Well I hate to say "I told you so" on the lack of market for upscale apartments, but i have to. I got thrown mud at for weeks when i said we had too many already and needed mid-level rather than upscale. Guess I wasn't as wrong as the blind optomists thought. You can't blame the market here in OKC for the failure...we didn't have the fall that you saw elsewhere....note the dozens of articles and surveys that we actually grew.

But in reference to the place being a concrete box, yeah it's an ugly crap of a building. But that's how we view it today. We don't call it historic today because of it's lack of creativity. However, that concrete look was a style for a period and does represent a microcasm of architecture. When the horrible bland unpainted Myriad and Gardens were first built, that spelled "modern" and "cutting edge". It's the age old story of how old does something have to be to call it historic. Yes there are rules that govern when something is officially called historic, but the official stance doesn't always win. Otherwise we wouldn't be seeing historic funds being used on this pile of crap. All I'm saying is, historic today, isn't neccessarily historic for tomorrow. In the 20's art-deco was new. Then in the 50's, it was a symbol of old. That's why so many facades were removed in favor of their new international style replacements. What we see as a travesty today, made perfect sense and made a building MORE marketable at that time. Context makes a huge difference.

Well I hate to say "I told you so" on the lack of market for upscale apartments, but i have to. I got thrown mud at for weeks when i said we had too many already and needed mid-level rather than upscale. Guess I wasn't as wrong as the blind optomists thought. You can't blame the market here in OKC for the failure...we didn't have the fall that you saw elsewhere....note the dozens of articles and surveys that we actually grew.


I'm confused by this blurb. Are you referring to for-purchase condos?

If that is a yes, then you are correct. But there are plenty of upscale rentals going in and I don't see the demand abating anytime soon, given so long the local economy keeps going (always a wildcard) and the rentals are of high quality and actually worth the money.

Keep in mind that there are waiting lists for the Sieber and Deep Deuce, and the Cline Hotel is not even finished and already completely leased.

Even with the rather controversial aesthetics, I have no doubt the Carnegie will be successful.

That would require a dead-halt on leasing in the future.


Well I hate to say "I told you so" on the lack of market for upscale apartments, but i have to. I got thrown mud at for weeks when i said we had too many already and needed mid-level rather than upscale. Guess I wasn't as wrong as the blind optomists thought. You can't blame the market here in OKC for the failure...we didn't have the fall that you saw elsewhere....note the dozens of articles and surveys that we actually grew.

What are you talking about? That just came out of nowhere. If anything, it is proof that the upscale housing market is so strong that even a ghastly project like this can move forward.

Spartan, did you even read the comments from the developer where they said there wasn't a market for upscale at the price they wanted? Right out of the horses mouth there buddy. As adaniel said, rental is strong on the east side of downtown and continuing to grow. But this high price lease crap people keep trying to push isn't flying. This project has failed numerous times and they're clawing to stay alive with this historic money. It is counter to everything they had planned in the original design.

You find me someone that will want to move in there now and then (should they decide to go with the changes after the 5 year requirement for the cash expires) would want to be around while construction tears off the outside and then cuts holes in walls, converts a floor or two to parking, etc. That would make the sale that much more difficult. What you are more likely to see is:
1 - the project will totally collapse and we'll still have an empty crappy building
2 - they somehow find people to lease, but it won't be as high of a price and there will be no massive renovations

What i'd like to see is the original design come to fruition. Is it going to happen...doubt it...a lot.

Spartan, did you even read the comments from the developer where they said there wasn't a market for upscale at the price they wanted? Right out of the horses mouth there buddy. As adaniel said, rental is strong on the east side of downtown and continuing to grow. But this high price lease crap people keep trying to push isn't flying.

I think you're somewhat confused. The market that has struggled and been hit hard by the recession is for upscale for-sale condos. Those have stayed on the market for a long time even in downtown OKC. In general though, the for-rent market is wide-open. Almost all of the downtown apartments being built are pretty high-end, at least for this market. This project is certainly no more high-end than some more major projects with hundreds of living units.

I agree that the original design was alright, because I do think that there are ways to make this building look attractive.

Spartan, did you even read the comments from the developer where they said there wasn't a market for upscale at the price they wanted? Right out of the horses mouth there buddy. As adaniel said, rental is strong on the east side of downtown and continuing to grow. But this high price lease crap people keep trying to push isn't flying. This project has failed numerous times and they're clawing to stay alive with this historic money. It is counter to everything they had planned in the original design.

Bombermwc,

Your assessment of high lease prices not flying is flat out wrong. I've been looking downtown for an apartment and it has been difficult to pick and choose because of high occupancy. Yes, that is high occupancy in upscale, expensive, high rent housing. Most apartment complexes are fully leased or hovering around 98% occupancy. The only exception I could find was park harvey which is still at 89% occupancy despite being surrounded by construction and not having a parking structure attached. There are plenty of people between 20 and 35 that work downtown or nearby that are willing to pay the rent and live there. No one likes the prices but just like every other large city, people are paying them. And prices downtown aren't much different than what the nicer apartments charge in Norman, which many of the people moving downtown have been paying through out attending college.

The report you are referring to stated that there isn't enough of a market for high end CONDOS AND TOWNHOMES at the price they are trying to get, it further stated more apartment development would need to occur downtown to satisfy demand. I've looked through the downtown condo selection, and even though high priced, many have been sold.

Good God people...do you even read posts? What i said was right from the developers mouth. It's even posted on previous pages in this thread. The person pushing the development themselves has said the market for what they were pushing just isn't there. "For the price" means a lot. They could have been way overshooting what it's worth. But at least read before you try and argue with what the developer is saying. You're trying to make this into an attack on me (big surprise since heaven forbid anyone ever disagree with the great Spartan), but next time why don't you try reading all the posts before you comment.

And PhiAlpha, no i'm not referencing a report. As I said, i'm referencing the words right out of the developers mouth, which explained why they did a change in courseon the entire project. It's like you guys just read the last couple of posts before you comment.

The market is always behind or ahead of reality, regardless. At some point, the last person or persons to create rental properties in downtown, Midtown and Deep Deuce will discover that the rental market is tapped out. And there will be people who've loved renting downtown and are now financially able to buy who won't be able to find for sale properties at any price. Then the developers will go gaga over for sale properties and if we're lucky, at some point we'll have enough, or likely too much, of both. It's never good to be that last developer, but it always seems to happen. I think they respond in very reflexive fashion to perceived markets. Let the Carnegie developers do whatever they think is right. They may be right, or they may be wrong. There is clearly no crystal ball.

Good God people...do you even read posts? What i said was right from the developers mouth. It's even posted on previous pages in this thread. The person pushing the development themselves has said the market for what they were pushing just isn't there. "For the price" means a lot. They could have been way overshooting what it's worth. But at least read before you try and argue with what the developer is saying. You're trying to make this into an attack on me (big surprise since heaven forbid anyone ever disagree with the great Spartan), but next time why don't you try reading all the posts before you comment.

And PhiAlpha, no i'm not referencing a report. As I said, i'm referencing the words right out of the developers mouth, which explained why they did a change in courseon the entire project. It's like you guys just read the last couple of posts before you comment.

It sounds like I am just going to have to teach you a lesson with my giant Poseidon trident.

You're right, it is straight from the horse's mouth. There was no market for the upscale condos that she was initially proposing. She then changed her project over to high-end apartments. Could you please elaborate further as to how that is an indictment, rather than a confirmation, of the high-end rental market?

We agree that this Carnegie development is now less than ideal. I also agree with your assessment that she appears to be fishing for desperate options to keep her project alive. I just think this crusade of yours against high-end rentals is unnecessary and it misses the point about rentals vs. condos.

The high-end rental market is where we've found the demand which has ignited the current wave of private development.

The market is always behind or ahead of reality, regardless. At some point, the last person or persons to create rental properties in downtown, Midtown and Deep Deuce will discover that the rental market is tapped out. And there will be people who've loved renting downtown and are now financially able to buy who won't be able to find for sale properties at any price. Then the developers will go gaga over for sale properties and if we're lucky, at some point we'll have enough, or likely too much, of both. It's never good to be that last developer, but it always seems to happen. I think they respond in very reflexive fashion to perceived markets. Let the Carnegie developers do whatever they think is right. They may be right, or they may be wrong. There is clearly no crystal ball.

Yes, it's the nature of commercial development: Everyone goes chasing the current hot segment instead of actually thinking on their own. The developers are certainly to blame but even more so are the lenders who will only look at recent past history before splashing out the cash.

You'd think both these groups would learn but that never seems to happen.

But that's a HUUUUUGE difference Spartan.....Lease vs. Rental. Rental is somethingi do feel there is a market for, but not lease. We've seen SOOOO much upscale lease lately, that's where the market is saturated. Rental is a whole other ballgame. That's exactlly why Deep Deuce is still moving at a steady pace.

For some reason developers in downtown feel like the only option for an old building is to turn it into an upscale lease structure. THAT market has been tapped (for now). I still stand by my statement that lowering the cost (and amenities) could open a new market.

On a side note to Carnegie, that very thing is about to be done in Bricktown with the old steel company land. Although I feel like it's going too far in the cheap direction. They're talking about $500 a month there because it will fall under Federal "Affordable Housing" plans. Which to me means, Section 8.....bleh.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between lease and rental. Do you mean week to week rentals? Or month to month? If you mean cheaper leases, well, as I've said quite a few times, is it a God-given right for everyone who wants to to live downtown? If developers can make money on cheap rentals, do we want the cheap construction that by definition has to go with that downtown? If people want cheap rentals, someone should start buying the buildings all along the rail line from 4th to 12th and put bare bones lofts with a toilet, sink and shower in them. That's the kind of place you get in most cities for inexpensive prices. Then, as the area becomes more desirable, people take the bare bones lofts and upgrade them. But do we seriously want some throw it up and skimp on materials buildings built downtown? Not me, even if I didn't live downtown. That's not how you draw people downtown. Try and find affordable housing in downtown San Francisco, Chicago or Manhattan. You have to put four people in a two bedroom apartment, or find some piece of a building no one wants.

I don't consider any for rent downtown upscale except maybe the Montgomery, and I've never checked out prices there. Even LEVEL doesn't look upscale to me. Nice, yes. Upscale is a highrise with a doorman, to me. I think we will tap out the rental market downtown, but I don't see any evidence it's happened yet.

Oy vey..

But that's a HUUUUUGE difference Spartan.....Lease vs. Rental. Rental is somethingi do feel there is a market for, but not lease. We've seen SOOOO much upscale lease lately, that's where the market is saturated. Rental is a whole other ballgame. That's exactlly why Deep Deuce is still moving at a steady pace.

For some reason developers in downtown feel like the only option for an old building is to turn it into an upscale lease structure. THAT market has been tapped (for now). I still stand by my statement that lowering the cost (and amenities) could open a new market.

On a side note to Carnegie, that very thing is about to be done in Bricktown with the old steel company land. Although I feel like it's going too far in the cheap direction. They're talking about $500 a month there because it will fall under Federal "Affordable Housing" plans. Which to me means, Section 8.....bleh.



"Lease" is the name of the document which one must sign in order to get a rental unit. Keep in mind, the only implied difference between lease and rent is that rent sort of means week-to-week/month-to-month, and the only downtown apartment complex like that is on the edge of SoSA, and you don't wanna live there. Maybe a few I'm not aware of in C2S or east of 235... and I assure you in this instance, Deep Deuce would be LEASE. They are not letting people live there on a weekly/monthly basis. You sign an agreement for a year or so many months, whatever.

I also think you're even more off-base on the East Bricktown development. Which is saying something...

LOL! I was going to rent in bricktown, but I will lease in downtown!

Well i'm so glad that i have you, Spartan, to help me out. Except, oh there's that thing where you aren't always just right because you say so.

And you're a bit confused on the lease issue as well. The type of lease agreement makes a huge difference in how you define what is lease/rental. Any apartment complex signs a lease. 6months / 1 year / whatever. The rights the person has to the apartment make a huge difference though. I don't really feel like playing educator all day on how these diffrence play out though. You can do some google searches if you feel, because i'm sure all you're going to do it come back and tell me I'm wrong anyway. Keep in mind, everything I've said here came from the developer...but i'm sure you know better than the developer on their own project as well.

Bomber, what are you talking about? You were last seen lambasting them gosh darned upscale lease developments, because the market wants rental units after all. Now watching you cover your tracks is becoming painful.

I have signed a few leases in my life. You're just not going to get away with parlaying your ignorance of downtown development into me being in my 20's and not understanding a lease, which appears to be the plan you're going with.

I'll also remind you that were "text screaming" this as well, with capitalized words, exclamation marks, and all. You seemed very passionate that the market wanted rental units, gosh darnit, not them new fangled upscale lease units that they keep cranking out.

But that's a HUUUUUGE difference Spartan.....Lease vs. Rental. Rental is somethingi do feel there is a market for, but not lease. We've seen SOOOO much upscale lease lately, that's where the market is saturated. Rental is a whole other ballgame. That's exactlly why Deep Deuce is still moving at a steady pace.

For some reason developers in downtown feel like the only option for an old building is to turn it into an upscale lease structure. THAT market has been tapped (for now). I still stand by my statement that lowering the cost (and amenities) could open a new market.

On a side note to Carnegie, that very thing is about to be done in Bricktown with the old steel company land. Although I feel like it's going too far in the cheap direction. They're talking about $500 a month there because it will fall under Federal "Affordable Housing" plans. Which to me means, Section 8.....bleh.

Quoted for truth...or ignorance, I'll let the reader decide.

I'll also remind people that the downtown lease market is 95% occupied. Good luck finding a unit, you'll need it.

You didn't make an arguement against me there buddy. I still stand by what i said. The least market is getting to the point where there isn't room for more. Just because it's 95% full, does NOT automatically equate to the need for more. The new space has to meet the requirements for those coming in, and this project did not do that. Those requirements could have simply been price...but last time I checked, a high price means upscale.

I'm not back-tracking. I'm still standing by what I previously said. And you still seem to be more interseted in making it a personal attack rather than listening to what the developer said.

I also stand by my comment on the affordable housing project. I don't believe section 8 housing is a good fit there. You go outside of downtown and tell me what $500 gets you...it's not even in the middle ground. What SHOULD be built it something under the $1K a month, but more in the $700 a month range. There are nice apartments all over town in that range...and it puts a totally different market base in the place than 500. To be honest, with it being section 8, perhaps you don't understand that it's government subsidized housing....ie projects without the projects. Does it have to be a Legacy project? No. Could a Case and Associates or McSha level project fit better? Probably.

I also stand by my comment on the affordable housing project. I don't believe section 8 housing is a good fit there.

You are correct - section 8 housing would be bad. The East Bricktown Apartments are not Section 8. You are confusing a government backed loan/grant to the builder vs direct cash payment subsidy to the renter. By reducing the cost to the builder he can charge a lower rent for a set amount of units vs a unit being at market price and the government giving the renter money to cover the expense.

Also: rent is what you pay the landord each month. A lease tells you how many months you have to do that.

You didn't make an arguement against me there buddy. I still stand by what i said. The least market is getting to the point where there isn't room for more. Just because it's 95% full, does NOT automatically equate to the need for more. The new space has to meet the requirements for those coming in, and this project did not do that. Those requirements could have simply been price...but last time I checked, a high price means upscale.

I'm not back-tracking. I'm still standing by what I previously said. And you still seem to be more interseted in making it a personal attack rather than listening to what the developer said.

I also stand by my comment on the affordable housing project. I don't believe section 8 housing is a good fit there. You go outside of downtown and tell me what $500 gets you...it's not even in the middle ground. What SHOULD be built it something under the $1K a month, but more in the $700 a month range. There are nice apartments all over town in that range...and it puts a totally different market base in the place than 500. To be honest, with it being section 8, perhaps you don't understand that it's government subsidized housing....ie projects without the projects. Does it have to be a Legacy project? No. Could a Case and Associates or McSha level project fit better? Probably.

I think those are suburban developers who might be more interested in a plot of land on Memorial Road, if you know of any. We have lots of capable developers downtown, although we could always use more. But I think you're missing the point on the FHA "affordable housing" loans which is not Section 8. Similar loans were used on a number of upscale downtown projects. Only a certain number, a minority at that, have to be "affordable," which also does not mean $500 or Section 8.

The East Bricktown project will be just as high-quality as the Edge or countless other successful downtown projects. And if the Edge is not a good deal, you don't have to worry about us raising a stink, because we will.

But, since you're so enraged about the "this high price lease crap people keep trying to push isn't flying," I thought I'd offer you some inspiration:

x4o-TeMHys0
You can just pretend he's saying the LEASE is too damn high, if you're still confused.

You can just pretend he's saying the LEASE is too damn high, if you're still confused.

Once again, the rent can be too high and the lease too long, but the lease can't be too high just like the rent can't be too long.

Once again, the rent can be too high and the lease too long, but the lease can't be too high just like the rent can't be too long.

So what, you're saying that lease and for-rent aren't separate concepts, separate markets? Now that just crazy talk.

No, I am saying the rent is the amount of money you pay each month, the lease specifies how much the rent is and how many months you have to pay it.

Here is a short explanation I found if there is any confusion still. (sometimes I am amazed at what becomes contentious conversation on this site...lots of silly preening)

What's the difference between a rental agreement and a lease?

The biggest difference is the period of occupancy. A written rental agreement provides for a tenancy of a short period (often 30 days). The tenancy is automatically renewed at the end of this period unless the tenant or landlord ends it by giving written notice, typically 60 days. For these month-to-month rentals, the landlord can change the terms of the agreement with proper written notice, subject to any rent control laws. This notice is usually 60 days, but can be shorter in some states if the rent is paid weekly or bi-weekly, or if the landlord and tenant agree.

A written lease, on the other hand, gives a tenant the right to occupy a rental unit for a set term -- most often for six months or a year but sometimes longer -- if the tenant pays the rent and complies with other lease provisions. Unlike a rental agreement, when a lease expires it does not usually automatically renew itself. A tenant who stays on with the landlord's consent will generally be considered a month-to-month tenant, subject to the rental terms (such as a no pets clause) that were in the lease.

In addition, with a fixed-term lease, the landlord cannot raise the rent or change other terms of the tenancy during the lease, unless the changes are specifically provided for in the lease, or the tenant agrees.

This is sad that we are going through these terms.

this is sad that we are going through these terms.

amen

The problem seems to derive from the belief that a 'lease' is a purchase, which 99.9% know it is not.

The problem seems to derive from the belief that a 'lease' is a purchase, which 99.9% know it is not.

Now hold on for just a cotton picking minute Kerry! A purchase, as we all know, is a financial transaction upon receipt of goods. Now I knooow you don't mean to imply that a lease is not a purchase of occupancy inside a living unit for however long, because that would be...

you are going to confuse bomber.

OMFG - i never said it was going to be section 8, it was speculation and a desire for it to NOT be. But the price range is the issue. I also didn't say there weren't $700 units downtown. What I said was, that i think that price range would be better for these units.

Anyway.....

Yup. Just as I predicted. It will start as LEVEL finishes, maximizing noise and mess. Oh well. I just hope the tenants don't litter like those at Deep Deuce. Our walks are basically litter removal.

Yup. Just as I predicted. It will start as LEVEL finishes, maximizing noise and mess. Oh well. I just hope the tenants don't litter like those at Deep Deuce. Our walks are basically litter removal.

I have an idea. Let's just put a ban on all new housing projects and keep the riff raff making under $200,000/year out of downtown. And put up an electronic gate at the highway exits into downtown that lock up after 8 and require a high-tech electronic access card to get in. That will keep the riff raff out.

And getting the area expunged of filthy middle income inhabitants and traffic will surely cut down on litter. Ghost towns are normally renown for being immaculate.

Yup. Just as I predicted. It will start as LEVEL finishes, maximizing noise and mess. Oh well. I just hope the tenants don't litter like those at Deep Deuce. Our walks are basically litter removal.

Betts - I hadn't really thought about this or noticed this when I am down there (which is funny because I deal with this stuff all day long), but are there trash cans in Deep Deuce? If the area was smart, they would put some in if they aren't already there.

Betts - I hadn't really thought about this or noticed this when I am down there (which is funny because I deal with this stuff all day long), but are there trash cans in Deep Deuce? If the area was smart, they would put some in if they aren't already there.

No, but that would be great. What we do is carry the trash until we come to one of the apartment dumpsters and get rid of it there. Trouble is, some of the apartment dwellers don't bother to do the same. It might be neater if there were a simple way to get rid of trash, although clearly some people just drop trash as they're walking in from their cars. We've got a fair amount around our house now, but it's primarily because of construction traffic. I've noticed that people who own their own homes are less likely to drop trash on the ground outside their dwelling.

I have an idea. Let's just put a ban on all new housing projects and keep the riff raff making under $200,000/year out of downtown. And put up an electronic gate at the highway exits into downtown that lock up after 8 and require a high-tech electronic access card to get in. That will keep the riff raff out.

And getting the area expunged of filthy middle income inhabitants and traffic will surely cut down on litter. Ghost towns are normally renown for being immaculate.

A little histrionic aren't we? I have a better idea. Let's somehow figure out how to raise the consciousness of more people who are renting so that they take care of their own trash. It does take work to carry trash in from one's car to one's home, but if you care about your surroundings, you'll do it. Obviously a lot of people don't litter regardless of whether they rent or own, but the litter increases by about a power of ten when people don't take ownership of their surroundings, renters or owners. I could care less what the average income of my neighbors is, but I do like my neighborhood to be free of litter. Which is why, if you see me walking around my neighborhood, you'll probably see my arms full of other people's trash. It would be nice to take a simple walk and not have to look at garbage, dropped socks, etc.

I have an idea. Let's just put a ban on all new housing projects and keep the riff raff making under $200,000/year out of downtown. And put up an electronic gate at the highway exits into downtown that lock up after 8 and require a high-tech electronic access card to get in. That will keep the riff raff out.

And getting the area expunged of filthy middle income inhabitants and traffic will surely cut down on litter. Ghost towns are normally renown for being immaculate.

Why do you so easily excuse boorish behavior. Bad behavior is not a class issue. It doesn't take money to act like responsible adult citizens. Courtesy is free.

What an uncalled for cheap shot! Don't let facts stand in the way of your rant - what Betts says is true and has been magnified by the workers at Level Urban. I come home every night to piles of constrction materials, lunch leftovers etc..
I have an idea. Let's just put a ban on all new housing projects and keep the riff raff making under $200,000/year out of downtown. And put up an electronic gate at the highway exits into downtown that lock up after 8 and require a high-tech electronic access card to get in. That will keep the riff raff out.

And getting the area expunged of filthy middle income inhabitants and traffic will surely cut down on litter. Ghost towns are normally renown for being immaculate.

AAARGGH!!!

I just wrote a long, well thought-out, reasoned response..and my computer froze up. And then OKC Talk logged me out on my studio computer, so this is the 3rd time I've tried making this post.

Basically...

You're right it's the construction workers. I admit I personally know some airhead former sorority girls in the Deep Deuce Apartments who definitely view proper garbage disposal as beneath their glamorous selves, but I don't doubt for a second that the real culprit is the construction workers, not other nearby residents. I see this with construction in nice nice neighborhoods everywhere. The contractors and construction workers who drive these big ghastly pickup trucks and feel entitled to park them with carte blanche, throw their cig butts and McD's wrappers everywhere, smoke up and down the sidewalk, and I could go on...

My apartment in Calgary is next to this apartment highrise project that just broke ground and I have been going through many of these same headaches, and I remember this is exactly how it always was with construction workers on the OU campus also. Not to stereotype, and I know many of them are wonderful, great people who aren't this way, but it seems like a lot of them (when they're working on projects where they are not exactly the uh intended target demographic) have absolute and utter disdain for their surroundings and see matters of simply being sensitive to people LIVING nearby as "bending over backwards" for people they have little in common, to put it nicely (this was a response I once got after confronting a group of 4 that were all smoking outside my neighborhood deli).

That's just the way of the world. And it's only getting worse, as we're becoming more culturally and socially divisive, and especially as contractors are in the drivers seat when it comes to project bidding. I'm sure Mr. McKown is none too pleased about this situation himself, and even more so Mr. Bradshaw whom already has homeowners living in the neighborhood and just a few more units remaining for-sale.

Why do you so easily excuse boorish behavior. Bad behavior is not a class issue. It doesn't take money to act like responsible adult citizens. Courtesy is free.

I don't excuse boorish behavior. Most on here even say that I go too far in villifying it. The problem is I'm exasperated and at my wit's end, as you guys know, on the activism side of things we've had some pretty demoralizing defeats in the last 5 years. At the very least, my friends always know that when they go to a Thunder game or elsewhere downtown with me that they won't be getting away with littering or anything other than being model citizens and stewards of the environment. I think you guys know that of me.

It's a shame that our community absolutely does not value cleanliness, sustainability, environmental friendliness, community appearance, etc. At this point, what can we do? (This is me throwing my arms up about to give up.) I admire the tenacity on this effort of betts and others, and I already sent her an email saying that I was wrong to jump onto her, but I just sensed an attack on the "affordable" housing developments (key: $700-1200/mo), which I still maintain is the key to growing the downtown economy. That was just an issue based on context of other debates that have been popping up in lots of threads lately. To be honest, it IS an absolute godsend to have homeowners that look after this neighborhood, and it's just unfortunate that there aren't yet enough community residents or an organized effort to combat this very negative, insidious construction impact.

I attended a local sustainability conference in Fernandina Beach last night and one of the big issues was litter. I guess it is a problem everywhere. There were a couple of possible solutions. 1) More trash cans, 2) install plastic bag dispenser where people can recycle plastic bags at one end and obtain a handy trash bag at the other end.

Like this, but on a pole.

http://blog.thestowcompany.com/Portals/53726/images/bagholder.jpg

Construction workers are part of the problem, but actually most of them put their trash in the bins around our house. I know, because the bins are always full of fast food bags. More trash cans is the best solution. Urban Neighbors would seem like a likely place to start raising consciousness, but I suspect the people who bother to join Urban Neighbors aren't the ones littering. I'm not sure how one would go about getting more trash cans in the Deep Deuce area, because I believe the owners of the development are not local. Perhaps I will stop in the rental office and chat with them, but I really don't expect to get very far. Maywood has lots of trash receptables - your TIF dollars at work!

Construction workers are part of the problem, but actually most of them put their trash in the bins around our house. I know, because the bins are always full of fast food bags. More trash cans is the best solution. Urban Neighbors would seem like a likely place to start raising consciousness, but I suspect the people who bother to join Urban Neighbors aren't the ones littering. I'm not sure how one would go about getting more trash cans in the Deep Deuce area, because I believe the owners of the development are not local. Perhaps I will stop in the rental office and chat with them, but I really don't expect to get very far. Maywood has lots of trash receptables - your TIF dollars at work!
Yeah, but Urban Neighbors seems to be much more interested in socials and putting things on their resume rather than doing regular community works projects, even though the money is there. That's why I left the organization a year or so ago. I'd rather see a new DT group focused on actually doing civic projects. The only reason the bike racks got done is because it was a pet project of a former board member who dedicated countless hours to it.

Isn't there the possibility of some downtown group or organization (Kiwanis, Lions, church group) taking on Deep Deuce as a project for trash pick up? I'm thinking about something similar to the signs you see along some roads or highways touting an organization doing a similar project in that area.

I'll be honest, I just haven't noticed the level of litter in DD that I guess must exist. But I'm also one who's very easily mesmerized by specific things like architecture and viewsheds, skyline vantage points, etc. (It also probably makes me an annoying driver to be behind in downtown)

It's an issue in every setting, not just restricted to urban areas although the more density, the more trash. We have some sort of trash every morning on the "porch" of our office building in LoDo, it was real bad during the St. Patrick's Day parties but the bars to either side of us tried to keep up with it as best they could. The parking lot always has trash in it every morning, it amazes me that people just can't make the effort to throw something away, even when an available (semi-empty) trash can is nearby, sometimes mere feet away from the litter.

Yeah, but Urban Neighbors seems to be much more interested in socials and putting things on their resume rather than doing regular community works projects, even though the money is there. That's why I left the organization a year or so ago. I'd rather see a new DT group focused on actually doing civic projects. The only reason the bike racks got done is because it was a pet project of a former board member who dedicated countless hours to it.

or because you moved out of downtown ...

Yeah, but Urban Neighbors seems to be much more interested in socials and putting things on their resume rather than doing regular community works projects, even though the money is there. That's why I left the organization a year or so ago. I'd rather see a new DT group focused on actually doing civic projects. The only reason the bike racks got done is because it was a pet project of a former board member who dedicated countless hours to it.

The Better Block initiative is the definition of pro-active:

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=28844

My suburban neighborhood is free of trash. It's because no one is on the street walking. The trash is in their garage or their car.

It's one of the side effects of having people walking, they drop stuff, accidental or not. Maybe it was windy and that Hershey's bar wrapper blew out of their hands. Maybe they were lazy, we'll never know. I'll take some trash on the ground if it meant I could walk more than I drive.

My suburban neighborhood is free of trash. It's because no one is on the street walking. The trash is in their garage or their car.

It's one of the side effects of having people walking, they drop stuff, accidental or not. Maybe it was windy and that Hershey's bar wrapper blew out of their hands. Maybe they were lazy, we'll never know. I'll take some trash on the ground if it meant I could walk more than I drive.

While my subdivision is relatively free from trash, the road right outside my subdivision is covered in trash. The suburban freeway near my subdivision is a litter mecca.

Here is the difference though - downtown people are walking so you can see every individual item of trash. In a car you are doing 30mph to 75mph and are looking 100' down the road. Get out and walk around your neighborhood and I'll bet there is more trash than you expect. Go to the entrance of your subdivision and see how much trash is there (usually cigarette butts by the thousands).

Most of the trash around here is clearly dropped between car and house. Most people in the neighborhood park on the street, and from the location you can see that the trash is likely dropped as they get out of their car. Or, they're getting into their car and decide to do a little housekeeping. I'm trying to decide if it's because they never had to pick up after themselves as kids - things dropped in the house magically disappeared - or what. And of course, by making my walks trash pickup events, I'm probably making the same thing happen - trash magically disappears when you drop it.

Pile it up on their front porch?

What is the average wind speed in Deep Deuce? While riding my bike today I notice several piece of trash just 'blowing' down the road. They keep going until they hit something or the wind stops carrying it.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I suspect a lot of the litter in Deep Deuce never originated in DD. I suspect a lot of it is coming over the interstate nearby.

It seems some low obsticles could be used to catch blowing trash. These obsticles could be be a low chain-link fence or hedge rows. They don't need to be continuous so as to prevent pedestrian movement but a staggered set of them could trap a lot of trash and make clean-up a lot easier.

My point is that we could build the most beautiful building in the world, and someone would still complain about it.
And that someone is usually Spartan!

"Most beautiful building in the world" is subjective. I have a feeling you probably think that is anything along Memorial Road, anyway.

Spartan, your tag line is all wrong. You are ALWAYS enthusiastic ... about sniping and criticising!

"Most beautiful building in the world" is subjective. I have a feeling you probably think that is anything along Memorial Road, anyway.

My father-in-law one time made the statement "They built a beautiful new Target" when describing a new suburban shopping center in his hometown. I guess having a sign where all the letters were lit up qualified as 'beautiful'.

I'm sure you immediately derided him into submission stating all the facts about how suburban living is the DEVIL and will kill us all.

I'm sure you immediately derided him into submission stating all the facts about how suburban living is the DEVIL and will kill us all.

No - I just chalked it up to him not knowing anything about what makes good urban design.

No - I just chalked it up to him not knowing anything about what makes good urban design.

Thank the Lord we have you elite sophists to save us poor slobs from ourselves.

Thank the Lord we have you elite sophists to save us poor slobs from ourselves.

Me too. I wish we had come along sooner before we had to create improvement districts for I-240 and Meridian and spend billion fixing downtown which was working just fine before urban sprawl happened. Surely you aren't trying to argue that suburban design and sprawl is the best model for growth. Don't you find it sad and stupid that we have to spend so much money rebuilding stuff that was already built once?

As for elitist - I'll leave that to the people who support segregated zoning.