A park, a park
a lark flew by a park
No waiting, no baiting
no highway or rail hating
a park, a park, a park

and ... the potential for development around it.

I'm thinking some big open kite flying space will be fun when it is in place.

MAPS IV Larry! I should insert an evil grin smiley here, I suppose. There's only so much money, and the streetcar will stop across from the park. The park itself will be a destination, and if there's something interesting in Union Station such as a restaurant, a museum, some shopping, people will walk there during their stroll through the park. I'd like to see it used as an event center as well, as people will want to get married in the park, and it would be nice to have an adjacent reception option.
(Not all directed at Betts)
And it may be MAPS 4 before we are ready to use Union Station for its designed purpose (rail transport) again. While some of the tracks were torn out with I-40 relocation, it is my understanding that some remain so it could still be used for a Streetcar stop. i understand that the Santa Fe is going to be the Hub (I have said it before, from an asthetics standpoint, I would flop the two buildings if I could), but that doesn't mean Union Station can't be utilized too...it is far from being "rendered useless". It is only rendered useless if you make the deliberate decision to make it that way be not having the Streetcar go there which is what wee are doing if the proposed route is approved. it is not too late to correct it. I understand the limited funds aspect (but offered suggestions to get more mile for the buck on that, at least enough to make it to Union Station). Hopefully if it isn't somehow used for Streetcars, it will be used for other Park purposes(but why not those and a Streetcar stop too?) like a place to get something to eat, rent a bike etc and not remain office space for our parking folks....which is definitely not an example of higher and/or best use IMHO

Also, in Core to Show renderings, there was supposed to be an Event Center built next to the Station but it was one of the things that committee said the Park needed to have that got eliminated

A park, a park
a lark flew by a park
No waiting, no baiting
no highway or rail hating
a park, a park, a park

and ... the potential for development around it.

I'm thinking some big open kite flying space will be fun when it is in place.
Be careful of the trees and the power lines from the substation...
:sofa:

<sigh> This is what I was talking about having the Streetcar going to Union Station...the fact that it went there would help make it a destination, instead of an interesting focal backdrop

The difference is Larry that the Cincy streetcar will serve two exisiting destinations on the south side of the freeway - two sports stadiums one of which hosts 91 home games. Union Station doesn't host anything.

JTF: And it wont as long as people keep viewing it the way they are...I was agreeing with your point that for walking (as some are suggesting is going to happen with the way the Streetcar is routed now), is that it needs to be a destination point, that can be helped by it being a Streetcar stop along with the other things betts mentioned...you asked:

If you were in downtown Cincy and there was not a game would you walk over to the stadium?
Is someone going to walk to Union Station if there is nothing there?

And my apologies, I am not trying to hijack the thread but the Park and Streetcar are an integral part of Core to Shore

I know we had this discussion before but let's say the streetcar gos to Union Station and has a stop right at the front door. Who do you envision getting on and off at this stop? Where is this person going, where are they coming from, and why are they there? Are they just going to go there because that is where the streetcar goes?

The same folks that are riding the streetcar to any of the stops on the route. Those that want to check out the Union Station and what it has to offer, those using the Park but aren't inclined to walk it from one end to the other to do so. Those wanting to go across the SkyDancer bridge. If you have no interest in that particular stop, you stay on it until it gets where you want to go...same for any of the other stops. Same for bus stops or any other form of transportation

Based on those activites you provided I can probably count on one hand the number of people who fit that profile. If you don't like to walk why are you going to the park or crossing a 400' pedestrian bridge? Maybe an urban excursion train would be more suited to what you are thinking.

Based on those activites you provided I can probably count on one hand the number of people who fit that profile. If you don't like to walk why are you going to the park or crossing a 400' pedestrian bridge? Maybe an urban excursion train would be more suited to what you are thinking.

Here's the solution, Kerry. LOL

Put one of these running all over the park and nobody will have to walk anywhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpTDyQOy2_0

I used to ride the one at the Zoo when I was on training wheels. I don't even know if they still have that train out at the Zoo, but it was cool. That just made me realize my earliest train love, thanks ljbab.

There's also something identical to this at old timey amusement parks like Cedar Point in Ohio or Arnolds Park in Iowa.

I used to ride the one at the Zoo when I was on training wheels. I don't even know if they still have that train out at the Zoo, but it was cool. That just made me realize my earliest train love, thanks ljbab.

There's also something identical to this at old timey amusement parks like Cedar Point in Ohio or Arnolds Park in Iowa.

I was joking in posting that video but actually something like that might eventually be a fun thing for the park.

I was joking in posting that video but actually something like that might eventually be a fun thing for the park.

If anyone ever gets the chance check out the Largo Central Park Railroad in Largo, FL. If you love trains then you will love that park. On the first full weekend of eveny month they have model trains big enough to ride and the tracks go all over the park. Very cool and very fun.

http://www.lcrailroad.com/

http://www.tampabay.com/multimedia/archive/00037/lartrain091008b_37417c.jpeg

http://www.hometeamtampabay.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Largo-Central-Railroad1.jpg

http://www.lcrailroad.com/html/pic/layout1.jpg

The reason Union Station was rendered useless is because the rail yard was removed by ODOT, I hear they built a highway up against it, so as to make sure there is never room again to make Union Station viable as a hub for rail.
According to JTF post#353, the single lane of track that currently runs past Union Station has the transportation equivalent of 318' of roadway. I'd hardly consider Union station to be rendered useless.

Well, I have never accused ODOT of much simply because I don't know a lot about them, but I do think the Crosstown project was a Big Dig (any project that triples in cost over its lifetime strikes me as pretty corrupt), many transit experts have accused ODOT of having a vendetta against trains, and the moderate transit experts who can't afford to burn bridges have even said that the rail office at ODOT is a corner of a basement. So you can draw your own conclusions...

So at best they just don't understand rail and won't give it a chance, at worst...(I think these things fall in the middle usually)

I visited the ODOT rail branch years ago after a fatal car train accident at Coffee Creek road and the BNSF. They have the top floor SW corner office. Great views of downtown. Maybe your "moderate transit experts who can't afford to burn bridges" should visit them, too. Or maybe stop telling lies.

According to JTF post#353, the single lane of track that currently runs past Union Station has the transportation equivalent of 318' of roadway. I'd hardly consider Union station to be rendered useless.

The problem is that the one track is owned by Union Pacific who said no to people on or near the tracks.

The problem is that the one track is owned by Union Pacific who said no to people on or near the tracks.

So the old railyard was rendered useless by UP's policies?

So the old railyard was rendered useless by UP's policies?

Yep - even if was still there we couldn't use it.

Based on those activites you provided I can probably count on one hand the number of people who fit that profile. If you don't like to walk why are you going to the park or crossing a 400' pedestrian bridge? Maybe an urban excursion train would be more suited to what you are thinking.
Really? Then why are we building this relatively massive MAPS 3 park anyway? It is to be a community gathering point for all kinds of programmed uses. Because of the layout of the Park, it is going to be a long walk from one end to the other and shortcuts will be welcomed. Not everyone is capable or willing to walk the several blocks from one end to another. I don't understand the walking rationale being used here. Why are you expecting the Park people to walk but not everyone else? In other words, why is the Streetcar going directly to the Hub or some of the other stops and not some spot up to 3 blocks away?

Not against the excursion train idea either. Maybe we can get the Railroad Museum to relocate to the Park???

For walking to be a mode of transportation there has to be something at both ends of the walk, otherwise it is just excercise. If someone is there to simply 'see the park' what difference does it make if they get dropped off on the edge of the park or the middle of the park?

I visited the ODOT rail branch years ago after a fatal car train accident at Coffee Creek road and the BNSF. They have the top floor SW corner office. Great views of downtown. Maybe your "moderate transit experts who can't afford to burn bridges" should visit them, too. Or maybe stop telling lies.

Heavy-handed. That is just what I heard from someone who had just came from that office, but perhaps I should pay a visit to ODOT. Why do you think I'm trying to lie to people on here? Please inform me what financial or otherwise interest you think I have that is motivating me to pull the wool over..

Why did you goad me into an appraisal of ODOT just to berate me for making a comment on ODOT? I don't understand that logic, you seem to be desperate for an excuse to make heavy-handed posts, or is that just the buffalo talking?

Heavy-handed. That is just what I heard from someone who had just came from that office, but perhaps I should pay a visit to ODOT. Why do you think I'm trying to lie to people on here? Please inform me what financial or otherwise interest you think I have that is motivating me to pull the wool over..

Why did you goad me into an appraisal of ODOT just to berate me for making a comment on ODOT? I don't understand that logic, you seem to be desperate for an excuse to make heavy-handed posts, or is that just the buffalo talking?

I didn't say that you lied, only that you were spreading misinformation from your "moderate transit experts who can't afford to burn bridges" re ODOT rail branch.

Tsk, tsk.

Buffalo Bill: So who was the last line of your post directed:

Or maybe stop telling lies.

For walking to be a mode of transportation there has to be something at both ends of the walk, otherwise it is just excercise. If someone is there to simply 'see the park' what difference does it make if they get dropped off on the edge of the park or the middle of the park?
I was agreeing with your point, so I am not sure why this concept is so hard to understand. I can only presume I am not explaining it right. By its design/layout, the Park is long and narrow. That means there are going to be areas that some folks will be interested in and some not. Those points of interest may not be all clustered together. There are going to be those that either by choice or ability, will not be able to transverse the distance. If they are only given one option of a drop off point, that restricts accessibility. The easier you make something to do, the more likely most are going to do it. The harder you make it, the less likely. There will be exceptions but that is human nature. For those taking the Streetcar, the greater the Park you can expose them (as opposed to just 1 corner) the more things might be of interest to them etc. More exposure leads to more use. If we want to spend $132+ million on a Park and then not have it used to its full potential, much less the RIO by encouraging high density residential development above and beyond what the Park itself is suppose to generate. For a myriad of reasons, it is obvious that the Streetcar needs to transverse as much of the Park as possible (but at least to Union Station in this round of funding) and an obvious stop is a train station. Just as the other train station is the obvious location for the Hub.

Buffalo Bill: So who was the last line of your post directed:

At the "moderate transit experts". Stated that they should either visit the ODOT Rail Branch or stop telling lies about it and its location.

Sorry if it was misconstrued that I was saying Spartan was lying.

I could see where it could go either way...

I think I see where you are coming from Larry. The presence of the park is to encourage nearby high density multi-story housing (you don't need a back yard if there is 50 acre park right across the street). You are of the opinion that introducing the streetcar to this area will facilitate that development (correct me if I got that wrong).

If that is the case then it comes down to priorities with phase 1. The area between Deep Deuce, downtown, Automobile Alley, and Midtown already has a few thousand residents that can make use of the streetcar today – plus, there is plenty of vacant land along the route for urban in-fill (and who knows, maybe an urban park on the north side of downtown). This route will deliver instant ridership on day one.

One thing to keep in mind is that this MAPS III streetcar is only phase 1 (with a possible phase 2 headed towards HSC). This WILL NOT be the only two phases. Every city in the world that has reintroduced rail transit can’t build new lines fast enough. People flock to it because of its convenience, developers crave it because it allows them to build higher densities, and governments love it because it is much cheaper to build and maintain then roads. Of course, there are people who don't like it - Departments of Transportation, UAW/Automakers, and other people invested in road construction.

Just wait until commuter rail is introduced – not only will Edmond and Norman be wanting it, but every town, hamlet, and community within 50 miles of OKC will be scrambling to find a way to get connected.

JTF: Think we are on the same page now :cool:

There are no guarantees that we are going to get more funding (hopeful but not guaranteed). I understand that this is going to be a "starter system" but what happens if those other funds don't happen? The Mayor explicitly stated that they weren't putting anything into MAPS 3 that we couldn't pay for and complete ourselves. Solving the very same problem we got into with the MAPS 1 Streetcars. We all know how that turned out. We got the rubber tired Trolleys instead. If we are going to spend $128,815,000 on the Streetcars, it seems logical to put them in the areas where you are going to maximize RIO. Hopefully they aren't going to cost as much as projected (think the numbers are avg/mile) and we can get those few extra blocks to get to Union Station. But on the other hand it may cost more and track may have to be cut.

Larry, the money will be there because it has to be. The world is entering a new phase of fuel were gasoline is going to be priced based on the global market. Economies that are based on the individual automobile mode of transportation are going to be at an economic disadvantage to those that allow the free movement of people and goods without the use of global priced fuels. A seismic shift is coming to the American transportation landscape. The US is not going to have a choice but to fund rail transit. The automobile is a luxury mode of travel and we as a nation can no longer afford the luxury. Individuals will still be able to afford the luxury but they won’t be doing it in the numbers they are doing so today.

Riderships increases today are mostly based on the high price of gasoline, but as Americans realign their living arangements to be closer to rail transit lines then the cost considerations will move away from fare vs gasloine price to fare vs total cost of owning a car. When that happens good by automobile and the gasoline taxes used to fund highway maintenance. I ran the numbers for myself and if we could get rid of just one car by living closer to a rail transit station or in a walkable community we would save close to $1,000 per month. If we could get rid of both cars we could afford a house/condo payment just on the money we SAVE by not having 2 cars (if I need a car we can rent one by the hour).

I am not saying that is going to happen over night but that is clearly the trend and the ultimate outcome. Anyone not planning for that will get left behind.

http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2012/Pages/120604_Ridership.aspx

Maybe the money will be there eventually but I wouldn't be counting on it in the short term. If it happens that is great, but if not we might end up with another AICC.

Tire shop near OKC convention center development site to close
By Brian Brus
Journal Record
Oklahoma City reporter - Contact: brian.brus@journalrecord.com / 405-278-2837 / https://twitter.com/JRBrianBrus
Posted: 05:55 PM Tuesday, June 26, 2012

OKLAHOMA CITY – Ira’s Tire Shop will yield to the development of a new convention center downtown and close its doors for good after 75 years, co-owner Mike Smith confirmed Tuesday.

The small business is in the way of Oklahoma City’s Core to Shore and MAPS 3 development plans, on the corner of SW Second Street and S. Hudson Avenue, sandwiched between the site chosen for a convention center and the former Interstate 40 crosstown. The Urban Renewal Authority this month contacted Smith and his brother, Donald Smith, to let them know the agency intended to buy the property.

“The city has requested that Urban Renewal acquire the convention center site, which is everything from Robinson all the way over to Walker, from Reno down to the old I-40 that they’re tearing down near SW Third,” authority Executive Director JoeVan Bullard said. “We’ll do everything we can to negotiate a purchase of that land. Letters have gone out to the owners in that area that say we’re interested in the area.

“Eminent domain would be the absolute last resort and the Urban Renewal Authority acting on behalf of the city will go the extra mile, knowing that this family has owned the tire shop for years and years,” he said.

The shop has been targeted for one of the MAPS 3 projects approved by voters in 2010. The temporary 1-cent sales tax is expected to raise $777 million for a 470,000-square-foot convention center, 70-acre public park, Oklahoma River improvements, a streetcar in downtown and other projects. Development has coincided to a small degree with the movement of the Interstate 40 crosstown south several blocks toward the river, opening a large swath of land for redevelopment, referred to as Core to Shore.

The City Council in March 2010 approved Urban Renewal’s involvement in acquiring Core to Shore properties, which Bullard said is now under way for the convention center.

He said a registered letter was sent to the Smiths to let them know the authority intends to ensure respectful, fair and equitable treatment of all property owners in the pursuit of their property. The only other real estate of interest for the convention center is held by REHCO Downtown Development LLC, a local property development group.

“The people who have sold their property to Urban Renewal on the south side of the old I-40 that we’re buying property for the park, they’re walking away with a very fair price,” Bullard said. “You get not only the appraised value of the land but you get relocation and re-establishing expenses as well.

“Ira’s has always been a very strong downtown customer. They stayed downtown when everybody else was fleeing, so I’ve got a deep appreciation for those folks,” he said.

According to the Oklahoma County assessor’s office, Ira’s property has a market value of $237,000.

“We’ll keep going until somebody comes in and buys us,” Mike Smith said. “And they’ll get us sooner or later. … We’re sitting in a good spot to be bought out. But I’ve got no idea how much they’ll offer us.”

The tire shop hasn’t always been at its current address. When it was owned by the brothers’ father, Ira, the business was in the 200 block of SW Third Street and had to move to allow for widening Interstate 40. So Mike Smith said being closed by more development involving an interstate would be an appropriate end to an era.

“We’re not going to move again. I’m 71 and Donnie’s 74. We’ve got good health and stay pretty active and busy. So we’ll just wait it out,” he said. “This will be the end of it.”

My friend that works in the planning office said that as part of the core 2 shore, all of the hubcap alley buildings were slated to be torn down for a part. I do not see how that could possibly be true. Any thoughts? I think he was confused with central park but then he said between 11th and 15th street. ideas?

It looks like there are a few bumps in the road with unhappy property owners in the area.

http://newsok.com/some-oklahoma-city-property-owners-resistant-to-downtown-park-plan/article/3692804

pretty much a non story ..

Had there been no park, their land would be virtually worthless.

It looks like there are a few bumps in the road with unhappy property owners in the area.

http://newsok.com/some-oklahoma-city-property-owners-resistant-to-downtown-park-plan/article/3692804

as in they are only getting around two times the appraised value of the properties not three or being able to hold on to sell after the park directly by them.

Can we get pictures up of these people? I'm curious how many teeth they have.

Can we get pictures up of these people? I'm curious how many teeth they have.

LOL, I saw pics in the paper this morning. There were no open mouths so I couldn't count teeth.

Along the bluff overlooking Wheeler Park is an excellent location for a row of high-rise townhouses or condos. Probably a really good sunset view over the park and the river, plus whatever Kirk Humphries decides to build at the old downtown airport. Concentrating residential in one area allows for adjacent areas to have more greenspace.

Wow - I looked at the Chamber's spiffy conceptual videos of what "tomorrow's downtown Oklahoma City" might look like, and I cringed. Streets were a block wide, sidewalks even further apart - did they even listen to the ULI observations? Or did this crap predate that? The city has to be pedestrian friendly. What the Chamber's putting out is far from it.

Had there been no park, their land would be virtually worthless.

True but since there is going to be a Park, the value has risen...maybe the City should have bought the property before they announced the plans for the park when it was worthless? Like they did with other properties in the Park area before MAPS 3 passed 9with G.O. bond money)???

True but since there is going to be a Park, the value has risen...maybe the City should have bought the property before they announced the plans for the park when it was worthless? Like they did with other properties in the Park area before MAPS 3 passed 9with G.O. bond money)???

its not like the city is doing the appraisal ... and the city is not the final say on the amount when it goes to court

That is correct, however, maybe they should have tried to buy the property when the appraisal was much less before its value went up due with the City initiative? Granted they would have been taking a chance but they already had money approved by the voters for that purpose even if MAPS 3 failed. Then the CIty could have sold the property if they decided they didn't need it after all.

Larry - the current appraised value is $709,000. The City is offering $1.2 million. The owner wants $2.5 million ($1.8 million more than the appraised value).

What was he wanting before?

What was he wanting before?

My guess is he wasn't asking anything since it wasn't for sale. He inherited the land from his grandfather, ran a slum housing project for several years on the site until it burned down, and then waited around to try and cash in. This guy is one of those responsible for the wasteland that was this part of town for the last 30 to 40 years. He should be kicked in the groin. The City really should look at some kind of density taxation for the urban core. Vacant lots should be taxed at rate that would discourage them.

My guess is he wasn't asking anything since it wasn't for sale. He inherited the land from his grandfather, ran a slum housing project for several years on the site until it burned down, and then waited around to try and cash in. This guy is on of those responsible for the wasteland that was this part of town for the last 30 to 40 years. He should be kicked in the groin.

Well, he'll get kicked in the groin if OKC eminent domains him into $250k less than their initial offer. I hope he gets nothing but the appraised value.

Well, he'll get kicked in the groin if OKC eminent domains him into $250k less than their initial offer. I hope he gets nothing but the appraised value.

I would like to see the City search their records and make sure he is the rightful owner. A lot of shinnagens took place in OKC in the early days (even by today's standards). I would rather see the City go Willy Wonka on him where he gets nothing.

M5QGkOGZubQ

I am conflicted on this, as while I don't want to see taxpayer dollars wasted in paying more than what the property is really worth, I am also generally opposed to eminent domain taking of private property for a want, not a need. The Park is a want. And the property in question isn't even in the path of the Park but is adjacent to it? That means the City is using it to take private property, not for a public purpose (Park) but to turn around and sell it to a developer??? That just seems wrong on so many levels. If the guy wants to sell, fine, he has set his price. If the City wants it bad enough, they should pay that price rather than have a court legally take it from the guy for less. If the City doesn't want to pay his price, again fine, build around his property or build someplace else. And what is the property worth? As someone argued on the scalping thread, the value is what the buyer is willing to pay vs. what the seller is asking. The true value is where those two numbers meet.

I know what you are saying Larry. The Supreme Court ruled the City can use eminent domain to take private land and resell it to private developers so the City has that going for them. In most cases I don't like that idea but this clearly a case of someone milking the system for more than it is worth and being a lowlife in the process. And it isn't like the guy lives here and has no where else to go - it's a vacant lot.

Jeez, I didn't realize the property in question was adjacent to the park. I agree that eminent domain is not appropriate for acquiring land on the periphery of the for the park without very compelling reasons and justification. I think eminent domain is proper to acquire the land for the park only since that is the public project. Let the developers worry about buying the land around it (and they will) using their time and money to do the research and legal requirements. The city has no business buying land just to turn around and sell it to a private developer. I think the city is possibly setting itself up for a lot of criticism when the eventual buyers of the land around the park become evident. Does everything involved with Oklahoma politicians have to have the scent of impropriety? Just once I would like to see something done where there were no ethical lapses either perceived of real.

Jeez, I didn't realize the property in question was adjacent to the park. I agree that eminent domain is not appropriate for acquiring land on the periphery of the for the park without very compelling reasons and justification. I think eminent domain is proper to acquire the land for the park only since that is the public project. Let the developers worry about buying the land around it (and they will) using their time and money to do the research and legal requirements. The city has no business buying land just to turn around and sell it to a private developer. I think the city is possibly setting itself up for a lot of criticism when the eventual buyers of the land around the park become evident. Does everything involved with Oklahoma politicians have to have the scent of impropriety? Just once I would like to see something done where there were no ethical lapses either perceived of real.

On the other side why should the city/public invest millions to raise the price someone has been squatting on land for decades and would likely continue to do for years.

Land assembly is the biggest hurdle to urban development and it doesn't help when you have squatters that do the bare minimum, and a lot of times not even that. The City needs to find a way to aggressively solve this issue. Maybe they think this approach will do that because they were able to buy a lot of land this way with little to no hassel.

According to the DO article, the property in question is not adjacent to the park, it is part of the park property. From the article:

"In 1889, D.W. Chandler — the Hope brothers' maternal grandfather — along with their great uncle and aunt, claimed two lots on the block that now comprises the far northwest corner of the planned municipal park."

Read more: http://newsok.com/some-oklahoma-city-property-owners-resistant-to-downtown-park-plan/article/3692804#ixzz20vb9rdpD

The Crosstown Expressway depressed the value of all properties cut off from downtown to the South, including this property.

Thanks for the clarification Oil Capital. I stand corrected.

I am still hopeful (idealistic I know) the Core to Shore area will fill in during my lifetime. That area directly south of the CBD and all the way westward to the Farmers Market could see an influx of redevelopment like nowhere else IF the boulevard is designed with that goal.

The Crosstown Expressway depressed the value of all properties cut off from downtown to the South, including this property.

If you owned it since the time of construction of the original crosstown then the total dollar amount will be much higher due to inflation, how much value it could have been is speculation at best. The original migration out after WW2 started lowering a lot of value out of everywhere downtown, extended even more by the freeways (still affecting the entire downtown).

The city has no business buying land just to turn around and sell it to a private developer. I think the city is possibly setting itself up for a lot of criticism when the eventual buyers of the land around the park become evident. Does everything involved with Oklahoma politicians have to have the scent of impropriety? Just once I would like to see something done where there were no ethical lapses either perceived of real.

Read Supreme Court case Berman v. Parker (1954). If there is a comprehensive redevelopment plan in place it is a constitutionally sound "public purpose" to use eminent domain on private property and then hand that property over for development. More recently Kelo v. City of New London (2005) pretty much affirmed the same thing. In New London eminent domain was used in a much more established neighborhood. There is no legal problem using ED in this situation and compared to many other eminent domain cases there is not too much of an ethical argument.

I was voicing my personal opinion on the use of ED, Shane. It think there are appropriate uses for it but think the Kelo decision overreached.

I am still hopeful (idealistic I know) the Core to Shore area will fill in during my lifetime.

Unless you die in the next 10 years you should have no problem seeing this happen. People are going to be stunned how fast this fills in, especially if a future streetcar route serves the area.

Honestly JTF, I might be part of that infill. I can see that area of OKC being a great place to live if its potential is realized.