1). No

2). Definitely think a cost analysis is in order. If you are in Betts' situation, it can certainly make sense (she saves more in other areas than the increased housing costs). Close to things that are important to her (Thunder games etc). As I have posted elsewhere, my situation is different. My interests aren't DT specific and my employer is near Edmond. Live in 2 bed/2 bath 1,000sf apartment where I don't have a lot of the expenses Betts described, for $550/month plus electric ($120/month). No additional fees, HOA etc. Why move DT where cost are higher and spaces are smaller than what I have now?

To go back to what Casey & brianinOK were saying, remember when I was going to relocate to Houston, I was having to look at places that were 2 or 3 times the sf just to get my furniture to fit would get 2 out of 3 main rooms to work but there was always 1 that wouldn't). I swear, EVERY apt place I looked at in Houston had a fireplace (which also took up wall/floor space) and other than for Christmastime decorating, can't imagine why someone would want or need a fireplace in Houston. Even then, most didn't have mantels so that part wouldn't work either. But I digress...My current place has one window in each room and usually located in the corner against a door of some sort so floor space taken up is at a minimum and basically means 3 unbroken wall spaces. Of course, 2 or 3 times the size also meant corresponding higher rent.

Lack of proximity of grocery and other shopping. While little is currently within walking distance (the grocery store is the closest but not really doable), everything is easily along my path between home and work. There are 2 Wal-Mart SuperCenters, a regular Target, SuperTarget along with Buy 4 Less and 2 Homelands along my way (without having to make special trips). I am one of the minority on this board that would find it ideal to live next to a Wal-Mart SuperCenter.

I do laugh at a couple of my friends that live downtown (2 in Heritage Hills, 1 in Putnam Heights and 2 in Deep Deuce). They brag about living downtown and being able to "walk to everything". The reality though is other than the 2 in Deep Deuce who occasionally walk into Bricktown, they all still get in their car and drive to everything downtown. If you're going to drive anyway, then what's an extra 5-10 minutes and avoid the high cost of living. I think the wife and I will most likely bike to everything when we move. Or, maybe that 2-seater Segway will be available!

Whether you walk or not depends on the weather. If it's too hot, too cold, or raining you will probably just drive unless it's just a couple blocks away. It also depends on your outfit. You are less likely to walk long distances if you have a suit on or, for women, high heels. I live in an urban neighborhood and walk/bike a lot less than I thought I would when I moved there.

I am one of the minority on this board that would find it ideal to live next to a Wal-Mart SuperCenter.

Not Really. OKC does not have a Frey Meyer. These stores are still prevalent in the west. They charge a little more than Walmart however you are able to flag down a worker easily to help you find something. Walmart is a different story. If yo do not know where something is you are pretty much sh** out of luck. Good luck finding someone to help you find it.

OKC needs a Fred Meyer Store, they always have associates on hand to help you out. If you go to Walmart, you better know where stuff is, not only that, you better be ready to wait 10 extra minutes in the Checkout line. This bothers me, however I do not know of another store in OKC which has any of the same products at the same price points.

Grocery-wise it is easy to avoid walmart,but what about everything else?

My wife & I both work downtown & would love to live downtown. But even with good paying jobs, the housing is out of our price range. So we'll keep driving in from 15-20 minutes away.

Not Really. OKC does not have a Frey Meyer. These stores are still prevalent in the west. They charge a little more than Walmart however you are able to flag down a worker easily to help you find something. Walmart is a different story. If yo do not know where something is you are pretty much sh** out of luck. Good luck finding someone to help you find it.

OKC needs a Fred Meyer Store, they always have associates on hand to help you out. If you go to Walmart, you better know where stuff is, not only that, you better be ready to wait 10 extra minutes in the Checkout line. This bothers me, however I do not know of another store in OKC which has any of the same products at the same price points.

Grocery-wise it is easy to avoid walmart,but what about everything else?

Have no idea what a Fred Meyer is so can't comment there but agree with the help part of your post (especially if the Wal-Mart has recently been remodeled where they moved everything around as the associates don't have any better idea where stuff is than the customers).

I lived downtown for 2 years in the Montgomery and loved it! I moved out of downtown and bought a house a few years ago and now am just waiting to get back downtown! Not having a grocery store was not a big deal to me at all. Growing up we had to drive several blocks to get to a grocery store, so an extra five minutes of driving is not a big deal. The crowd that loves to harp on the lack of a grocery store issue acts like if you live downtown you will have a 4 hour drive to get groceries, which is amusing. The lack of retail argument goes the same way ...

That's the great thing about OKC. You can choose to live in Edmond, Moore, MWC, etc. and still get to downtown in 10-15 minutes to do whatever you want. ...

Actually, no you can't. We've been downtown numerous times in the past few weeks (OKCMOA, OK History Center (not really downtown), Cirque du Soleil) and it takes pretty much 30 minutes to get downtown from NW 164th/Penn. I've timed it because I hate living where we do and we would like to move closer, so I time the segment from NW 164th/Penn to NW 63rd/Broadway (so I can tell my wife her commute would be 15 minutes less when we hit that point :-) ) and it's about 15 minutes, then about another 10-15 minutes to get downtown and parked. That's driving approximately the speed limits.

We don't live downtown, but we want to live closer in than we are (we had pretty much no choice as to where we live now, due to time restraints on when we flew here from Seattle to find a place to live). We won't live downtown because we've rented in multi-unit complexes for the past 20 or so years and just get very tired of sharing walls. We want an older home in Heritage Hills/Mesta Park/Midtown/somewhere around there.

I said you can live in these places, I didn't say no matter where you live in these cities. I live in the Mid-Del area and it takes us 12 minutes. Relatives and friends live in Edmond (near Broadway or I-35) and they can be downtown within 15 minutes. My wife's co-worker lives in Moore and she's to work downtown within 15 minutes too.

I do find it funny our society is such that 20-30 minutes is unacceptable.

Actually, no you can't. We've been downtown numerous times in the past few weeks (OKCMOA, OK History Center (not really downtown), Cirque du Soleil) and it takes pretty much 30 minutes to get downtown from NW 164th/Penn. I've timed it because I hate living where we do and we would like to move closer, so I time the segment from NW 164th/Penn to NW 63rd/Broadway (so I can tell my wife her commute would be 15 minutes less when we hit that point :-) ) and it's about 15 minutes, then about another 10-15 minutes to get downtown and parked. That's driving approximately the speed limits.
Don't know what options you have, but have you tried different routes or times? I worked DT for a while and live in far NW OKC and could get to work in 20-25 minutes (taking the turnpike to I-40), but the total time depended a lot on when I left for work. There was a sweet spot window where I could make my best time, but ten minutes on either side of that I started to run into heavier traffic. The only time I went over 30 minutes was due to an accident on the I-40 bridge over I-44.



I do find it funny our society is such that 20-30 minutes is unacceptable.
Yeah, it's all relative. I have friends in Dallas and Charlotte that just roll their eyes if I happen to mention it took me a whole 30 minutes to drive to work.

Actually, no you can't. We've been downtown numerous times in the past few weeks (OKCMOA, OK History Center (not really downtown), Cirque du Soleil) and it takes pretty much 30 minutes to get downtown from NW 164th/Penn. I've timed it because I hate living where we do and we would like to move closer, so I time the segment from NW 164th/Penn to NW 63rd/Broadway (so I can tell my wife her commute would be 15 minutes less when we hit that point :-) ) and it's about 15 minutes, then about another 10-15 minutes to get downtown and parked. That's driving approximately the speed limits.

We don't live downtown, but we want to live closer in than we are (we had pretty much no choice as to where we live now, due to time restraints on when we flew here from Seattle to find a place to live). We won't live downtown because we've rented in multi-unit complexes for the past 20 or so years and just get very tired of sharing walls. We want an older home in Heritage Hills/Mesta Park/Midtown/somewhere around there.

You practically live in Deer Creek/Edmond. 25 mins to be parked downtown is a nice time.

The Publix in Atlantic Station (midtown Atlanta) has home delivery for people that live in or near Atlantic Station. You can shop in person and they will take it to your home, or you can shop on-line and have it delivered. Of course, Publix sells wine so they won't be in Oklahoma anytime soon.

Don't know what options you have, but have you tried different routes or times? I worked DT for a while and live in far NW OKC and could get to work in 20-25 minutes (taking the turnpike to I-40), but the total time depended a lot on when I left for work. There was a sweet spot window where I could make my best time, but ten minutes on either side of that I started to run into heavier traffic. The only time I went over 30 minutes was due to an accident on the I-40 bridge over I-44.


Yeah, it's all relative. I have friends in Dallas and Charlotte that just roll their eyes if I happen to mention it took me a whole 30 minutes to drive to work. I worked in downtown Charlotte and every morning and every evening the traffic was like a massive NASCAR race. It was terrible.

I worked in downtown Charlotte and every morning and every evening the traffic was like a massive NASCAR race. It was terrible.

LOL, I lived there for a number of years and go back to vist from time to time so I know what you mean. http://www.myemoticons.com/images/emotions/angry/road-rage.gif

1) No

2) Happen to like the peace and quiet out in far northwest OKC. Like the schools. Like my yard. Like the space. Don't like feeling cramped. Can't afford the same square footage I currently have in downtown.

I don't live downtown.

I used to always want to, and have looked into it once a year for many years. The prices wouldn't bother me if I thought they were realistic. As it is, I can't believe OKC developers think they can charge what they are charging. I would be terrified to buy something downtown for fear of it dropping in value by tens of thousands of dollars, leaving me holding the bag. Downtown does not yet have a proven track record. The other issue is what many have already commented on... value. I just don't see it. For the few measly things going on down there it just isn't worth it. Plus I have never really found downtown OKC, particularly Bricktown and Deep Deuce and points in between, to be as pedestrian-friendly as they should. I mean if the whole point of downtown living is density and effective sidewalks, why do developers think they can charge top dollar when we have neither?

I think Kerry and others have the right idea. I have been thinking of moving recently, but if I do it would likely be to Heritage Hills, Mesta Park, or one of the other historic neighborhoods just north of downtown. There are just so many more benefits to living in that area, and with light-rail potentially being built out into that area in the next few years it makes it even more desirable not to live in downtown. And at least for the moment you still have a shot at finding a good price on a home in that area, and then taking the money you would be saving by not living downtown and buying a summer beach condo somewhere instead.

Plus I have never really found downtown OKC, particularly Bricktown and Deep Deuce and points in between, to be as pedestrian-friendly as they should. I mean if the whole point of downtown living is density and effective sidewalks, why do developers think they can charge top dollar when we have neither?

You just reminded me of another reason I chose to move in a fairly new housing addition is far NW OKC....side walks. Used to live in the Mayfair area, NW 50th and May, and none of the neighborhoods had sidewalks. That annoyed me, because if you wanted to walk anywhere, you had to walk out in the street. Most new housing additions have sidewalks, and in my addition, I've found them to be very useable.

1. no
2. Because i go to OU.

My older brother however is a law student at OCU, and lives in some condos on NW 15th and Robinson. I forgot what they are called, but they are right next to heritage hills and he loves the area. We are from NW okc in the PC school district, and he loves the lifestyle down there. He tells me that he had no idea there was an area in OKC like that (He went to baylor for his bachelors, so coming back home he wanted a change).

You just reminded me of another reason I chose to move in a fairly new housing addition is far NW OKC....side walks. Used to live in the Mayfair area, NW 50th and May, and none of the neighborhoods had sidewalks. That annoyed me, because if you wanted to walk anywhere, you had to walk out in the street. Most new housing additions have sidewalks, and in my addition, I've found them to be very useable.

Luckily, however, now when streets are redone, I believe there is a city ordinance stating that sidewalks have to be installed. I noticed they're putting sidewalks on Oklahoma south of 10th street, which will help the walk up to 9th street for us. Previously, it was easier to walk over to Broadway and then east on 9th, but when they're complete when can just walk up Oklahoma. I'm pleased.

Don't know what options you have, but have you tried different routes or times? I worked DT for a while and live in far NW OKC and could get to work in 20-25 minutes (taking the turnpike to I-40), but the total time depended a lot on when I left for work. There was a sweet spot window where I could make my best time, but ten minutes on either side of that I started to run into heavier traffic. The only time I went over 30 minutes was due to an accident on the I-40 bridge over I-44.

Yeah, it's all relative. I have friends in Dallas and Charlotte that just roll their eyes if I happen to mention it took me a whole 30 minutes to drive to work.

30 minutes was with no traffic at all on Christmas Day - Penn (or May) to Kilpatrick to Broadway to downtown. Wife's shift isn't the regular 8-5, so her regular commute isn't during standard rush hours either and it's about 30 minutes. And 30 minutes for a commute is really not that bad, it's just that I'd like it to be less. I've dealt with 90 minute (or more) one-way commutes via car/train/walk (or bus) in both Seattle and Chicago for years, so 30 minutes is pretty much nothing to me too, but if we can make it better, why not?

You just reminded me of another reason I chose to move in a fairly new housing addition is far NW OKC....side walks. Used to live in the Mayfair area, NW 50th and May, and none of the neighborhoods had sidewalks. That annoyed me, because if you wanted to walk anywhere, you had to walk out in the street. Most new housing additions have sidewalks, and in my addition, I've found them to be very useable.
Previous city engineers decreed "NO SIDEWALKS" and thus there was none....

Luckily, however, now when streets are redone, I believe there is a city ordinance stating that sidewalks have to be installed. I noticed they're putting sidewalks on Oklahoma south of 10th street, which will help the walk up to 9th street for us. Previously, it was easier to walk over to Broadway and then east on 9th, but when they're complete when can just walk up Oklahoma. I'm pleased.
Any road work using federal funds requires sidewalks in place and accessible for persons with disabilities. I'm not sure if the city has officially changed the policy of the previous engineers or just ignored their long held views. Whatever has happened, if they are putting sidewalks in, it is a good thing.

One of the former city engineers tried to fight this, he lost out to the feds. For some reason they were about the only ones that could tell him what to do, he was one of the biggest opponents of pedestrian access in the city and the reason why so few sidewalks were installed during his lengthy tenure. His retirement was one of the best things to happen to OKC.

No downtown living. I really wanted to but the bang for the buck was just not there. Anybody who has compared quality, square footage, prices and amenities would know why I am at Founders Tower. Yes, it's expensive. The downtown options were expensive. But, in my mind, you get so much more here in the NWX corridor. And, yes, nearby amenities played a role.

By the way, they are now leasing some of the units at Founders. From what I hear, the lease payments are way up there for OKC, but I'm sure they want it that way for a lot of reasons.

$6K a month to lease the penthouse at Founders Tower.

I have no desire to live downtown. Seems too young and too focused on the night life/bar scene for me. I'm 43 and prefer a quieter lifestyle.

No downtown living. I really wanted to but the bang for the buck was just not there. Anybody who has compared quality, square footage, prices and amenities would know why I am at Founders Tower. Yes, it's expensive. The downtown options were expensive. But, in my mind, you get so much more here in the NWX corridor. And, yes, nearby amenities played a role.

By the way, they are now leasing some of the units at Founders. From what I hear, the lease payments are way up there for OKC, but I'm sure they want it that way for a lot of reasons.

They've been leasing units there for a awhile now. $1,600 for an 1,100 sq foot 1 bedroom is ridiculous. It's been a year or so since I was there, but at that time there were no amenities I recall (Gym, business center, pool) and they wanted you to park in the regular unreserved uncovered parking lot.

They've been leasing units there for a awhile now. $1,600 for an 1,100 sq foot 1 bedroom is ridiculous. It's been a year or so since I was there, but at that time there were no amenities I recall (Gym, business center, pool) and they wanted you to park in the regular unreserved uncovered parking lot.

Hi Brian. Yes, the leasing has been going on for awhile now, but I still run into many people who don't know. As for the amenities, there's a pool, covered parking, armed security 24-7, the entire experience can make a list of amenities. It's a very nice place and the people here are really great. I like being around grocery stores, book stores, restaurants, retail all over (in fact, Penn Square's a little over a mile away). The lease price may seem high, but you get what you pay for. I don't think the people here pay for the square footage, it's not like comparing it to some generic complex. I can assure you the cost of purchase is in line with what they're asking downtown and the quality is far superior. http://www.founderstower.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85&Itemid=182

http://www.founderstower.com/images/stories/gallery/Founders%20Bedroom%20%5B640x480%5D.jpg

I'm not knocking the place. I actually took the photos and 360 photo tours for ApartmentGuide.com. Its beautiful inside (at least the units I saw). A couple of the bedrooms were kinda odd sized though and the tiny patios on some created an unbelievable vacuum. The manager at the time (don't remember her name, but kinda exotic looking) said amenities were in the works. I actually really like the location and the wife and I visit that Borders Books at least twice a month. I just think of the house one can buy with a $1,600/month payment.

Luckily, however, now when streets are redone, I believe there is a city ordinance stating that sidewalks have to be installed. I noticed they're putting sidewalks on Oklahoma south of 10th street, which will help the walk up to 9th street for us. Previously, it was easier to walk over to Broadway and then east on 9th, but when they're complete when can just walk up Oklahoma. I'm pleased.

But unfortunately, some residential streets will never be redone, so hoping that the millions of miles of residential streets get side walks is dreaming I think.

Hi Brian. Yes, the leasing has been going on for awhile now, but I still run into many people who don't know. As for the amenities, there's a pool, covered parking, armed security 24-7, the entire experience can make a list of amenities. It's a very nice place and the people here are really great. I like being around grocery stores, book stores, restaurants, retail all over (in fact, Penn Square's a little over a mile away). The lease price may seem high, but you get what you pay for. I don't think the people here pay for the square footage, it's not like comparing it to some generic complex. I can assure you the cost of purchase is in line with what they're asking downtown and the quality is far superior. http://www.founderstower.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85&Itemid=182

http://www.founderstower.com/images/stories/gallery/Founders%20Bedroom%20%5B640x480%5D.jpg

Wow, that picture is pretty impressive. Can't really compare that to a suburban apartment in a typical 2-3 story spread out apartment complex.

I walked to the Thunder game tonight, watched the fireworks and the ball drop on my balcony with neighbors and friends and didn't have to worry about a designated driver as I walked down to my bedroom and went to sleep. New Year's Eve is one of the more special nights downtown.

If I HAD to live in an apartment, those in Founders Tower would be at the top of my list.

I walked to the Thunder game tonight, watched the fireworks and the ball drop on my balcony with neighbors and friends and didn't have to worry about a designated driver as I walked down to my bedroom and went to sleep. New Year's Eve is one of the more special nights downtown.

I agree, downtown events for downtown residence are awesome. We didn't even bother to leave Deep Deuce. We got a pizza at the Wedge and watched the fireworks from our friends living room.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOFKu0oQrUY

I have never really found downtown OKC, particularly Bricktown and Deep Deuce and points in between, to be as pedestrian-friendly as they should. I mean if the whole point of downtown living is density and effective sidewalks, why do developers think they can charge top dollar when we have neither?

This confuses me a bit. What would make Bricktown, Deep Deuce and points in between more walkable? There are sidewalks everywhere and the stop lights can be triggered to favor the pedestrian at the push of a button. There are trees everywhere as well. The thing that makes walking the least desirable is the starlings in the trees in Bricktown, but at least it's a bit of nature in the city. I walk my dogs in and around Deep Deuce and Bricktown on a daily basis (If you see someone walking two corgis, stop and say "hi" because that would be me). We linger in our two little pocket parks, but enjoy a brisk stroll between points as well. They especially like walking to Starbucks for the "puppaccino". We take the sneaky back route through the park on 2nd and down the hill, and walk the Walnut Bridge on the way back.

As far as density goes, that's a rather chicken and egg sort of thing. If you and others won't move downtown because of lack of density, how does it become more dense?

#1: Do you already live downtown: No.

#2: If you don't, why not? I live in Mesta Park in my wife's and my home, which might be described as a 2-story bungalow, I suppose (but I've never been comfortable with thinking that I "know" what a bungalow is, exactly). It's got about 2000 sq. feet which is just right for our needs. I love the numerous trees of all shapes, sizes, and colors and that each home whether elegant or modest is unlike the rest and that both are blended together. I like that it is part of a fairly large area in which all of the above and below are equally applicable. It's a very special and unique part of the city. Our home was built in 1910 and I very much value its connectivity with Oklahoma City's past. I like being just a skip to Midtown, Downtown, Bricktown. I love seeing the tree branches covered and bending with snow when we are fortunate enough to have nice snowfalls in the winter. Even when ice storms hit the city, there is great beauty in looking closely at the ice which shrouds each bush and tree limb and twig in a dazzling display of winter. I very much enjoy sitting on my front porch in the mornings or afternoons when temperatures merit it, having a smoke, and reading the newspaper in the morning and having a toddy in the afternoon when reviewing the day with my wife. I like seeing nearby neighbors walk their always interesting dogs of all shapes and sizes along the sidewalks at either time of day. To be sure, I love the fact that the home is paid for.

#1 - No, I am one of those evil Edmond dwellers.

#2 - Several reasons foremost being the schools in Edmond. I decided to move there to get the bes public education possible for my kids.

But if not for that... I actually went to look at the housing available in Deep Deuce today. I think the area will be very nice - BUT - the developers are insane if they think they are going to sell a large number of residences at the price they are currently asking. Seriously - I found a 2BR, 2 Bath condo overlooking Lake Michigan at the very northern end of Lincoln Park in Chicago for $200000!!! $380000 - $500000 for a nice place in a very early stages of redevelopment OKC??? Something does not make sense here....

If you and others won't move downtown because of lack of density, how does it become more dense?

Lower prices.

Do not live downtown, nor in OKC.

As to why, I prefer Norman.

1. no
2. Because i go to OU.

My older brother however is a law student at OCU, and lives in some condos on NW 15th and Robinson. I forgot what they are called, but they are right next to heritage hills and he loves the area. We are from NW okc in the PC school district, and he loves the lifestyle down there. He tells me that he had no idea there was an area in OKC like that (He went to baylor for his bachelors, so coming back home he wanted a change).

Sounds like The Aberdeen. Really great place.

This confuses me a bit. What would make Bricktown, Deep Deuce and points in between more walkable?

You know it's been a while since I really checked into the walk, but long ago when I was considering renting at Deep Deuce and then more recently when I looked into some of the new condos north of Bricktown it seemed like the condos had walkable paths, and Bricktown has sidewalks, but there was not anything in place to get you from the condos down into Bricktown without walking across streets, or bridges, or vacant/under construction lots in a somewhat wacky way.


As far as density goes, that's a rather chicken and egg sort of thing. If you and others won't move downtown because of lack of density, how does it become more dense?

That is true, but the correct way to solve that is for people like me to continue holding out until Bricktown developers drop their prices to realistic levels. Then we will move there and then they can raise their prices as population and density increases. As it is I do not believe the property down there is priced anywhere near the equilibrium point.

I really feel like the developers down there are pricing like they are in the suburbs, where sometimes you can charge an arm and a leg for the newest properties that are the farthest away from town and the most under-developed. Sorry but it doesn't work that way in urban areas.

I can only speak for what I think are construction costs at the Maywood Brownstones, because I saw mine built from the studs. I suspect build-block construction is very expensive, with all that concrete and rebar. Then, there are slate roofs, solid brick and cast stone veneer, copper guttering, wood floors throughout, granite countertops even in the laundry room. The HVAC person who worked on a problem with my geothermal system told me the builders had installed the cadillac of systems, and the sound system certainly is as well. I actually think the prices there were quite "realistic" when I bought over 2 years ago. If the prices at the Hill are still comparable to the Brownstones, then I think they're overpriced, because they're stick-built and I don't think the interior finishes are that nice. The Maywood Lofts have underground parking, which I suspect was expensive to build, but again, I have no idea what costs for those types of developments would be. I've only been in one of the Block 42 townhouses, but it was very nice. Again, sometimes you get what you pay for, and I don't know if we've got any data suggesting developers downtown are inflating prices way above their costs. Several builders here have commented that it's more expensive to build in these locations. If you all hold out until the current developers have to sell at fire sale prices, it's going to do the opposite of encouraging new development, as all builders will stay the heck away from the area. Or, we'll get shoddy construction at prices people are willing to pay, and in 5 to 10 years it will all look like crap and where will your investment be? Again, it would take someone other than me to tell you for certain prices aren't inflated way above costs on all these developments, because I just don't know.

As far as walking goes, again, the Walnut bridge has great sidewalks with steps on both sides and it's the best access into Bricktown. I'm not sure how else you would get down a hill besides a stepped walkway. It's easily accessed by Deep Deuce and the Triangle. If you want to go to the CBD you simply walk under the bridges on 2nd, 3rd or 4th and while there aren't sidewalks on the east side of E.K. Gaylord, and that should be remedied, there are on the west. We do take the little hill behind the park on 2nd street down into Bricktown, and while it doesn't have stairs, we're told that when the ALoft Apartments are built, they will be putting stairs in. Personally, since I moved here from Colorado, I scoff at walking down a little hill like that. There's also access into Bricktown adjacent to the Wedge, although it's a bit cross country too. But, all of Deep Deuce and the Triangle have sidewalks on both sides of the street, as does all of Bricktown, and I consider it extremely walkable. As I've said, most of the people in my neighborhood walk into Bricktown and the CBD with great regularity.

I can only speak for what I think are construction costs at the Maywood Brownstones, because I saw mine built from the studs. I suspect build-block construction is very expensive, with all that concrete and rebar. Then, there are slate roofs, solid brick and cast stone veneer, copper guttering, wood floors throughout, granite countertops even in the laundry room. The HVAC person who worked on a problem with my geothermal system told me the builders had installed the cadillac of systems, and the sound system certainly is as well. I actually think the prices there were quite "realistic" when I bought over 2 years ago. If the prices at the Hill are still comparable to the Brownstones, then I think they're overpriced, because they're stick-built and I don't think the interior finishes are that nice. The Maywood Lofts have underground parking, which I suspect was expensive to build, but again, I have no idea what costs for those types of developments would be. I've only been in one of the Block 42 townhouses, but it was very nice. Again, sometimes you get what you pay for, and I don't know if we've got any data suggesting developers downtown are inflating prices way above their costs. Several builders here have commented that it's more expensive to build in these locations. If you all hold out until the current developers have to sell at fire sale prices, it's going to do the opposite of encouraging new development, as all builders will stay the heck away from the area. Or, we'll get shoddy construction at prices people are willing to pay, and in 5 to 10 years it will all look like crap and where will your investment be? Again, it would take someone other than me to tell you for certain prices aren't inflated way above costs on all these developments, because I just don't know.
Excellent post with accurate information and astute conclusions.

In my opinion there are far too many in Oklahoma City, including some who post on this forum, who award first place to cheap prices in nearly everything including housing. When something is built to exceptional quality standards the complaints about price are the first and loudest.

This attitude of "cheap, cheap, cheap" above all else is one of my most significant, and thankfully few, complaints about my home state and city. It is just pervasive in everything across the spectrum including politics, education, work, shopping, travel, and entertainment. If someone buys a new car the first thing bragged about is what a deal he or she got. If someone buys a home it is a good deal if it was cheap. Even in groceries I hear people everyday comparing prices at stores on things that to me are just silly like the price of distilled water at Walmart compared to Homeland.

I would be much happier if we would strive for the best we can build instead of always looking for the cheapest. I'd like to see us building stuff now that will last a while and be of usable service to many future generations. Most of the stuff we are doing now will be lucky to make it 50 years and it will be junk even then.

I really don't know why it is this way here. I've speculated on it a great deal. Perhaps it is because we are such a young place or maybe it is the fact that our state was settled by those who were willing to live on the edge. Probably there are other reasons I've not even considered.

But there is not going to be quality development in general until there is some major shift in attitude to make quality the greater ethic.

Perhaps in my family it was different than in many but when I was a child we had few things but they were very good things. There was pride not in the quantity of things but in the quality. And it was apparent to me even then that the thing of greater quality was always at a greater cost. That didn't apply just to price but to time and effort as well.

Whoops. I realize I've fallen into rant mode. Excuse me while I exit.

This attitude of "cheap, cheap, cheap" above all else is one of my most significant, and thankfully few, complaints about my home state and city. It is just pervasive in everything across the spectrum including politics, education, work, shopping, travel, and entertainment. If someone buys a new car the first thing bragged about is what a deal he or she got. If someone buys a home it is a good deal if it was cheap. Even in groceries I hear people everyday comparing prices at stores on things that to me are just silly like the price of distilled water at Walmart compared to Homeland.

Is it "cheap" that people are discussing or "value"? If the product is of equal quality, then the people are discussing value. That's the smartest way to shop, IMHO. Very few of us have the resources to always buy the top-of-the-line in everything. You'll go broke like that. If you don't compromise somewhere along the way, no amount of money will ever be enough.

I hate to be repetitive, but if you look at larger cities, most of the people living downtown that aren't spending a fortune for housing are living in rentals, and small ones at that. My kids have to live 2 miles from downtown in Chicago, and even then they're paying twice what most people here have indicated they want to pay for rentals. In fact, if that story about the condo selling for under $200,000 in Chicago in Lincoln Park is true, and it doesn't need to be gutted and renovated, I may tell them it's time to buy. The cycle of housing that you see in older cities is: Initially a neighborhood has quality construction that is built to endure and costs a lot. Over time those buildings age and people move out. Over time the area decays and becomes less and less desirable. Then the area is "discovered", usually by kids and artists with less to spend and over time the area becomes a cool place to live, which gradually brings in people with more money who fix things up and the neighborhood starts becoming more expensive again. My kids in Chicago live in a neighborhood more like the Plaza District that anywhere else in OKC, and they're happy to be there. There, old row houses are being torn down or renovated, and some people are lucky enough to own the whole town house, but most live in one of a "three flat". Theirs is anything but luxurious, with formica countertops and home depot clearance fixtures. We've shopped in their neighborhood (Ukrainian Village) for fun, and I've yet to see anything in the price range of less than $400 a square foot that compares to the Maywood Lofts or Block 42, for instance. And that's two miles out from downtown.

People in OKC seem to demand suburban prices for urban living (price/sq. ft.). It doesn't work that way unless you want suburban type development downtown. People need to be realistic.

People in OKC seem to demand suburban prices for urban living (price/sq. ft.). It doesn't work that way unless you want suburban type development downtown. People need to be realistic.

I don't necessarily buy that argument either - and apparently lots of other people aren't 'buying' too since so many new properties in the downtown area remain vacant. I can see where in a NYC, Chicago, San Fran and even congested places like Houston where there are huge advantages to being centrally located downtown - but not in OKC. Don't get me wrong, like I've said, we plan to move close to downtown in the next 1-2 years. IMO moving downtown is a luxury to support a specific lifestyle and at the current rates is not a good financial move. Though many people don't care that much about how much sense it makes financially.

A example would be this property.... http://realestate.yahoo.com/Oklahoma/Oklahoma_City/444-n-central-ave:713c71903a1913f147682520e420ba How can anyone justify that price for so little in return?

I used that example because we spent New Year's Eve in the unit that takes up space on the 3rd and forth floors directly above the entrance door featured in the photo.

IMO moving downtown is a luxury to support a specific lifestyle and at the current rates is not a good financial move. Though many people don't care that much about how much sense it makes financially.

I'm not sure housing should be considered a financial move. Renting one's entire life may make the most financial sense. Considering how much we spend on cars over our lifetime, there's probably zero reason one should ever buy anything other than a Toyota Corolla either, but people like driving a Lexus, BMWs, Mercedes, etc. I think there's no guarantee of a big return on an investment downtown, but I don't think I've ever bought strictly as an investment. I've usually bought because I like a neighborhood and while I've tried to buy the best I can get for the money in that neighborhood, if money were the only consideration, people would never live in Nichols Hills, Crown Heights, Heritage Hills, etc. If price per square foot were ever the only consideration, those neighborhoods would be ghost towns. Sometimes we choose to make a purchase that can be considered a luxury. I've never bought a BMW or a Mercedes....I usually drive something more pedestrian. But, I like spending money on my home, and I doubt I've wasted anywhere near the money many people have on cars. The worst I've ever done on a house is break even, and a car is a dead loss the minute you drive it off the lot.

I'm not sure housing should be considered a financial move. WOW - that's really a shocking statement (whether renting or buying), and one that I think you'd be hard pressed to find a financial advisor that would back up. But, obviously many people feel the same way or we wouldn't have such a housing crisis. I really don't know how anyone could not consider what will probably be the biggest investment of their lives to not be a 'financial move.'

Comparing cars to homes is apples and oranges. In most cases a car is not considered an investment because virtually every car depreciates. And, obviously if you're buying new then you're buying a luxury item. That's why we never buy a car that is newer than 3 years. I simply try and keep my loses at their lowest when car buying.


if money were the only consideration, people would never live in Nichols Hills, Crown Heights, Heritage Hills, etc That's not true at all in many cases. I've known several people who bought and sold in those neighborhoods and made quite a profit. At the very least they lived in those areas 'for free' for up to 12 years - can't do that in an apartment.

But, renting can be a smart financial move too. I know a guy who rents a studio for about $550/month. It suits him fine and his utilities are only about another $50. He puts $800 away in his 'house fund' every month and plans on buying in the next year or two and at that point he'll have over $67,000 to use as a down payment that he otherwise would not have and would have simply thrown away in rent if he'd lived in a larger place.

I've bought in Nichols Hills and made a very nice profit. I also know plenty of people who've bought in Nichols Hills and not made a profit. But, housing is still a crap shoot, as I've also bought what I thought were sure investments and not made a penny. As I've said, I've never done worse than break even on a home though, and I've lost well over a hundred thousand on cars over my lifetime. Again, a home can be a luxury just like a car. You can buy the Toyota Corolla, get everywhere you can get in a Mercedes and save thousands upon thousands over your lifetime as compared to buying nothing but BMWs. So, why is buying the BMW not comparable to buying a home which you're not 100% positive you'll do better than break even on, simply because you want to live in a particular place or you like having granite countertops and top of the line woodwork and fixtures? There are other considerations too. I've mentioned on here before that I save $30,000 a year over my last house by living downtown, because of the dramatic decrease in utility costs due to concrete construction and geothermal heat, almost no cost yard and home maintenance, as well as savings on insurance due to type of construction, and a bit on taxes. Over 10 years, I'll save $300,000 in disposable income. That means that at my last house, having a yard was a luxury that I never got a return on, as was keeping my house at a reasonable temperature. There are so many intangibles that people don't factor in when they're computing their "profit" on their home.

Then, there are slate roofs, solid brick and cast stone veneer, copper guttering, wood floors throughout, granite countertops even in the laundry room. The HVAC person who worked on a problem with my geothermal system told me the builders had installed the cadillac of systems, and the sound system certainly is as well.

This proves my point! These sorts of features, while nice, are unnecessary. Of course the price will be higher if only the best construction materials and appliances are used in your home.

There aren't simply two alternatives: high-end quality construction or low-end crap that's falling apart in 5 years. It is certainly conceivable that quality condos can be built in OKC for a substantially lower price than you paid if the features and amenities were dialed down a bit.

In any case I think cheap downtown apartments are more important than cheap condos. I posted before that the median rent for the OKC MSA is $650--so I think something not far from this number should be the price point for a basic studio or a small 1/1 near downtown.

So what if developers skimp on amenities or cut corners in the construction of a downtown apartment complex to keep prices reasonable (as has been done, for example, in uptown Dallas and downtown Austin). The important point is that moderately-priced downtown housing will get people to move downtown, which will in turn accelerate development of new restaurants, retail, and other amenities that will improve the downtown living experience and will create incentive for more people to move downtown.

Well certainly there are people who lose their asses in the housing market, but many of them bought more house then they could afford at rates that continued to escalate. Or they were uniformed or emotional buyers (or maybe they just didn't consider a house purchase to be a financial move).

Again, taking each of our perspectives out of the equation, I don't think you can find a reputable financial advisor that would agree with you that a home purchase is not or should not be one largely based on finances/investment potential.

In normal markets with informed buyers a house is not a crap shoot. Its certainly not a 100% guarantee of big (or any) profits but it is always an investment.

Cars are known to the public not to be an investment. I don't know anyone that buys a car to be driven for any length of time that doesn't know the car will depreciate with 0 chance of not losing some money.

Certainly a home can be a 'luxury purchase' but that doesn't apply to most people without financial consequences. Like I've said, friends of mine have spent a million dollars on their Deep Deuce area condo. They have zero expectation of making any money off of it and don't care because their finances are such that it has virtually no noticeable effect. Myself and most people I know are not in that position.

I agree. It's different for everyone. A perfect example of that is the home the people on 2nd street across from the Maywood Lofts are "remodeling". I've heard they're spending $3 million. It's hard to imagine them having an easy time selling it, but perhaps they don't care, either because they have enough money that they wouldn't miss it, or because they never plan on selling it. We all have to make decisions on luxuries, and for the sensible, those decisions are based on having the cash on hand to afford them, or a lot of surety that one will have the cash on hand as one pays for it. I suspect we will, at worst, end up breaking even on our purchase, as the area is going to improve and there will be more of an influx of people wanting to live downtown as the area fills in. But, if that doesn't happen, I feel confident that we will have saved enough money on the intangibles that it won't be financially bothersome. If you think about it, every penny any of us spend over very basic food, shelter and, unfortunately, insurance is luxury money. Some people spend it on travel, some on food, some on cars, etc. If I choose to spend mine on a house, it's really no different, and I certainly have a better chance of getting a return on my money than I would if I used it to to buy a luxury car, jewelry or expensive travel or dining. I enjoy my house and living downtown more than I desire any of those things.

There are so many intangibles that people don't factor in when they're computing their "profit" on their home.

Good point. Many people don't carefully add up the expense of owning a home. I built a home on a large acreage in another state for $212,000 and sold it 10 years later for $350,000. That's a "profit" of $138,000 in the minds of some. However, when I added up interest (construction and mortgage), taxes, insurance, maintenence et al over those 10 years, it actually cost me $525 per month to live there. That's $63,000 more than the $138,000 I made on the sale of the property. To break even after all expenses and broker sales fees, I would have to have sold the home for about $442,000. At the peak of the real estate bubble, I might could have achieved that feat, but that kind of timing rarely happens for the average home owner.

Granted, $525 per month to live on 40 acres within 10 miles of a mid sized city with decent schools is quite reasonable, you could not rent it for that. It was like living on a vacation estate for us for 10 years. But, homeownership is an expense more than an investment to me. It comes down to how much the actual expense of ownership turns out to be over the complete term of ownership. As a percentage, I'd imagine few home owners actually turn a true cash profit, or break even when the ledger is honestly balanced.

Is it "cheap" that people are discussing or "value"? If the product is of equal quality, then the people are discussing value. That's the smartest way to shop, IMHO. Very few of us have the resources to always buy the top-of-the-line in everything. You'll go broke like that. If you don't compromise somewhere along the way, no amount of money will ever be enough.Depends upon what constitutes "value" in this situation. There are relatively few ICF homes being built in the metropolitan area and even fewer still with slate roofs and copper gutters and so on. We are so immersed in throw away culture that it seems reasonable to compare slate and comp roofing since they do perform the same function.

Of course there should be price points for different products. I am not arguing that at all and if I've given that impression I have failed miserable to communicate my concern.

If there is one place in our metropolitan area where quality and durability and aesthetics and timelessness should be showcased it seems to me it should be in our downtown area.

Betts, you say you save $30k/year living there A) surely you have a HOA fee right now that severly cuts into that number and B) how much did you spend on utilities and yard maintenance at your old house? Sounds like you were paying too much to begin with

I don't necessarily buy that argument either - and apparently lots of other people aren't 'buying' too since so many new properties in the downtown area remain vacant. I can see where in a NYC, Chicago, San Fran and even congested places like Houston where there are huge advantages to being centrally located downtown - but not in OKC. Don't get me wrong, like I've said, we plan to move close to downtown in the next 1-2 years. IMO moving downtown is a luxury to support a specific lifestyle and at the current rates is not a good financial move. Though many people don't care that much about how much sense it makes financially.

A example would be this property.... http://realestate.yahoo.com/Oklahoma/Oklahoma_City/444-n-central-ave:713c71903a1913f147682520e420ba How can anyone justify that price for so little in return?

I used that example because we spent New Year's Eve in the unit that takes up space on the 3rd and forth floors directly above the entrance door featured in the photo.Just consider the parking garage alone and its cost and how that relates to the expense of the units. That's just one thing, too, and there are plenty of others.

Betts, you say you save $30k/year living there A) surely you have a HOA fee right now that severly cuts into that number and B) how much did you spend on utilities and yard maintenance at your old house? Sounds like you were paying too much to begin with

The HOA fee here is so low it is negligible, the annual fee being about what I paid one month for utilties before. I had a pool. Lawn mowing, lawn maintenance with fertilizer,etc, water, pool maintenance and cleaning, tree trimming were regular expenses, and the pool had to be maintained year round. With a sprinkler system in NH you have two water mains and get charged double sewer fees. My utilities were outrageously high, though, which is probably because I had french doors all over the house and it was stick built, of course and my husband likes the house hot in the winter, cold in the summer. But here, for example, during that terrible storm last winter, my daughter asked me to turn the heat off on the fourth floor because she was roasting at night. I had to tell her that the heat wasn't on on the fourth floor and that if she wanted it cooler, we would have to turn on the airconditioner. During the summer, we only have to turn the air conditioning on on the fourth floor, because it can be as low as 65 degrees on the first two floors, with the air conditioner off. Because the house has concrete walls and an interior sprinkler system in case of fire, my insurance is about half as high as it was before too. I really am not exaggerating about the savings and I'm not factoring in any car expenses. The annual mileage on my car is less than half of what it was before.

This proves my point! These sorts of features, while nice, are unnecessary. Of course the price will be higher if only the best construction materials and appliances are used in your home.

There aren't simply two alternatives: high-end quality construction or low-end crap that's falling apart in 5 years. It is certainly conceivable that quality condos can be built in OKC for a substantially lower price than you paid if the features and amenities were dialed down a bit.

In any case I think cheap downtown apartments are more important than cheap condos. I posted before that the median rent for the OKC MSA is $650--so I think something not far from this number should be the price point for a basic studio or a small 1/1 near downtown.

So what if developers skimp on amenities or cut corners in the construction of a downtown apartment complex to keep prices reasonable (as has been done, for example, in uptown Dallas and downtown Austin). The important point is that moderately-priced downtown housing will get people to move downtown, which will in turn accelerate development of new restaurants, retail, and other amenities that will improve the downtown living experience and will create incentive for more people to move downtown.
I don't think "cheap" is the right approach, more like "reasonably priced" rentals are the answer. I do think the rental properties in Downtown Austin like The Monarch and The Gables were a big catalyst in the growth of downtown residential. As I have stated before, I know several who sold their homes in areas like Westlake or Lost Creek and moved into The Monarch to "try out" downtown living and all but one ended up buying a condo downtown, the other ended up in the Clarksville area much closer to downtown than their previous Westlake home.

I do think there needs to be developments built at different price points instead of just the high end purchase option. There needs to be rental built as well that isn't just a suburban style apartment complex plopped down in the downtown area. The main issue is finding the investors who are willing to look at a longer investment cycle than what they have been used to in recent years but then that is probably true in the investment world in general.

The main issue is finding the investors who are willing to look at a longer investment cycle than what they have been used to in recent years but then that is probably true in the investment world in general.That's definitely part of the problem. When the first thing a prospective investor tells you is that he expects an exit strategy no more than 6 years from open and lenders have a hard time thinking beyond 20 years without government guarantees it is difficult to square with long life projects.

Yes there needs to be affordable rentals downtown, but for the same price as suburban rentals you will get less sq. ft. That's just the way it is in almost every city (except Detroit :) )

Financing multifamily right now is much more difficult - maybe more impossible actually - than financing units for sale. Maybe will change in a year or two but not very certain.