Rover, I think their complaint is more about fake building materials and not fake architecture.

Betts, I was talking about the area south of 8th St and it is on the proposed downtown to Adventure District rail line. The area has 3,900 feet of track frontage. Parts of it would also be within walking distance of streetcars that serve the Health Sciences Center. Here is a picture of the area. The red and black lines are street car routes and the purpole line is the Adventure District Rail-link. The While line is commuter rail between Tinker and Yukon.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/Urban1.jpg

Is the proposed line between Yukon and Tinker stops posted somewhere? That route seems to go out of the way on purpose to/from Tinker, either continuing east over the river or going south from the station then crossing their are both more direct routes.

Finally managed to track down interior photos of the Baum Building. From the early 50s.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/baumbuildinglobby1.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/baumbuildinglobby3.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/baumbuildinglobby2.jpg

Probably some of the last photos.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/baumbuilding21.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/baumbuilding22.jpg

I noticed from looking at old photos that the smaller finials/spires used to have ornaments on the top, but they were taken off or fell off in the 40s.

Don't be nice. I think the Century Center is an abomination.

Here's a photo of buildings that once stood East of Sheridan and Robinson where Century Center is now.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/movies/folly_majestic_1910s3.jpg

http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2006/07/lets-go-downtown-to-movies.html#Majestic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBdA_X3nQFA

This is an appropriate flashback for the next few days.

Where is Top-O-Town?

The area I am talking about is larger than all of downtown so there is plenty of room to re-urbanize and almost all of it is vacant land. I checked the property appraiser web site and most of the lots are in the $1000 range with only a few being more than $10,000. You could probably buy most of the area for $250,000 to $300,000. It could be OKC's Back Bay area.

http://c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000Id5Y7JkfyUk/s/850/850/Boston-Back-Bay-Row-Houses.JPG

We have Deep Deuce. Not the Back Bay. This area is not a priority development zone and won't be for a few decades. That's just the way it is, because of the sheer volume of empty land in the current priority areas as it is. I don't even know if 20 years from now we will have completed Bricktown, Deep Deuce, Midtown, et al. And then we have Core to Shore south of downtown...we don't need another Core to Shore east of downtown. You know I'm not against development obviously, but it just has to be done strategically. There's not a lot of demand in OKC, comparatively, and even less gets turned into development. I'm certain OKC will pick up, but that's still too much of a stretch really.We have a lot of different burners turned on right now. I just want the soup to come out alright.

The area around downtown between Shartel and Penn has even more potential IMO. The only way we ever get this much development is if we implement an urban growth boundary and find a way to kill the addition of even more suburbs that don't yet exist. That will never happen.

Is the proposed line between Yukon and Tinker stops posted somewhere? That route seems to go out of the way on purpose to/from Tinker, either continuing east over the river or going south from the station then crossing their are both more direct routes.

The lines on tha map are my vision - nothing official. The Yukon/Tinker Line I have drawn makes a loop around bricktown so the train can pull into Santa Fe Station without having to back up. I started working on a web site with all of my rail ideas including ride-along videos but I just got a new EVO 4G so my attention has shifted for awhile. Here are my inital stops on the Yukon/Tinker Line.

Main Street - Yukon
Kilpatrick Turnpike - Park and Ride lot
Fairgrounds
Santa Fe Station
Indian Cultural Center
S. Air Depot - Midwest City
Tinker AFB (includes I-40 Park and Ride lot)

We have Deep Deuce. Not the Back Bay.

Deep Duces is too small and has too many property owners (and is almost built out) to be part of any large scale development. Deep Duece is a collection of small developments that happen to be next to each other. If you look at some of the recent mega-developments taking place around OKC like Tuscana (232 acres) or the Village Verde (480 acres) then you have to ask yourself, why are they recreating urban developments in suburbia when there is plenty of room by the Heath Scinece Center (188 acres in the area I shaded) to create urban development in an urban area? Probably the biggest draw back is the vast number of property owners in the area and that is something that would have to be over-come but that is the same problem Bricktown and Deep Deuce have - too many people all wanting to do their own thing with different motivations. I would like to see someone buy these vacant lots for a mega development.

Maybe making the comparison to Back Bay was a bad idea - Country Club Plaza would have been a better example.

One thing is for sure UnFrSaKn - I was born 40 years too late.

If you look at some of the recent mega-developments taking place around OKC like Tuscana (232 acres) or the Village Verde (480 acres) then you have to ask yourself, why are they recreating urban developments in suburbia when there is plenty of room by the Heath Scinece Center (188 acres in the area I shaded) to create urban development in an urban area?

Although I'm not holding my breath on those two specific examples, you're spot-on. That's probably the million-dollar question with new-urbanism. And by the way, sometimes you phrase things kind of weird, and you overlook sort of "sexy" or glamorous locales for very...un-glamorous locales. It's kind of weird, but here I'll show you an example, with the way I'd put it in red..


Main Street - Yukon
Kilpatrick Turnpike - Park and Ride lot
Downtown Edmond/UCO area
Fairgrounds
Santa Fe Station
Downtown transit hub
Indian Cultural Center
AICC/Riverfront/Core2Shore
S. Air Depot - Midwest City
Midwest City Town Center
Tinker AFB (includes I-40 Park and Ride lot)

Not really sure I agree with those lines, like the Fairgrounds for example, but those might be different phraseologies that could help some of us on here quarrel less with your ideas!

I hear what you are saying Spartan. I don't want to hijack my own thread (ah what the heck - I started it) but here I go anyhow. The Yukon/Tinker line doesn't go to Edmond/UCO Area. I also have a Norman/Edmond route.

Here is an explination of the stops.

Main Street - Yukon. Station will serve downtown Yukon area and surrounding neighborhoods. It is the western terminus.

Kilpatrick Turnpike. this is park and ride station serving Kilpatrick Turnpike and I-40. There is very good potential for high density TOD around the station.

Fairgrounds - In addition to the state fair there are numerous other events that take place there that are of interest to people from all across the metro area. The area can also serve as over-flow parking for downtown events like Red Earth and Festival of the Arts. South of tracks could be used for TOD.

Santa Fe Station/Central Hub - self explanatory


Indian Cultural Center - this is the only way that facility would served by rail

S. Air Depot - TOD potential and close to what ever becomes of Heritage Park Mall.

Tinker/Town Center - the station is actually located right next to the town center and across I-40 from Tinker. I don;t think there is any way the Air Force would all ow the train directly on to Tinker. The station would actually be located in the area of abonded house north of the run way. Transfer bus service to Tinker would be available via a secure loading area. The station would also serve as park and ride for I-40. Due to the runway there would be little TOD potential.

Since this line is heavy rail it can't stop every mile which is why I did not have it stopping in Core to Shore or Meridian.

Although I'm not holding my breath on those two specific examples, you're spot-on. That's probably the million-dollar question with new-urbanism. And by the way, sometimes you phrase things kind of weird, and you overlook sort of "sexy" or glamorous locales for very...un-glamorous locales. It's kind of weird, but here I'll show you an example, with the way I'd put it in red..



Not really sure I agree with those lines, like the Fairgrounds for example, but those might be different phraseologies that could help some of us on here quarrel less with your ideas!

Main Street - Yukon
Kilpatrick Turnpike - Park and Ride lot
Downtown Edmond/UCO area <-- their is no way to get their from the two stops around it, wrong end of the turnpike
Fairgrounds
Santa Fe Station
Downtown transit hub
Indian Cultural Center
AICC/Riverfront/Core2Shore <-- a stop like this was the reason I thought that it might have taken that route
S. Air Depot - Midwest City
Midwest City Town Center
Tinker AFB (includes I-40 Park and Ride lot)

AICC/Riverfront/Core2Shore <-- a stop like this was the reason I thought that it might have taken that route


That area is served by my streetcar. Riders can transfer from commuter rail to streetcar at the downtown hub. There is not any point serving the same stop with two different rail systems. That would be duplication of service and a waste of resources which are going to be in short supply as it is.

That area is served by my streetcar. Riders can transfer from commuter rail to streetcar at the downtown hub. There is not any point serving the same stop with two different rail systems. That would be duplication of service and a waste of resources which are going to be in short supply as it is.

then the train should just go south from santa fe, their is no point switching three tracks to end up having to end then take the same switch south of the new i40 to the track to tinker.

No doubt that there will need to be a major re-work of the tracks on the south side of downtown to create an east-west alignment out of Santa Fe station. Removing the Co-op and lumberyard will go a long way towards solving this problem. It doesn't help that there is a pretty good elevation change to get up to the elevated tracks.

No doubt that there will need to be a major re-work of the tracks on the south side of downtown to create an east-west alignment out of Santa Fe station. Removing the Co-op and lumberyard will go a long way towards solving this problem. It doesn't help that there is a pretty good elevation change to get up to the elevated tracks.

Tthe remaining connections on the south of the new i40 are only a slight shift from the current line, and it looks like they did the grating so they can run a line between shields and the existing line just north of the new i40 to tie it in their.

I hear what you are saying Spartan. I don't want to hijack my own thread (ah what the heck - I started it) but here I go anyhow. The Yukon/Tinker line doesn't go to Edmond/UCO Area. I also have a Norman/Edmond route.

Here is an explination of the stops.

Main Street - Yukon. Station will serve downtown Yukon area and surrounding neighborhoods. It is the western terminus.

Kilpatrick Turnpike. this is park and ride station serving Kilpatrick Turnpike and I-40. There is very good potential for high density TOD around the station.

Fairgrounds - In addition to the state fair there are numerous other events that take place there that are of interest to people from all across the metro area. The area can also serve as over-flow parking for downtown events like Red Earth and Festival of the Arts. South of tracks could be used for TOD.

Santa Fe Station/Central Hub - self explanatory


Indian Cultural Center - this is the only way that facility would served by rail

S. Air Depot - TOD potential and close to what ever becomes of Heritage Park Mall.

Tinker/Town Center - the station is actually located right next to the town center and across I-40 from Tinker. I don;t think there is any way the Air Force would all ow the train directly on to Tinker. The station would actually be located in the area of abonded house north of the run way. Transfer bus service to Tinker would be available via a secure loading area. The station would also serve as park and ride for I-40. Due to the runway there would be little TOD potential.

Since this line is heavy rail it can't stop every mile which is why I did not have it stopping in Core to Shore or Meridian.

Normally I'd stop here and not go much further, but this does say "General Urban Development Thread" so not sure what exactly on-topic would be lol..

As for the Kilpatrick Tpk, yeah there's infill potential, but there's infill potential virtually everywhere in the entire metro. There's also TOD potential everywhere along a rail line. I think too often you tend to suggest things that are randomly starting from scratch, often when very nearby there are better cases where a fledgling district is doing just what you want to recreate a mile over. In downtown Edmond, where the train also goes, there is some awesome TOD potential. Farmer's Market, Jazz Lab, tons of stuff on Broadway in downtown Edmond, good neighborhoods, etc.

As for the Fairgrounds, it's just really far out and separated by a whole lot of nothing at this point, being the main problem with that. Plus the people that go there are very far from the target train demographic, and that's not the end all be all, but that is important. Furthermore, Red Earth is a joke, the State Fair now is, and the day that the Festival of the Arts is out there at there will be an extremely sad day.

The AICC alone doesn't justify a rail line. Rail is expensive. The AICC is also very expensive and not even open yet, who knows what kind of an attraction it will prove to be.

As for MWC, I agree with your assessment that the station couldn't possibly directly serve the base. So what's the difference in putting it in a field on one side of I-40 or in a big development on the other side? The Town Center is actually a decent project, I want say really good, but it's pretty decent and it's also being expanded now. It opens up to a neighborhood in the back, where the expansion is also taking place. As for Heritage Park, sometimes you have to just be willing to let buildings go. That's going to be a huge abandoned building and unless someone turns it into a factory or an office building, which still wouldn't justify a station all its own, maybe the best we can hope for it is that it gets leveled or it burns down on its own. Same for Crossroads...

Tthe remaining connections on the south of the new i40 are only a slight shift from the current line, and it looks like they did the grating so they can run a line between shields and the existing line just north of the new i40 to tie it in their.

Perfect.

Looks like I managed to get enough off topic to split the thread into another discussion.

Spartan - I think you missed every point I was trying to make. Not every site along the rail is good for TOD. TOD doesn't only have to make sense for rail, it has to make sense for other modes of transit around the site.

Let's start with the Kilpatrick Turnpike stop. The site I picked is the first place I-40 is close enough to the tracks to make it a viable park and ride for I-40 commuters. It is also at an exit ramp for the Kilpatrick Turnpike. It is the last place that is not industrial in nature until you get to downtown and it has direct access to Mustang. Finally, it has existing vacant land.

Fairgrounds - if you think activites at the fairgrounds don't match the demographics of the average person in OKC you're crazy. Frankly, I am more than a little put-off by the elitist position you seem to be taking with rail travel. People from every walk of life will be riding the rails, not just the upper-crust and those of us from the middle class that the upper-crust will tolerate. I am more than sure people from Edmond, Norman, and Midwest City attend events at the fairgrounds. If there is a reliable mass transit system they can use it will even increase attendance. Also, I never said Festival of the Arts would be at the fairgrounds. I said over-flow parking could be at the fairgrounds. In fact, over-flow parking from any downtown event could be done at the fairgrounds.

The stop at the AICC is only because the train is going right by it anyhow. If there isn't demand then the train doesn't stop there.

Now, having said all of that, I suggest you start laying some lines on Google Earth and see what you come up with. I think most of us would be interested to see what you come with.

Spartan - I think you missed every point I was trying to make. Not every site along the rail is good for TOD. TOD doesn't only have to make sense for rail, it has to make sense for other modes of transit around the site.

Let's start with the Kilpatrick Turnpike stop. The site I picked is the first place I-40 is close enough to the tracks to make it a viable park and ride for I-40 commuters. It is also at an exit ramp for the Kilpatrick Turnpike. It is the last place that is not industrial in nature until you get to downtown and it has direct access to Mustang. Finally, it has existing vacant land.

Fairgrounds - if you think activites at the fairgrounds don't match the demographics of the average person in OKC you're crazy. Frankly, I am more than a little put-off by the elitist position you seem to be taking with rail travel. People from every walk of life will be riding the rails, not just the upper-crust and those of us from the middle class that the upper-crust will tolerate. I am more than sure people from Edmond, Norman, and Midwest City attend events at the fairgrounds. If there is a reliable mass transit system they can use it will even increase attendance. Also, I never said Festival of the Arts would be at the fairgrounds. I said over-flow parking could be at the fairgrounds. In fact, over-flow parking from any downtown event could be done at the fairgrounds.

I didn't say that the Fairgrounds wasn't an average OKC demographic. I don't really want to go there, or get into the nuances of defining on OKC demographic..probably not possible to do, probably not a worthwhile endeavor. But I do think there is value in determining who will ride the rails. It has nothing to do with elitism, populism, or any ism that politically-charged people like to think in terms of. I don't think it's unfair to say that the fairgrounds attract a large ag-oriented demographic, and I don't think it's elitist (but rather reasonable) to conclude those guys aren't going to ride the rails. Who will? Commuters who live in suburbs and work downtown. People looking to go to a shopping hub. People going to Thunder games. People going clubbing/drinking downtown. College students at OU/UCO. I see all of those as much more solid bets for ridership than the Fairgrounds, I mean, why ride the rails, when you can overcompensate for all your shortcomings with a big Hemi pick-up truck? Lol..I don't mean to be offensive, I'm just offering pragmatic, possibly blunt, opinions on how this could go. Consider it my way of contributing to the discussion..I don't do it to be an arse, I mostly just mean for most of these remarks I make like this to come off with a few laughs, but there is a lot of truth buried under some of these juvenile wise-cracks I make. Let's not deny that or get too bent out of shape with the way I often phrase things in jokes and sarcasm.


The stop at the AICC is only because the train is going right by it anyhow. If there isn't demand then the train doesn't stop there.

OK, fair enough--the way you phrased it suggested that it was its own line in your vision, and I was a little puzzled by that.


Now, having said all of that, I suggest you start laying some lines on Google Earth and see what you come up with. I think most of us would be interested to see what you come with.

Oh, I'm definitely more than happy to do that. I've been toying around with a few maps that I've kept to myself for the past few months, since Jeff invited me to a streetcar subcommittee meeting. My personal outlook on it is that the service area needs to be broken up into a streetcar zone, where street does not leave, and a LRT/commuter zone. LRT/commuter rail doesn't serve the streetcar zone, and vice versa. So to that end, I'm not sure there should be a MetroRail or whatever stop in the inner city unless it is heavily interfaced with the streetcar and other modes of transit.

I can post a few of the things I've been working on. I've been thinking in a few of my own directions on this, and it's mostly streetcar-based just because of how comparatively cheap that is, whereas other modes might be more prohibitively expensive, and would involve cross-governmental jurisdictions. For instance, there is no point in constructing a commuter line that ends at the Kilpatrick (and I don't know if you intended this, but it is fairly cunning at first glance) that is obviously intended to serve the Edmond area. It could be construed at first as a way of getting Edmond ridership without having to seek involvement from the City of Edmond. But then that's serving them without them paying for any of it, because we know the ridership won't support it, unless tickets are considerably more expensive for Edmond residents. You might as well get funds from Edmond and go all the way to downtown Edmond.

If Edmond is not interested in paying up, then no commuter rail for the north metro. That simple. Same goes for Moore/Norman. I think it's 100% certain that Norman is interested in paying up, at least as long as Rosenthal is mayor. Moore probably wouldn't care because they're so flush with what used to be everyone else's sales tax revenue right now.

Thanks for the reply Spartan. In retrospect the stop at the fairground probably is not a good idea. Maybe that stop should be reserved for events only and not part of the regular scheduled service. As for service to Edmond, I agree it should go right into downtown Edmond. The goal of rail should be to increase TOD at every station and it only make sense that if you are going to increase density, it be done in the downtown areas. Stations in Norman, Yukon, Edmond, and Moore would be downtown (yes - Moore has a downtown). Eventually I would like to see places like Norman and Edmond introduce their own local streetcars.

For the record, I am not a big fan of Park and Ride lots because they only contribute to sprawl but hopefully those stations would develop high density TOD. Of course, this is not possible with Tinker/Town Center station becasue of the runway issues but that station also serves the largest employer in the state so I guess in that case it is okay.

A report on identifying potential future development of metro transit had one near the fairgrounds for a special event station.

A map is on page 31 of this document.
http://www.gometro.org/Websites/gometro/Images/Reports_Studies/FGS/FGS_Chapter%205.pdf

Document TOC
http://www.gometro.org/fgp

Kerry:

Well I must agree with your overall suggestion that these lifestyle centers proposed around the metro (yet to see a good one actually get built though) be a little more than a pig with lipstick in terms of functional urbanism. I agree that TOD is the way to go, the way of the future for OKC. I also agree that in the area around Kilpatrick and Broadway is great TOD potential, with potential synergy with what's going on at other stops. One of the things about TOD though is that we are going to discover opportunities that we didn't realize existed, like with Tyson's Corner, or the Panorama Village thing in Denver that Blair Humphreys worked on. I can see something like that happening around 63rd and Broadway, also along the BNSF tracks--right between Chesapeake and Broadway.

When you think hard about it, there will be a lot of these potential nodes. You have to just design the system and the TOD will happen where it happens, for the most part--though there is nothing wrong with making sure the main stations develop as planned. I think Norman and Edmond downtowns just have so much TOD potential, especially how the area along the tracks in Norman between Boyd and Main is so ripe for infill, on the edge of both Chautauqua, Campus Corner, and Downtown Norman.

Snowman:

The FGS is already severely outdated and the timeline has already ran out for it to have any bearing in my opinion. Plus, what it proposed was pretty conservative (and proposed phases that took forever, and for instance, a commuter line between downtown and Crossroads Mall is going to have ZERO riders, not now or ever, so that's a big FAIL). We've taken our time with the goal of building a more comprehensive system as soon as we can get ready, in terms of funding. I think we all understood though that streetcar would be first, and we're going to knock that one out of the ballpark. OKC will be a streetcar city once again.

Kerry:

Well I must agree with your overall suggestion that these lifestyle centers proposed around the metro (yet to see a good one actually get built though) be a little more than a pig with lipstick in terms of functional urbanism.

I still laugh to myself everytime I see the site plan for Village Verde. It is classic segreagtion zoning; residential over there, commerical over here, retail in that spot, etc. The only thing that makes it 'urban' is it's size but it isn't sustainable.

This is more urban than Village Verde and it is in the Yemen desert. It is also sustainable as it has been there for 500 years in its current form.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibam

http://blog.zajigirl.com/.a/6a00e54f81db2788330120a7d4bc11970b-800wi

http://photos.igougo.com/images/p352573-Shiban_Yemen-Manhattan_of_the_Desert_(Shibam_Yemen).jpg

That would be Village No-Verde.

Some might find this interesting, architecturally.

Brick and Mortar: Tallest buildings of each U.S. city, 1950 (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=178249)

Some might find this interesting, architecturally.

Brick and Mortar: Tallest buildings of each U.S. city, 1950 (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=178249)

They don't make them like they used to, and the world is worse off for it.

Per request of Doug, this image is for those that think we are becoming more "urban".

New York in 1905

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/NewYork1905.jpg

Look Ma! No corporate plazas

Look Ma! No incredibly ugly buildings like the ones SandRidge tore down

Look Ma! No incredibly ugly buildings like the ones SandRidge tore down

Tru dat - but those building they tore down were not always ugly.

Is that Wall Street? Or, at least, the financial district?

Broad Street.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2243/2276677962_eaf44c8372_o.jpg

Most of those buildings as far as I can tell, are replace with more modern ones or they changed the face of them.

Most of those buildings as far as I can tell, are replace with more modern ones or they changed the face of them.

Yep - they screwed up there as well.

I only see two trees in the last posted picture. Not environmentally friendly. I hope Devon paved the way for change in how downtown will be built/changed in the future by spacing out the skyscrapers and allowing more grass, trees, and landscaping. We don't want to just limit it to a central park nearby. We want it everywhere.

I would rather Downtown be urban with the buildings pushed out to the street than have skyscrapers in the middle of a block with trees and grass surrounding them. There's plenty of grass and trees outside of the CBD. Not to mention Myriad Gardens and hopefully the new park.

I only see two trees in the last posted picture. Not environmentally friendly. I hope Devon paved the way for change in how downtown will be built/changed in the future by spacing out the skyscrapers and allowing more grass, trees, and landscaping. We don't want to just limit it to a central park nearby. We want it everywhere.
You need to read a book on urban design. Your ideas are suburban and what this city needs less of in the inner core.

Can I get an AMEN! LOL!

can i get an amen! Lol!

amen!

I would rather Downtown be urban with the buildings pushed out to the street than have skyscrapers in the middle of a block with trees and grass surrounding them. There's plenty of grass and trees outside of the CBD. Not to mention Myriad Gardens and hopefully the new park.


You need to read a book on urban design. Your ideas are suburban and what this city needs less of in the inner core.

Both are incorrect. Not once did I mention a huge block of beautification surrounding each skyscrapers. Urban...Suburban...whatever. Those two terms are just plain stupid. There is nothing wrong with having grass, trees, shrubs, flowers, and decorations in between the sidewalks and streets.

I only see two trees in the last posted picture. Not environmentally friendly. I hope Devon paved the way for change in how downtown will be built/changed in the future by spacing out the skyscrapers and allowing more grass, trees, and landscaping. We don't want to just limit it to a central park nearby. We want it everywhere.

Then please, by all means, enlighten me as to what you truly mean. Spacing out skyscrapers?

It's a shame that developer's in Oklahoma can't build something like this (from Philadelphia):

http://www.dwell.com/articles/See-What-Develops.html

It's a shame that developer's in Oklahoma can't build something like this (from Philadelphia):

http://www.dwell.com/articles/See-What-Develops.html

The interior looks nice but the exterior appears to be an absolute eyesore.

Not a fan of the exterior or interior (just not my style) but if others want it and are willing to buy it, go for it.

Yeah, those are total backward style. Plain awful. I would say its fitting for the country side.

The interior looks nice but the exterior appears to be an absolute eyesore.

Not if you're a fan of contemporary design. I love it.

Yeah, those are total backward style. Plain awful. I would say its fitting for the country side.

Looks fitting for rural Mississippi

I love it as well, looks like some of the houses in SoSA. Weni build in about 2 years its very similar to the style I want, just add solar panels and a wind turbine.

I like it, but I understand that some people don't... Definitely not for everyone.

Not if you're a fan of contemporary design. I love it.

I'm not opposed to contemporary, just that depiction which looks shoddy at best. It reminds of the time when developers thought it was cool to put metal siding over the facades of historical business district buildings.

It's a shame that developer's in Oklahoma can't build something like this (from Philadelphia):

http://www.dwell.com/articles/See-What-Develops.html

Those are just hideous. I would hate to have a house near it. JMO But I guess that is some people's style...

"Urban planner predicts renewal"

http://newsok.com/urban-planner-predicts-renewal/article/3554047

It would be great to see Reno east of 235 have some urban development!

Those are just hideous. I would hate to have a house near it. JMO But I guess that is some people's style...

I guess my point was not the aesthetics of the building, but the low cost, high density look. I can't think of too many residential buildings in downtown that look that much different from the suburbs. Brownstones at Maywood Park and The Hill.

Can a developer build a front-entrance single family home (even attached) in downtown for less than $250,000? Or will the only sub-$250,000 units be condo units?

I guess my point was not the aesthetics of the building, but the low cost, high density look. I can't think of too many residential buildings in downtown that look that much different from the suburbs. Brownstones at Maywood Park and The Hill.

Can a developer build a front-entrance single family home (even attached) in downtown for less than $250,000? Or will the only sub-$250,000 units be condo units?

I don't think that the Brownstones really look suburban, so I disagree with you there. The Hill is much more suburban looking, so I do see where you're coming from. Really though, to me, urban and suburban are not dependent on what the building looks like, but more so the amount of setback, and whether or not it encourages walkability.

I've always thought that this area makes sense for the ever-dreamed of downtown stadium. It has plenty of open space. It's within walking distance to Bricktown. And, a streetcar line could be extended along Sheridan. I have always seen massive development potential here.

Most of those buildings as far as I can tell, are replace with more modern ones or they changed the face of them.
UnFrSaKn, don't you think this thread would be a good one to show what urban is REALLY like, per your earlier Nyc PM?

Anyone else wish there were more traditional architecture designs in new buildings?

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=176535&page=16

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6923/goodaleandhighview1.jpg

think it is what gives buildings their character. AM all for it.