The brownstones didn't fit the price range that the design target was for. Those of us with the means to buy are probably a little older and a little more financially secure. However, I don't want to be running up and down two or three flights of stairs to go to bed or grab a snack from the fridge. And my crowd is the same. Build us some flats with amenities and we are much more likely to move. I have a place is a brownstone in NYC (Chelsea) and it is a great 2 bedroom flat. But here, there aren't those kinds of choices for me and my wife downtown.

Block 42 has flats, I know for sure at least 1 of them is a 2 bedroom. As betts mentioned, the brownstones have elevators.

I've been involved in building thousands of urban condos over the past decade and by far the overwhelming majority aimed at the more mature and financially sound market has been flats. So, everyone can believe that what they think is right, but the marketplace represents facts, not opinions.

I don't know who here thinks they're "right" when what we are discussing is personal preference. I certainly don't. I only know that I am very glad that someone built row houses, because I not only like the way they look, but I like the layout, I like the look of the stairs and the cozyness of each smaller floor. My favorite hotels in London are built in rowhouses, and my goal was to recreate that feel as much as possible. I would still be in my house away from downtown if flats were the only option. But, if other people would rather live in a flat, that's lovely.

Yeah I also like the Brownstones because rowhouses are so uncommon (non-existant) in OKC. Variety!

So, everyone can believe that what they think is right, but the marketplace represents facts, not opinions.

I think the marketplace is entirely reflective of opinion. Consumers regularly overlook facts when making purchase decisions.

Betts is right, I drove by tonight and indeed ground was broken today

Wow metro, thanks for telling us what we already knew.

I think the marketplace is entirely reflective of opinion. Consumers regularly overlook facts when making purchase decisions.

Huh?

All I am saying is that developers who build for the exceptions are usually small niche players. To my point, the multi story brownstones haven't exactly burned up the market, nor have the condos on the Hill. If you want successful projects you have to build what the preponderance of the market wants or build small projects. I doubt the real buying points in OKC are that much difference than elsewhere and the majority of the condo projects at the higher price points are flats.

Yeah I also like the Brownstones because rowhouses are so uncommon (non-existant) in OKC. Variety!

I like the Brownstones, but I think the price point keeps a lot of people from purchasing.

I like the Brownstones, but I think the price point keeps a lot of people from purchasing.

I think perhaps they should add on some stick-built brownstones and build them will less expensive materials, not put the cadillac of heat pumps and top of the line fixtures, etc, in them. Those could be priced closer to what people want to pay per square foot. But, because they run from 2800 to 3700 square feet, they're still not going to be really cheap. I actually paid less per square foot for mine than many people have at the Hill and the Maywood Lofts, but because it's so much bigger the actual cost is higher.

Now, what people don't think of because they don't look at the big picture, is that in the end they may end up paying more for less, because of the increased utility and maintenance costs of not having build-block construction. But, as Pete pointed out earlier, people rarely do think of the big picture when they're purchasing.

I think perhaps they should add on some stick-built brownstones and build them will less expensive materials, not put the cadillac of heat pumps and top of the line fixtures, etc, in them. Those could be priced closer to what people want to pay per square foot. But, because they run from 2800 to 3700 square feet, they're still not going to be really cheap. I actually paid less per square foot for mine than many people have at the Hill and the Maywood Lofts, but because it's so much bigger the actual cost is higher.

Now, what people don't think of because they don't look at the big picture, is that in the end they may end up paying more for less, because of the increased utility and maintenance costs of not having build-block construction. But, as Pete pointed out earlier, people rarely do think of the big picture when they're purchasing.

Gotta agree here. When looking at the "big picture," it's clear to me that the Brownstones are actually the best overall value of any of the urban living options.

There is a difference with the up-front housing cost though, which is more likely to price people out. When people just compare housing prices, they won't go much further than $200,000 for 3,000 suburban sf or $800,000 for 3,000 urban sf. And utilities costs aren't going to make up that large of a difference, even though it won't be that big of a difference with smaller units.

There is a difference with the up-front housing cost though, which is more likely to price people out. When people just compare housing prices, they won't go much further than $200,000 for 3,000 suburban sf or $800,000 for 3,000 urban sf. And utilities costs aren't going to make up that large of a difference, even though it won't be that big of a difference with smaller units.

No doubt about that. I'm mainly singling out those who simply see the brownstones as being way too expensive for what you get.

Photo from today's Oklahoman:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/newsok-photos/1370584/medium.jpg

For us (those that can afford it) that live here, these are more choices. I don't think the developers are doing it for us though. I think these are being built for future companies moving here and the employees they bring with them. These will be done by the time the Devon Tower is done and they move out of their current headquarters and Continental or whoever comes in.

There is still very little available for people who want to purchase a home downtown. If you count the total number of dwellings for sale in downtown OKC right now, it's probably not much higher than 50. I agree that the apartments are great for creating more density downtown, but nothing that's happening helps create a concept that downtown is a place you can purchase a home in which to live in the minds of people in OKC. Maybe it's just going to be a very slow process here and we'll need the people who have rented downtown and loved it grow old enough to consider purchasing a home downtown at some point in time.

There's an over-the-top comment in the DOK about the new Bradshaw complex that has one paragraph that still voices some concerns I have about almost everything being a rental. There is definitely more trash in the Deep Deuce area, no attempt to keep landscaping up or replace grass. I do worry about what the whole area will look like in 10 years if it's primarily rentals.:

"Your typical apartment complex goes from the developer who builds it and keeps the place nice until it is time to free up some cash for a development, then it's sold to the management company who operates it and bleeds it dry for the next 5,10 or 15 years. When the property is bled dry, a nice guy like Shashikant Jogani buys the place for pennies on the dollar and runs the place into the ground until the city steps in after everybody on the council is told do something about it or your butt is out in the next election."

Read more: http://newsok.com/new-apartment-complex-proposed-for-oklahoma-citys-deep-deuce/article/3541208#ixzz1E9Rr3FVp

The natural trend will be from apartments to condos. The developers tried to short cut that by going straight to condos. It doesn't (and didn't) work that way. In 15 years every current apartment in Deep Deuce will be condos, and a whole new set of apartments will be built that are taller and even more urban. Maybe someday there will be enough demand to go straight to condos, but that day is not today, and it won't be tomorrow either. That future is a long way off, although streetcars will accelerate that transition time along the route.

"Your typical apartment complex goes from the developer who builds it and keeps the place nice until it is time to free up some cash for a development, then it's sold to the management company who operates it and bleeds it dry for the next 5,10 or 15 years. When the property is bled dry, a nice guy like Shashikant Jogani buys the place for pennies on the dollar and runs the place into the ground until the city steps in after everybody on the council is told do something about it or your butt is out in the next election."

Read more: http://newsok.com/new-apartment-complex-proposed-for-oklahoma-citys-deep-deuce/article/3541208#ixzz1E9Rr3FVp

Elitism. Nice.

I don't see hoping a development will be well maintained as elitism.

Spartan, that's not elitism; it's reality.
Exhibit A: Lyrewood
Exhibit B: NW 10
Exhibit C: Del City
Exhibit D: Quail Springs?

Now, do I agree with the commenter in regards to the downtown development? It's hard to connect his logic, which applies to the suburbs where we have seen decades of cookie-cutter construction, to what we're seeing downtown with unique designs and better than average construction. It's apples and oranges.

Elitism. Nice.

LOL - why don't you tell us your thoughts again on who should be allowed to ride the streetcars.

Spartan, that's not elitism; it's reality.
Exhibit A: Lyrewood
Exhibit B: NW 10
Exhibit C: Del City
Exhibit D: Quail Springs?

Now, do I agree with the commenter in regards to the downtown development? It's hard to connect his logic, which applies to the suburbs where we have seen decades of cookie-cutter construction, to what we're seeing downtown with unique designs and better than average construction. It's apples and oranges.

No need for a question mark with Quail Springs. Most apartments nearby are Certified Ghetto.

It shouldn't be a revelation to anyone that generally those who rent do not have the same pride of ownership as do those who buy. Apartment complexes in most cases are not built for long term residents and are income properties run for profit and not built or maintained as someone might their own home. It is economically driven. When maintenance grows out of proportion to the premium that residents are willing to pay then the slide begins. Most apartment residents are not loyal to a complex and when they have few belongings to move they will find the next good deal and move at the end of their contracts. It is a cycle.

Rover, to a great degree you're right. But there are some different dynamics at play when it comes to downtown apartments. To be blunt - it's a different population in terms of economics, etc.

There are roughly 60 or so units where I live in NW OKC. The sign out front says condominiums but the layout of my place looks like an old apartment. That's besides the point. Several of the units are owned either by the people that live in them or are rented out from separate owners. A little more than over half of the units are owned by one person. It's really an interesting deal. My owner says the HOA monthly fees are a tad expensive but it pays for a lot of the upgrades we've had done lately, like redoing the exteriors, paint job, and of course, all new windows due to last year's hail storm (didn't come out of or raise HOA fees thank God)! Landscaping isn't the greatest, but is decent considering several residents have lived there for a long time. I've been in the place at least 5 years and know of or at least talk to more than a handful of my neighbors.

But yes, generally, places will not be maintained for the most part.

Rover, to a great degree you're right. But there are some different dynamics at play when it comes to downtown apartments. To be blunt - it's a different population in terms of economics, etc.

Yes, I agree and I should have drawn the distinction. As long as the developers understand that and build more quality projects and as long as the tenants understand they have to pay more then it will be different downtown. Otherwise we will just have high density problems in 10 years.

Spartan, that's not elitism; it's reality.
Exhibit A: Lyrewood
Exhibit B: NW 10
Exhibit C: Del City
Exhibit D: Quail Springs?

Now, do I agree with the commenter in regards to the downtown development? It's hard to connect his logic, which applies to the suburbs where we have seen decades of cookie-cutter construction, to what we're seeing downtown with unique designs and better than average construction. It's apples and oranges.

First of all, everyone realizes I wasn't calling betts elitist..she herself said that what she was quoting was over the top. Furthermore, how is it not elitism? I doubt that the person with that point of view is in favor of letting poor people live near them. That seems to sort of be the premise. Regular people housing deteriorates into poor people housing. Housing for the top echelon will at least stay somewhat nice.

But keep in mind this is why downtown housing has FAILED to meet a single aspiration we had for it 5 years ago. If you look at the downtown housing report, which I thought was conservative at the time, we should have had thousands of more units. Yeah, there was a recession, but we realistically wouldn't have gotten any more affordable units out of the 2006-7 boom. All of the canceled projects were, say it with my guys, upscale condos. We would have been stuck with a glut on un-sellable condos worse than we had last year. That seems to be what you guys want.

Look, condos are what they are. I'm not denying that it isn't a plus to have home ownership in a neighborhood. I'm not denying that the Brownstones are the coolest residential built downtown. Not denying that there may be the small chance of deteriorating with LEVEL (though I think McKown is building these to last) that there isn't with the Brownstones. Those are all benefits. There are benefits to apartments as well. You bring in more diversity to the neighborhood. A younger population. More of the artists that you can build a cultural scene around. What kind of cultural scene do you think you can build around people making $200k/year? There's a reason The Paseo is the artist village. So those are very real benefits for Deep Deuce, too.

I'll go a little further and directly address Steve's point: Lyrewood, NW 10th, Del City. Who cares about those places? You're using the most extreme cases which does not make a valid argument. Those are all cases of sprawl. Those are all cases of not building things to last on purpose. And yeah, Quail Springs is going to be a really bad dump here in 10 years, I guarantee it.

There are also nice apartment complexes in the city. Downtown has a few. Anyone want to say that the Deep Deuce Apartments themselves are being bled dry by the new mgmt, on a fast path to become a slumland? How long has Sycamore Square been there? There are apartments in Nichols Hills, used to be even more before Chesapeake went realty-crazy. There are even nice apartment complexes in the metro's wealthiest ZIP code in SW OKC. I can think of one at 104th and Penn that's really nice and has been there for 20 years.

So in summary, I'm not denying that there are benefits to condos. That goes without saying, and you'd have to be a moron to overlook those. They are significant. But it's kind of like betts said earlier, I don't think she's actually against rental downtown, in fact I think she's pretty supportive, I just think she has reservations being a big stakeholder. She said she mostly just wants to confront the people who are ideologically crusading against condos now, and that's also understandable. Now I guess I'm just confronting the people I see ideologically crusading against new rentals downtown.

Steve, I'm not going to go all metro on you, but I disagree when you say that the extreme viewpoint about THESE Deep Deuce apartments in the Oke comment page was anything other than elitism. I also disagree with you when you bring up examples of deteriorated sprawl parts of town. All of them at least 7 miles out from downtown. I'm going to disagree with anyone who thinks that quality-built rental units AREN'T what downtown needs. It is exactly what downtown needs. It is making downtown living accessible and it is going to bring in more diversity. All of these apartments will be well-built, probably won't deteriorate very noticeably (anymore than Sycamore has), rents will be high enough to keep the riff raff out, but in the end, will bring in a lot of interesting people who can't exactly afford the Brownstones or City Place.

don't disagree with most of what you said .... i wil add that if not for the economic downturn IMHO we would have seen most of the for sale projects sell out .. we would have more brownstones and phase 2/3/4 at the hill would be done/under constructrion. and i think we would have seen new projects that are in a lower starting price range come on line.

don't disagree with most of what you said .... i wil add that if not for the economic downturn IMHO we would have seen most of the for sale projects sell out .. we would have more brownstones and phase 2/3/4 at the hill would be done/under constructrion. and i think we would have seen new projects that are in a lower starting price range come on line.

LOL - so if the unsustainable had been sustained we would have seen more of the same. That is a pretty bold prediction.

I agree boulder, the economic situation changed things, but not that much here in OKC. Also--was lending really ever going to be a breeze for urban projects in OKC? I'm just not naive to think everyone in the nation supports the idea that Okie City can have urbanist living. That's a perception problem.

Furthermore, there are some common-sense rules of economics. Generally, start modest, and work your way up. You don't start your way from the top and work your way down. That makes no sense. That was the deliberate plan here in OKC for a while. Obviously it wasn't a good idea.

Perhaps "start modest" works for downtown as a whole, but not for one district. When you start modest, unless you've somehow got a gazillionaire who is building for his or her legacy rather than profit, you stay modest. Again, the cities that have seen formerly modest areas become hip are usually older cities that have beautiful old dwellings that fell into disrepair and then were finally affordable for the young and hip. Over time, people still young and hip but with more means purchase them and renovate them and the area becomes vibrant, as the well off young and hip want to eat in nice restaurants and shop in fun stores. By starting modest, as the inevitable happens and modest dwellings fall into disrepair, it becomes less hip and less desirable and people move on to new areas.

I would argue that Block 42, the Maywood Browstones, Central Ave. villas and even the Hill added some diversity of economic means to the neighborhood that ultimately will make it a location with more staying power than if developers had thrown up 10 Quail Ridge Apartment buildings or even more Deep Deuce Apartments. The more upscale developments would never have been built here if we'd started modest. The nicer places to live actually bring the entire neighborhood up to a higher level and give the young and hip with less means places to aspire to within their own neighborhood. It might not have been great for the developers, but I believe that ultimately the Deep Deuce/Maywood/Triangle area will thrive because of those buildings most people are criticizing for their cost and lack of modesty.

You see that in Nichols Hills. The small houses at the periphery sell for far more per square foot than in other neighborhoods with comparable houses. They appeal to young people who like living near the Plaza or Chesapeake or now near Whole Foods, the Curve, etc. Those people like the proximity of more expensive houses as well, as it is what they aspire to.

I agree that at some point you do want to see a good mix that includes a decent amount of upscale properties, but...the idea that you have to maximize these imaginary "upper tiers" of realty before you can move on and "soil" an area with brick apartments that are so ghetto that they rent for $1100/mo, is completely bunk.

You might be right that first they have to go through a full cycle of despair, repair, and rebirth..and obviously we don't have hundreds of years here, but if that proves to be true as a rule of urban cities, then there's nothing we can do about it in OKC anyway. Unfortunate.

I agree that in order for there to be economic diversity, you have to have both young, hip artists in $1,000/mo apartments and $500,000+ condos/townhomes that coexist and play off of each other. It's a good thing that we have condos and townhomes for everyone who wants one right now. We don't have anywhere near enough urban apartments for everyone who wants one of those, however. I agree that budding young people are attracted to more affluent areas. But I would argue that it works well the other way around, that more affluent people tend to be attracted by hip culture...

You might be right that first they have to go through a full cycle of despair, repair, and rebirth..and obviously we don't have hundreds of years here, but if that proves to be true as a rule of urban cities, then there's nothing we can do about it in OKC anyway. Unfortunate.


Deep Duece is on the 'rebirth' step of that cycle right now.

Deep Duece is on the 'rebirth' step of that cycle right now.

Haha... not hardly with original building stock. Unless you count the Haywood Building. And the abandoned little house on 3rd.

It looks like we will finally have a good mix and volume of buy/rent properties downtown. We have everything from small studio condos to large, expensive townhouses and row house.

It will be interesting to see if these two new apartment complexes fulfill the shorter term demand for rentals. It's pretty clear we have enough for-sale units to hold us for a while. And if not, it will be easy to add to the existing developments.

I agree that at some point you do want to see a good mix that includes a decent amount of upscale properties, but...the idea that you have to maximize these imaginary "upper tiers" of realty before you can move on and "soil" an area with brick apartments that are so ghetto that they rent for $1100/mo, is completely bunk.

You might be right that first they have to go through a full cycle of despair, repair, and rebirth..and obviously we don't have hundreds of years here, but if that proves to be true as a rule of urban cities, then there's nothing we can do about it in OKC anyway. Unfortunate.

I agree that in order for there to be economic diversity, you have to have both young, hip artists in $1,000/mo apartments and $500,000+ condos/townhomes that coexist and play off of each other. It's a good thing that we have condos and townhomes for everyone who wants one right now. We don't have anywhere near enough urban apartments for everyone who wants one of those, however. I agree that budding young people are attracted to more affluent areas. But I would argue that it works well the other way around, that more affluent people tend to be attracted by hip culture...

What I was saying Spartan was that you likely wouldn't get the upper tier developments later if all you had was brand new modest developments initially. Developers would choose another location for their higher end developments in a setting where there is so much land available. All the higher end housing would end up at the park or somewhere else. And, to have great retail and great restaurants, you have to have people who can spend some money. I'm not sure modest and new is ever really that hip. Modest and old, old and funky....yes. For instance, Legacy is young, but I don't really consider it hip. It hasn't attracted hip shopping or cool restaurants either. I'm not sure, if it was multiplied by 10 if it would either. Midtown has the potential to be hip and funky because it's older.

So, I think it's serendipity that Deep Deuce/Maywood/Triangle has, perhaps by accident, some higher end housing. I think that will make it a more diverse and lasting neighborhood. I don't see that as a bad thing for anyone but the developers who got it wrong.

Keep in mind what we're talking about for "modest" is still considered fairly pricey most everywhere else in the city, betts, (I'm sure that almost all of LEVEL and Bradshaw's new project will rent for over $1000/mo) so I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you over the perilous plight of letting "new and modest" housing be built in any sequence in a neighborhood, let alone its natural sequence of being the first step.

For the most part the housing developers downtown have done a poor job of providing product that is actually in keeping with the desires/life styles of the people they want to buy them. The amenities are there but the layouts and styles aren't. I have hopes that these apartments will be reflective of the target market and not what the developer thinks they SHOULD like. If they are, then the price point shouldn't be a problem. I assume they have done much market research work BEFORE starting the architectural...at least I hope so.

I think it's the price more than the product, Rover. I see people looking at the Brownstones all the time...there's been a particularly large degree of traffic in the last week or so. The flyers for them disappear out of the boxes. Having recently been in Chicago, in most of the more desirable neighborhoods all they're building are townhouses. I simply think that the Oklahoma City residents who are buying houses in their price range want a yard and pool, as well as an upscale neighborhood. They think they can't live downtown without a grocery store, although they probably drive further than I do. There should be enough people in a city of 1.3 million people who can stand the thought of an elevator ride, or who look forward to walking stairs for a little exercise that it shouldn't be design that's responsible.

There is a tremendous amount of fascination with the concept of living downtown and the Brownstones, as we get asked about living downtown all the time, and most of the people who do so sound rather wistful about the possibility of living here. The feeling I get is that they haven't the nerve to move to a neighborhood that has this much diversity of purpose and design. It's too outside the box for Oklahoma Cityans who are in that price range.

So, as I've said, we may have to grow a population of people who will live downtown....the younger downtown residents, as they age, may not have the reluctance that it seems we're seeing in older people.

If the City Place apartments sell out like hotcakes, I'll admit you're right, though. They are true one story flats, and if that's what it takes to get people in a higher price range to move downtown, we'll know soon.

I think it's the price more than the product, Rover. I see people looking at the Brownstones all the time...there's been a particularly large degree of traffic in the last week or so. The flyers for them disappear out of the boxes. Having recently been in Chicago, in most of the more desirable neighborhoods all they're building are townhouses. I simply think that the Oklahoma City residents who are buying houses in their price range want a yard and pool, as well as an upscale neighborhood. They think they can't live downtown without a grocery store, although they probably drive further than I do. There should be enough people in a city of 1.3 million people who can stand the thought of an elevator ride, or who look forward to walking stairs for a little exercise that it shouldn't be design that's responsible.

There is a tremendous amount of fascination with the concept of living downtown and the Brownstones, as we get asked about living downtown all the time, and most of the people who do so sound rather wistful about the possibility of living here. The feeling I get is that they haven't the nerve to move to a neighborhood that has this much diversity of purpose and design. It's too outside the box for Oklahoma Cityans who are in that price range.

So, as I've said, we may have to grow a population of people who will live downtown....the younger downtown residents, as they age, may not have the reluctance that it seems we're seeing in older people.

If the City Place apartments sell out like hotcakes, I'll admit you're right, though. They are true one story flats, and if that's what it takes to get people in a higher price range to move downtown, we'll know soon.

With all due respect, there is an interest to live downtown, but little that is all that desirable for the target market HERE. In places like Chicago there is a huge population that has always lived in two or three story brownstones and so they are not shifting lifestyle with the location. However, the huge explosion of downtown living in Chicago has been with flats in mid and high rise towers. I challenge you to find much being built or having been built there in the last decade where they are constructing new row-houses. I have been personally involved in a great deal of construction of condos there and around the country and the vast preponderance has single level in multiple story building. If we truly want the 50-70 year old couples who have +$500,000 to be part of the fabric of downtown then we need to focus on what THEY want. Of course you can always point to exceptions and out of 1.3 MILLION people there will be a few dozen who will have the money and buy nearly anything, but they are the exception, not the rule. We can continue to try to create momentum with highly niched projects, but they will be small and it will take a lot of them to truly drive urbanization. At some point someone will realize that there is great opportunity to meet a market here if they will just listen.

Rover, I think that Deep Deuce resembles areas like Wicker and Lincoln Park more than downtown Chicago. Both of those have very active three and four story townhouse construction. But there are flats in Block 42 and Central Ave villas. The Hill has a very house-like feel once you are inside. I would not have considered living downtown very seriously if a flat were my only option. If a developer wants to build high end flats, though, it would be fine with me. I'm just glad there was an option that appealed to me.

I think Deep Deuce is more comparable to Streeterville, honestly. The historic districts are our "Lincoln Park."

I think Deep Deuce is more comparable to Streeterville, honestly. The historic districts are our "Lincoln Park."

Ok this is just stupid, honestly.

Ok this is just stupid, honestly.

You have absolutely no ability to read in context, honestly. If you really think anyone in this thread (I don't suspect you were actually keeping up with it) meant that OKC is anywhere near Chicago, you are sadly mistaken, and the level of the conversation went way over your head.

But your usual attempt to show unwarranted negativity toward all things OKC is noted, that should make you happy.

Took this today:

http://i980.photobucket.com/albums/ae288/snewlon/DSC00906.jpg

Nice! I'm excited to see some actual construction.

Anyone heard any news on what kind of restaurant will be going in here?

On their website (levelokc.com) they have an ad for both the restaurant and grocery spaces, so I'm sure they haven't signed any leases as of yet.

Once they get further along in construction and the development starts to take shape, I'm sure they will be plenty of interest.

Nothing new, but good rundown of projects including LEVEL.

"The renewal of downtown Oklahoma City continues with several new building projects in the works."

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-11249-urban-outfitters.html

Here is one quote and everytime I see it I scratch my head.



“You have record numbers of young people who want to move downtown,” he said. “We feel there is a real strong demand for rental properties downtown.”


Do they have any data to back up the claim that it is only 'young people', or are they just reapeating something that has never been proven becasue everyone assume it to be true. I would love to live downtown in a row home and I am 41. I want minimal yard maintenance, the ability to paint my interior walls without landlord approval, a place to park a car, and the ability to walk to most things I need (doctor, groceries, restaurant, pharmacy, retail). That isn't just the desire of 'young people'. Nearly everyone in all age brackets want that.

While rental units might appeal to the young, downtown living is more than rental units. I also don't want to pay $500K plus for a place.

Kerry, your comments support my point that people involved in real estate usually fail to look at the big picture. That's how we get overinflation of home prices and we end up with overbuilding of things they think the public wants. Right now, because downtown for sale real estate wasn't wildly successful, they're all sure rentals are where it's at. Once they've overbuilt rentals and a few of them are either sitting partially empty or prices are falling, we'll all be hearing that everyone now moving downtown wants to buy. And the pendulum will swing.

It's going to swing regardless, because a lot of the young people living downtown now or who will be moving into the new buildings are unmarried and childless. But, they're in their mid to late 20s. They'll be getting married, and since they live downtown, they won't be afraid of staying downtown. They'll be looking for a little more space, perhaps a row house just like you're talking about. They won't be afraid of walking their kids to school or taking their kids to school on a bus or streetcar. They won't necessarily want the big yard. The downtown demographic is going to expand. And space available for just what you're talking about will suddenly be the premium space. So, if you want to stay away from $500k, you have to beat the market a bit.

They've got columns up on the site now.

Here is one quote and everytime I see it I scratch my head.



Do they have any data to back up the claim that it is only 'young people', or are they just reapeating something that has never been proven becasue everyone assume it to be true. I would love to live downtown in a row home and I am 41. I want minimal yard maintenance, the ability to paint my interior walls without landlord approval, a place to park a car, and the ability to walk to most things I need (doctor, groceries, restaurant, pharmacy, retail). That isn't just the desire of 'young people'. Nearly everyone in all age brackets want that.

While rental units might appeal to the young, downtown living is more than rental units. I also don't want to pay $500K plus for a place.

So your point is that you want downtown housing marketed to nobody in particular??

So your point is that you want downtown housing marketed to nobody in particular??

No, I want downtown housing targeted towards people that want to live there, and that isn't just young people or the uber wealthy. Do young people want to live in walkable urban environment? Yes they do, but so do 40 year old middle class people with 2 kids and a dog. But the 40 year old and his family are not moving in to a 500 sq foot apartment or a $500,000 town home. I would move into a $350,000 row house with a narrow backyard and garage accessed via an alley.

I can't think of many or really any cities that have downtown housing like you're describing in that price range. There may be close in housing, but even a row house with a yard and garage takes a fair amount of space. In OKC you might be able to build yourself a house in SoSA for that, but no builder has as of yet been building even spec houses, to my knowledge, much less develop multiple blocks. It might happen in Core to Shore, but to get everything within walking distance would be tricky. That would probably take a planned development and I don't see that happening.

Some recent photos from their Facebook page:

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/222039_139755019430692_114527048620156_273521_2628 031_n.jpg

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/216343_139755036097357_114527048620156_273522_8024 636_n.jpg

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/215228_139755239430670_114527048620156_273530_5296 309_n.jpg

A new interior rendering from the architect's website:

http://www.ahmm.co.uk/resources/res.aspx?p=/FCF175F18A83EC9F832D303E3393C083C234259939195E305C 7FF29A89201C2E/007_view_kitchen_101203_lowercabinets.jpg

that is a bit sad.

A new interior rendering from the architect's website:

http://www.ahmm.co.uk/resources/res.aspx?p=/FCF175F18A83EC9F832D303E3393C083C234259939195E305C 7FF29A89201C2E/007_view_kitchen_101203_lowercabinets.jpg

I actually like that. Hang some pictures on the wall and I am good to go. Now would I go with some Ansel Adams black and whites to keep the theme going or go with some bold colors. How about reds?

BTW - I love the under cabinet lighting.

I actually like that. Hang some pictures on the wall and I am good to go. Now would I go with some Ansel Adams black and whites to keep the theme going or go with some bold colors. How about reds?

BTW - I love the under cabinet lighting.

Kerry is fabulous, everyone. :P

It's minimalist to the extreme, but it has a lot "better bones" than my old Deep Deuce spread. Nice wood floors and fixtures for the most part. It actually reminds me of the 444 Central condominiums.