers started until 2005 and they were supposed to take place gradually over the next 6 years... Ideally, OU would have saved the $100 million donation and put it to much better use. They should have razed the dorm towers and used the donation to do something better. That whole part of campus south between Asp and Elm (?) should be razed. Lots of hideous architecture in that area.
What is OU's current bond debt? Also, does anyone know the current value of OU's endowment? The only number I come across is outdated by at least 2 years.
Bond information for OU
http://www.bondsonline.com/print/Todays_Market/Credit_Rating_News_.php?DA=view&RID=29010
RATING AFFIRMED: The 'AA' rating reflects OU's status as a state flagship higher education institution with recent year enrollment growth, relative affordability compared to its peers and demonstrated fund raising success in a stressed economic climate.
Counterbalancing factors include a high but manageable debt burden.
Snowman 07-30-2013, 11:55 AM Also, I don't think the renovations to the dorm towers started until 2005 and they were supposed to take place gradually over the next 6 years... Ideally, OU would have saved the $100 million donation and put it to much better use. They should have razed the dorm towers and used the donation to do something better. That whole part of campus south between Asp and Elm (?) should be razed. Lots of hideous architecture in that area.
What is OU's current bond debt? Also, does anyone know the current value of OU's endowment? The only number I come across is outdated by at least 2 years.
Much of what gets donated is to specific projects, waiting just lets inflation eat at what can be done
ou48A 07-30-2013, 12:05 PM Much of what gets donated is to specific projects, waiting just lets inflation eat at what can be done
I believe most donations are placed in custody of OU's foundation and are put in investments that would offer a degree of protection against inflation?
Pete knows a lot about how these things are handled... I hope he chimes in and offers some clarification.
Snowman 07-30-2013, 12:12 PM I believe most donations are placed in custody of OU's foundation and are put in investments that would offer a degree of protection against inflation?
Pete knows a lot about how these things are handled... I hope he chimes in and offers some clarification.
While I do not know the specifics of OU's program, most of the ones I have seen are conservative enough that they are still loosing verses inflation in construction prices.
|
|