I don't know why you think I am not in support of urbanism. Yes it'd be urban, but if you have a 3 story house. And you are paying extremely good money, as these cost. A view of the back of an apartment complex (literally feet away) or the view of an alley. Those two views are non starters for the price point. But what do I know?

Then the price point needs to decrease.

Well maybe we should consult Rogers Marvel Architects on what to do to get these apartments a view that is required for urban living...

Well maybe we should consult Rogers Marvel Architects on what to do to get these apartments a view that is required for urban living...

In reality... If all the land in the downtown area is taken. You must build on less desirable lots if you want to keep developing. But not all of our land is taken, far from it actually. If you have a lot of money to spend on a house. Where you can get street frontage and a good view for the same price as an alley view that is not directly connected to the sidewalk. Which one would you buy, Spartan?

I don't think the view is as essential as you're making it out to be. If it is, then fine - these lots don't develop for a while.

But here are some photos I took in Amsterdam once. I don't know why you don't think this wouldn't sell in a prosperous American downtown:

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/230992_10150298231497656_459273_n.jpg
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/247397_10150298238372656_1760350_n.jpg

While the Brownstones definitely look Dutch (brownstones by nature are either an Amsterdam or New Amsterdam "thing"), the alley we're talking about in Deep Deuce is actually much wider than the one above...which I guarantee you the equivalent square footage there would be at least $3M.

Otherwise don't call them the Brownstones. Call them the Tall Narrowish Estates at Maywood Park or something else ridiculous, maybe even get a "Morning Woods" or "Weeping Willows" joke in there too..and a gate

It may not be a HUGE deal but it definitely will be a factor as long as we have vacant parcels in the downtown area. And the Core to Shore area is about to bring a lot of them into the picture.

But which would you buy? I still like having questions answered.

Which would I buy - I would buy the Brownstone that is in a beautiful, quaint, albeit cramped space, over a unit in C2S with a view because it is surrounded by nothing. I couldn't even believe that was posed as a real question.

I think the open range form is not what people are looking for in urban living. More than just an unobstructed view, I think people are looking for something that feels "complete." Arguing against completeness because it obstructs the view is very anti-urban. I bet there are a lot of folks who won't pay the downtown premiums on space just because the product is a facade, however they would purchase a unit were it authentically urban.

Which would I buy - I would buy the Brownstone that is in a beautiful, quaint, albeit cramped space, over a unit in C2S with a view because it is surrounded by nothing. I couldn't even believe that was posed as a real question.

I think the open range form is not what people are looking for in urban living. More than just an unobstructed view, I think people are looking for something that feels "complete." Arguing against completeness because it obstructs the view is very anti-urban. I bet there are a lot of folks who won't pay the downtown premiums on space just because the product is a facade, however they would purchase a unit were it authentically urban.

Nowhere did I say open range view. You are grasping at straws. I said a view of an alley won't be a selling point. A view of the street would be preferred by many not only for aesthetics but also for access issues and sense of safety concerns.

Don't put words in my mouth. My point is this: As long as there are more desirable open lots to develop that have street frontage, the more an alley view becomes a negative. Not saying it can't or won't sell, but it will definitely make it more difficult to sell at this point in time. If you think people would pick alley view over street frontage for the same price point and comparable construction, is hard to believe.

You're talking about the kind of living space that doesn't even exist at all anywhere in Oklahoma. I'm sorry, but where's your expertise in urban development from? Wheres your market analysis homework?

I was not aware those were prerequisites to participate in this forum. Excuse me, wise one.

Well its just absurd for you to categorically bemoan development of what could be a very, very unique "alley" as you call it

Well perhaps a fair solution is to have all posts run by a board of enlightened members such as yourself to make sure all analysis studies have been thoroughly reviewed by the poster. I apologize if I have offended you in any way because I do not hold the qualifications required to express my opinion.

It's not that, this is just like fighting with people who said downtown will never ever ever have the density for streetcar circa 2006.. See the bigger picture goddam

Don't curse at me.

$;(\% you little >~£{%#? person...

Just kidding. Cheers

$;(\% you little >~£{%#? person...

Just kidding. Cheers

Yes these lots will be developed and yes they will sell. That's not my argument.
These lots would not be considered prime, but secondary. This is a lot like the middle seat on an airplane. People do not book the middle seat when other options at the same price point are available. Window and aisle seats sell first. And once those sell the middle seats start to sell. They still sell though.

So moving that argument to this topic. These lots do not have direct sidewalk access (aisle seat) or a good view of the street (window seat). We still have plenty of supply of window and aisle seats so it will be hard to get a market premium from the middle seats.

That is my argument. Yes i do want these lots developed and yes I do think they will be developed and yes I do think they will sell. Just too soon IMO to capture a market premium off of them at this point in time. In the future when Deep Deuce and AA really start to mesh these will be fantastic lots.

I hope that makes sense. I waited until today to reply so we could both cool off a little bit and perhaps explain our perspectives a little better.

I had to go back and read 4 pages of material but I think I got it now. At the density DD is building at it makes Deep Deuce Urban Apartments seem like a waste of space. Funny how running out of space but still having demand create more density. At the suburban fringe we would just push everything out another mile creating the same number of housing units but at 100X the cost to taxpayers. This is a nice change.

I had to go back and read 4 pages of material but I think I got it now. At the density DD is building at it makes Deep Deuce Urban Apartments seem like a waste of space. Funny how running out of space but still having demand create more density. At the suburban fringe we would just push everything out another mile creating the same number of housing units but at 100X the cost to taxpayers. This is a nice change.



Funny you mention that, my wife and I were discussing the other day that with the apparent lack of maintenance on the DD apartments, they may not last another 10 years. Almost all the south and west facing windows are occluded and need replacement, exterior paint is in bad shape, exterior light fixtures are in disrepair and it would be great to get rid of the unsightly surface parking with multiple gates that don’t appear to work as designed. That said, they have been replacing some roofs recently.

And before someone calls me out… I did defend the parking lot for the Law Firm redoing the Baptist Church. I am willing to overlook one lot if it means saving an iconic structure. Huge difference in my opinion, when compared to the sprawling lots of DD. I didn’t at first understand what a tremendous difference in construction costs central parking adds to these projects! Having a bird’s eye view to watch the construction of Level, was quite an eye opener (bad pun intended). The scope, and I’m sure related costs, of building the parking lot was many times greater than I had imagined. Watching yard after yard of concrete being poured, day after day, the miles of rebar and cabling, concrete pumps that seem to defy the laws of physics, large labor force imported from Texas…

It is a common theme on this site that living space is overpriced in DD, just imagine the excavation and removal costs that the Lofts and Maywood Park Apartments suffered to provide parking! Level and Aloft are out the same construction costs, but didn’t have to excavate. Thank goodness the cost of land has risen to the point that another urban style complex like DD apts will never be built in this area again.

Anyone else out there think that apartments downtown should not be so bland, boring and suburban? Downtown should look and feel like the capital city of our state. I'm looking at some apartments on this New York Architecture website. This is more like the kind of place I would enjoy living.

New York Architecture Images- (http://www.nyc-architecture.com/STYLES/STY-Italianate.htm)

Anyone else out there think that apartments downtown should not be so bland, boring and suburban? Downtown should look and feel like the capital city of our state. I'm looking at some apartments on this New York Architecture website. This is more like the kind of place I would enjoy living.

New York Architecture Images- (http://www.nyc-architecture.com/STYLES/STY-Italianate.htm)

Apple to Oranges...what's NYC's new construction look like?

Sorry, but when I think of big city living, I think of buildings that look like the one Neo is all jumping around and through in the first Matrix. I don't know why ya'll be going for extravaganza mania...

Anyone else out there think that apartments downtown should not be so bland, boring and suburban? Downtown should look and feel like the capital city of our state. I'm looking at some apartments on this New York Architecture website. This is more like the kind of place I would enjoy living.

New York Architecture Images- (http://www.nyc-architecture.com/STYLES/STY-Italianate.htm)

Those look expensive to build. The only way we get construction like that is if downtown living becomes so desirable that the wealthy want to live downtown, I fear.

Those look expensive to build. The only way we get construction like that is if downtown living becomes so desirable that the wealthy want to live downtown, I fear.

The last condo project I worked on in NYC was 8 stories in Chelsea. The cheapest unit was $1.5 million and top floor almost $4 million. It's was sold out months before completion....in the recession.

The last condo project I worked on in NYC was 8 stories in Chelsea. The cheapest unit was $1.5 million and top floor almost $4 million. It's was sold out months before completion....in the recession.

And in Manhattan, the wealthy want to live downtown. When that happens here, we will get more quality construction downtown, with more of the architectural features UnFrSaKn is talking about. I'm pretty happy with my brownstone though.

How about we have mixed quality...OKC is not high society...

How about we have mixed quality...OKC is not high society...

I think that's what UnFrSkN was hoping for. Right now we mostly have quality on the lower end of the spectrum in downtown housing. It doesn't hurt to have some high end stuff. Again, I'm pretty happy with my brownstone, but there's certainly nothing in the apartment or rental categories that fits that description.

Anyone else out there think that apartments downtown should not be so bland, boring and suburban? Downtown should look and feel like the capital city of our state. I'm looking at some apartments on this New York Architecture website. This is more like the kind of place I would enjoy living.

New York Architecture Images- (http://www.nyc-architecture.com/STYLES/STY-Italianate.htm)

We had buildings like that but we tore most of them down. However, the ones we do have left are being converted to housing - and they don't cost near what New Yorkers are paying.

http://0.tqn.com/d/okc/1/0/L/H/Seiber2.jpg

http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/display/7d53c3f2-ca30-456d-a5b4-c8cf855b4a68.JPG

How about we have mixed quality...OKC is not high society...

The high costs in NYC aren't "high society". It is simply supply and demand. Location drives up the prices considerably. One of the prices to pay for high density living (not counting the slums/projects) is generally higher prices for real estate in those areas. What some consider to be "high society" here is normal and commonplace in many other places. We are blessed with low cost of living for many years, but also low average incomes.

How about we have mixed quality...OKC is not high society...

The problem with this logic is people who want to live downtown likely work downtown or in the OUHSC. These areas are home to 2 of the biggest concentration of high paying jobs in the state. It's not a big deal for a DINK couple working at Presbyterian making $100K or a young professional at Devon pulling $70K to plop down $1,500/month for rent or 250K+ for a condo. Provided, of course, its a quality home.

There is no shortage of affordable housing just on the outskirts of downtown.

The problem with this logic is people who want to live downtown likely work downtown or in the OUHSC. These areas are home to 2 of the biggest concentration of high paying jobs in the state. It's not a big deal for a DINK couple working at Presbyterian making $100K or a young professional at Devon pulling $70K to plop down $1,500/month for rent or 250K+ for a condo. Provided, of course, its a quality home.

There is no shortage of affordable housing just on the outskirts of downtown.

Thank you for summarizing what I already know. Now how about affordable housing downtown that is available for people that want to live downtown that don't work downtown? Sorry I didn't clarify the first time around.

Thank you for summarizing what I already know. Now how about affordable housing downtown that is available for people that want to live downtown that don't work downtown? Sorry I didn't clarify the first time around.

It seems to me that there is already pretty affordable housing downtown for renters. Affordable for sale housing will be available downtown when it is profitable for a developer to create it. In most cities that's not happening.

No...the reason it will never happen is class issues. You very well couldnt be neighbors with someone that only pulls in $30,000.

No...the reason it will never happen is class issues. You very well couldnt be neighbors with someone that only pulls in $30,000.

So, you want to be in a prime desirable location but not pay for it? And this is somehow a class issue? Is it that people are entitled to the best without paying for it?

This isn't a class issue. The issue is that as these areas are more and more desirable the prices will increase with the demand. It is purely economics, not social discrimination. If you want true urban density then you must be willing to pay for it. If you want cheap then dense urban is not what you want. In places like NYC multiple individuals share small apartments to be close in...OR they commute from one of the less desirable areas like Brooklyn, Queens, etc. It has been easy for some on here to take shots at Okies for not walking...well we can take a shot at Okies for just not wanting to do what others do in other cities when they want the better locations and properties. Go find a roommate and pay the rates or don't complain when someone else does. Building cheap, cheap housing that will become dilapidated in 20 years isn't the answer.

There will always be financial inequality and those that have money will always be able to out-bid those without. That is far different than social discrimination.

My whole point was that I think downtown should look and feel different than anywhere else. I want to see something above the norm when I'm downtown. It will likely cost more if that ever happens. I myself couldn't afford to live in the most expensive apartments. I'm just saying from someone who walks down the street and sees it, I want downtown to be the classiest destination and be able to experience things without having to drive to Dallas or Tulsa.

So, you want to be in a prime desirable location but not pay for it? And this is somehow a class issue? Is it that people are entitled to the best without paying for it?

This isn't a class issue. The issue is that as these areas are more and more desirable the prices will increase with the demand. It is purely economics, not social discrimination. If you want true urban density then you must be willing to pay for it. If you want cheap then dense urban is not what you want. In places like NYC multiple individuals share small apartments to be close in...OR they commute from one of the less desirable areas like Brooklyn, Queens, etc. It has been easy for some on here to take shots at Okies for not walking...well we can take a shot at Okies for just not wanting to do what others do in other cities when they want the better locations and properties. Go find a roommate and pay the rates or don't complain when someone else does. Building cheap, cheap housing that will become dilapidated in 20 years isn't the answer.

There will always be financial inequality and those that have money will always be able to out-bid those without. That is far different than social discrimination.

How is what I typed complaining???! Screw you Rover, it's called an observation.

Obviously it's called get into a relationship where more than one person is in the partnership...be it a friend or a lover OR go out there and make more money. I'm not a tard ya donkey. And as far as economics goes, I seem to remember that when more is being produced and the demand is higher prices go down. I don't recall HDTVs becoming more expensive since the technology has become more and more available.

I choose my life and my life is my concern.

Ugh...

Ugh...

lol, Spartan.

Don't get me wrong, I love my $500 rent. Does it lead to the most desirable area? No, of course not. If I could live without a car and without the costs that come along with it, then I could make that adjustment and move closer to downtown. Problem is, downtown doesn't have a lot of variety jobs. You either gotta work in oil, biotech, or medical. Not all of us have degrees. Not all of us choose to go that direction in life. So I guess we're banned from downtown living unless we win the lottery, lol. Oh well, I'll still roll through yo hood in my car and take pics of your neighborhoods :-)

Not everyone working in Devon's tower has a college degree. In fact, I'll bet a significant number of downtown employees don't. If you go on some of the company websites you might be surprised what is available.

You're right. You probably don't have to have a degree to wheel a janitorial cart around. But those non degree positions probably can't afford to live downtown. I bet they drive from at least 4 miles away.

You're right. You probably don't have to have a degree to wheel a janitorial cart around. But those non degree positions probably can't afford to live downtown. I bet they drive from at least 4 miles away.

Like I said, you would be surprised. Devon has an opening for a Security Officer right now and it only requires a high school diploma. I think it would pay $30,000 or more. I'm not sure you could get someone to take a bullet for less than that. :)

And do you think a college degree is managing the janitor push cart guy?

How is what I typed complaining???! Screw you Rover, it's called an observation.

Obviously it's called get into a relationship where more than one person is in the partnership...be it a friend or a lover OR go out there and make more money. I'm not a tard ya donkey. And as far as economics goes, I seem to remember that when more is being produced and the demand is higher prices go down. I don't recall HDTVs becoming more expensive since the technology has become more and more available.

I choose my life and my life is my concern.

Just don't play the class discrimination card..

And you can't compare tv sets to real estate. That's nonsensical.

Yes sir drill sergeant sir!

I've forgotten my lessons on Economics and micro economics since college at oSu back in 98 & 99 :-(

I'm not even sure how this discussion got here. I am confuzzled.

Downtown will eventually have a mix of different price points. When I last looked, even the Deep Deuce Apts were fairly pricey. I could get a much nicer place in the suburbs for cheaper. At this point in time that's what I chose to do. When I eventually buy a house, however, I'm going to try to get one in a more historic area closer to downtown rather than buying something in Yukon. I think the reinvestment we're seeing in downtown will cause those property values to go up and up. So it's worth it to me to buy something more expensive with the promise of higher property values in the future. It is not worth it to me to get a half-assed urban experience (as exists now) and pay twice as much for it. Eventually, when the streetcar goes in and after we've had another 10 years of development in Deep Deuce and Midtown, maybe it would be worth it. Right now it's not to me.

Most every place downtown where you can live is either brand new construction or an old building recently converted to housing. As people have said, in another 10 to 15 years, Deep Deuce Apartments are going to be kind of run down. Once that takes place, one of three things will happen. 1) You've got your lower rent apartments. 2) Someone converts them into for sale housing. 3) Someone buys them one building at a time, tears them down, and puts a higher density structure in their place.

No...the reason it will never happen is class issues. You very well couldnt be neighbors with someone that only pulls in $30,000. Are you referring to 30,000 a year millionares? LOL. We have plenty of those types in Dallas.

I work downtown with serveral people without a college education in my office.

I really didn't know where to put this article, but here it is.

From Steve Lackmeyer: Bricktown's skyline is about to dramatically change | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/bricktowns-skyline-is-about-to-dramatically-change/article/3743080)

Wooooow. So if we stopped sprawl, think how much the world would be better off? That's why Europe has so many financial problems and poverty issues. That's why insanely dense cities in Asia are 3rd world societies engulfed in pollution. That's why cities in central america and South America that are also very dense and urban are filled with crime and poverty.

First off, sprawl can happen in more than one way, and it didn't start necessarily with the Greatest Generation (See Louisiana Purchase and the flight out West), they just brought it down to a daily level, which has only compounded the problem: Sprawl is an inefficient use of resources. Furthermore, we're not talking about the problems that pertain to the world, we're talking about the problems that pertain to us, one of the richest countries in the history of the world. We shouldn't be having problems at all, all things considered.




Real estate volatility: this can happen in any market, urban or suburban. This has nothing to do with sprawl. It has to do with overbuilding, which can happen with sprawl, but sprawl isn't the reason for over building. Look what happened with all of the condos in Miami in 2008. A lot of that was downtown and in urban areas, not suburban sprawl.

In the US, it had to do with red-lining, racism, discomfort with class disparity; today it has to do with the left over systemic effects of those issues and others. Things were so easily overbuilt in an environment where there was not much to begin with because 1. It was made artificially cheap to do so 2. Because the American Dream preached a doctrine of lavish living 3. Because an underprivileged class of people were perceived as a threat to entire communities and those communities were far too quickly abandoned by those who created them (and they subsequently left and used more resources to create new and unnecessary homes for themselves only to turn around and do it again 15 years later) 4. The advent of the 30 year mortgage…There are still countries in other parts of the world that don't do mortgages.


Oil wars: so you're saying because people want to drive and live in suburban areas, that oil, used for many things other than just gasoline, that sprawl drives oil wars? So just for sh!ts and gigs, if there were no sprawl in the US, there wouldn't be war in the middle east? That is hilarious.

Absolutely there would be wars in the Middle East…but do you think we would really care? Consider how active we are militarily in the rest of the world for humanitarian reasons compared to the Middle East. If we were in the Middle East for "humanitarian reasons" we'd be spending half our resources in Africa and plenty in South America and Asia as well. We're clearly involved militarily to the extent we are in the M.E. because we need stability and influence in the oil market.


Irresponsible personal spending: seriously? What bullsh!t. That happens anywhere. Not just in the suburbs. You're saying it contributed to it, well of course it did. There will always be people out there, whether living in a loft in downtown Manhattan or in the endless sprawl of Las Vegas that will spend spend spend, incurring debt that won't be able to be paid off. The only reason sprawl contributes to it is simply because it exists, not because of what it is. The same thing is said for an urban area, an urban area contributes to irresponsible spending, but not because of what it is, simply because it has people living in it.

Car culture: now you're just throwing things in your list to make it longer and look better. This is crazy. What exactly is 'car culture?' Something that doesn't require having to rely on a freaking bus all of your life? Something where you can just jump in and literally go anywhere you want? I guess for some that isn't freedom. Freedom is relying on 20 methods of transportation, street car, bus network, light-rail, buses, renting a car to travel across country, crappy rail methods like the Tulsa-OKC line, etc... If having to wait on all of those the majority of which is on a fixed line and you can't go off of that, and not to mention it all costs money to use, is your idea of freedom vs. a car than that boggles my mind. I still can't believe you would classify car culture as a problem that is associated with sprawl. If someone moves out into Edmond, they're not going to be worried about mass transit.

Car-culture and irresponsible spending is purchasing a brand-new car, losing 15% of the value as soon as you leave the dealership, selling it back to that dealer 3 to 5 years later and buying the latest model and once again losing a notable % of your resources. Cars are really really expensive and the average American spends a ton of money to do so (many because they have to based on the lifestyle that the system has determined they will have to live). Further irresponsible spending is to buy a home for $100k, sell it 5 years later for $115k and move into a new 30-year note for a house that cost you $125k. This likely would be done because a school district starts to go downhill because due to the aforementioned reasons.


Opportunity costs of suburban lifestyle: yeah, explain to me exactly what that is. I guarantee you each and every thing you will list happens to people in urban lifestyles as well.

Those opportunity costs would be: Time and resources spent driving/maintaining vehicles which is an obligatory component of suburban living, slow growth of resources because those resources are invested in a home tied to a market value that appreciates slower than inflation, the "spread-thin" nature of resources for our public education system. Speaking of...


Education: Really!? The best education systems you usually get are in suburban sprawl cities. Edmond, Deer Creek. . .ring any bells? Even the schools in inner New York city are horrid and they have drawings of who is able to go to select charter schools. I suppose you're going to blame that on sprawl as well.

You might familiarize yourself with this article to understand the whys: The Case for Reparations - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/)

------------------

We'll start with that.

Double Post

First off, sprawl can happen in more than one way, and it didn't start necessarily with the Greatest Generation (See Louisiana Purchase and the flight out West), they just brought it down to a daily level, which has only compounded the problem: Sprawl is an inefficient use of resources. Furthermore, we're not talking about the problems that pertain to the world, we're talking about the problems that pertain to us, one of the richest countries in the history of the world. We shouldn't be having problems at all, all things considered.Never said it couldn't.

There are a lot of things that are inefficient, but guess what, sometimes wants and desires trump efficiency and we find ways to deal with it. I'm not going to sit here and disagree with you that if every single person lived in 100 story towers downtown we would have nicer roads, schools downtown, street car. . .it would be an urban paradise. What person in their right mind living in OKC would want that? Oh, maybe a good number of folks here, when it comes to the city, I'm venturing to guess it is less than 0.1 percent.

Teo, there will always be problems with something. We are never going to have a perfect society and quite frankly, I'm glad that is.


In the US, it had to do with red-lining, racism, discomfort with class disparity; today it has to do with the left over systemic effects of those issues and others. Things were so easily overbuilt in an environment where there was not much to begin with because 1. It was made artificially cheap to do so 2. Because the American Dream preached a doctrine of lavish living 3. Because an underprivileged class of people were perceived as a threat to entire communities and those communities were far too quickly abandoned by those who created them (and they subsequently left and used more resources to create new and unnecessary homes for themselves only to turn around and do it again 15 years later) 4. The advent of the 30 year mortgage…There are still countries in other parts of the world that don't do mortgages.

White flight caused a lot of sprawl no doubt. Again, I wasn't arguing that. It would have happened anyways. If Henry Ford never started the first mass production line, I'm sure we would have something like it. If Nikola Tesla or Thomas Edison never existed, I'm sure we still have electricity and phones. Sprawl was going to happen. It has happened everywhere.

As far as real estate volatility, my point remains valid: it happens everywhere. Even Iran where they don't give mortgages has had real estate crashes.

This country is a free market society also. That is important to remember. No one is forcing people to live out in the suburbs, they are choosing to. We have every right to have large highways and roads serving us as you want your buses and street cars. If urban living was so great, there would be huge demand to live in them, but there is not. The majority still choose to live in suburbs.


Absolutely there would be wars in the Middle East…but do you think we would really care? Consider how active we are militarily in the rest of the world for humanitarian reasons compared to the Middle East. If we were in the Middle East for "humanitarian reasons" we'd be spending half our resources in Africa and plenty in South America and Asia as well. We're clearly involved militarily to the extent we are in the M.E. because we need stability and influence in the oil market. Well, seeing as how we have gone into 'mini-wars' across the Middle East that we really didn't need to, I'd say yes. There are other options available for collecting oil, so I'm not buying into this conspiracy that 9/11 was made up so we could go to war for oil. I'm also not buying into the notion that sprawl has caused oil wars.


Car-culture and irresponsible spending is purchasing a brand-new car, losing 15% of the value as soon as you leave the dealership, selling it back to that dealer 3 to 5 years later and buying the latest model and once again losing a notable % of your resources. Cars are really really expensive and the average American spends a ton of money to do so (many because they have to based on the lifestyle that the system has determined they will have to live). Further irresponsible spending is to buy a home for $100k, sell it 5 years later for $115k and move into a new 30-year note for a house that cost you $125k. This likely would be done because a school district starts to go downhill because due to the aforementioned reasons.You call that irresponsible spending, that's fine. You can spend your money how you see fit. People are well aware they are not buying cars to make money on. I don't care that I lost money purchasing a brand new car. I was aware I wasn't going to sell it more than I bought it. What a ridiculous argument really. If you live out in the suburbs, you are choosing to pay for these things and they are not bad.

Once again, irresponsible spending can happen anywhere. It will simply exist where there are people, in both urban and suburban environments. As for real estate and housing, virtually everyone I know has made money on their house because property values went up, more than you claimed, and they bought a nicer and bigger house. It's called upgrading. Usually if one buys a new, bigger house, they did so because received a raise or bonus.

I don't even know why we're discussing why what investments are and how they work because that is not the point. The point is, it happens in urban and suburban areas. So far, you have yet to address that.


Those opportunity costs would be: Time and resources spent driving/maintaining vehicles which is an obligatory component of suburban living, slow growth of resources because those resources are invested in a home tied to a market value that appreciates slower than inflation, the "spread-thin" nature of resources for our public education system. Speaking of...That's fine. Those aren't opportunity costs. Hundreds of millions of people who live in suburban areas that become successful didn't loose that because they lived in suburbia. None of those things you listed are opportunity costs, those are things you don't like about suburbia personally and that is why there are urban living options for you.

I don't see how a resource tied into a home that is based on market value would cause slow growth. Every living unit is based on market value. Look at how expensive the New York City housing market is. It's supply and demand. When there is a big demand, prices will go up.

Inflation is, again, something that happens in both urban and suburban areas. The 'thin spread' nature of our schools is no problem for Edmond or Deer Creek.


You might familiarize yourself with this article to understand the whys: The Case for Reparations - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/)
Cool article. There are always going to be doom and gloom articles of will happen if we don't do this and that. I'll let time tell because at this point, people are still choosing to live in suburbia and that isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

This country is a free market society also. That is important to remember. No one is forcing people to live out in the suburbs, they are choosing to. We have every right to have large highways and roads serving us as you want your buses and street cars. If urban living was so great, there would be huge demand to live in them, but there is not. The majority still choose to live in suburbs.

I think you're misguided on this notion because the U.S. real estate and transportation system is very far from a free market. The government (at local, state, and federal levels) dramatically alters the market, which affects the subsequent decisions made by individuals. I'll briefly highlight 5 key ways, and I encourage you to look more into each of them:

1) Mis-taxation of different development modes
Predominantly in the form of ad valorem (property) taxes, they are based solely on the assessed value of the land/structure, depending on the type of structure. They are not based on the actual costs incurred by governments required to maintain the public infrastructure and provide services. Infrastructure such as roads and water lines cost a great deal more in less dense areas; the same can be said for fire and police protection, but it really applies across the board. Governments also limit the ability of regulated industries like electric and cable providers to charge more even though it costs them more to serve sprawled out areas.
I believe it was Chuck Marohn from strongtowns.org who estimated that a typical suburban cul-de-sac repays the city the cost to build it only after 77 years. The rub is that the lifespan of the cul-de-sac street is only about 25 years, meaning the city perpetually loses money maintaining the development. He estimated that it would require an immediate 46% increase in property taxes (with a subsequent 2% increase each year) to pay for the cul-de-sac in its 25 year lifespan. This ignores the rest of the services those property taxes ostensibly are supposed to pay for.
Here is a well-cited illustration of how sprawl development costs twice as much to serve vs traditional development patterns: Sprawl Costs the Public More Than Twice as Much as Compact Development | Streetsblog USA (http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-public-more-than-twice-as-much-as-compact-development/)

2) Parking minimum requirements
As you are most likely well-aware, governments require a minimum number of parking spaces for different types of structures in the vast majority of areas (CBDs and very historic districts being the primary exceptions). This can severely impact the cost of land-restricted (i.e., urban) developments and making it favorable to seek out greenfield developments. This topic is very well trodden, but please read The High Cost of Free Parking if you haven't already done so: http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X

3) Transportation favoring cars over other methods
Almost every level of government in most places in the U.S. favors vehicular road transportation over other methods. This happens even when the total cost of that transportation (public and private spending) exceeds other methods (rail, bus, bike, walk). In many cases, it's a self-reinforcing cycle where zoning and land use codes increase the dependency on cars as the primary (and oftentimes) only viable mode of transportation, regardless of individual preferences. Minimum lane width requirements and artificially low gasoline-taxes contribute to the financially unviability of this policy.
See and example on Texas explicitly favoring road construction and maintenance over mass transit options: Budget limits transportation spending - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/memorial/news/article/Budget-limits-transportation-spending-6012526.php)

4) Single-use zoning regulations
The preferred land-use regulations in the U.S. also skew the market. Single use developments that are partitioned off from one another increase the prevalence of car-dependence and suburban style development, regardless of the wishes of developers or the surrounding community. Additional regulations such as mandated setbacks and height restrictions make it artificially more expensive on land-restricted areas, again regardless of what a free market might actually dictate.
See: Zoning in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning_in_the_United_States)
See also the YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard movement): Permits Filed: 215 Freeman Street, Greenpoint - New York Yimby (http://newyorkyimby.com)

5) Federal housing law
There are two key ways this skews the market: federally-insured mortgages and the mortgage interest tax deduction.
Federally insured mortgages encourages people to purchase larger, and relatively more expensive homes even when the buyers wouldn't be able to secure a loan for the property in a free market
The mortgage interest tax deduction also favors home-ownership and having a mortgage, making it artificially cheaper to afford a house.
See: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412776-How-Would-Reforming-the-Mortgage-Interest-Deduction-Affect-the-Housing-Market.pdf

Now these aren't the only ways governments affect the way we live. There are plenty others like building safety regulations (sprinkler systems, electrical and plumbing codes) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Incentive programs, historic preservation tax credits, and low-income housing all fall under this umbrella as well. I think it's fair to assess all of these as a group and decide which ones really fall under the realm public safety and well-being and which ones are seemingly arbitrary methods for the government to artificially pick winners and losers in the housing and transportation sectors.

Who knows, maybe even after all the unnecessary, artificial government policies are weeded out, a majority people will still choose suburban-style development. I'd be completely fine with that because then they would be paying their fair share for the construction and upkeep of their lifestyles without forcing people who live in denser, more productive regions to subsidize them. I'm sure you would agree with this premise.

Doesn't matter. No one is being forced to live anywhere.

Doesn't matter. No one is being forced to live anywhere.

Yeah, but those of us living urban areas are being forced to subsidize that suburban lifestyle to the detriment of our collective health and the environment.

The majority of what you said is common knowledge and is besides the point. It costs less to serve high density vs. low density. No way! Here's the thing, I don't care. I'll take my suburban yards and sprawled out neighborhoods with green yards and blue skies vs. your concrete jungle.

You want both, we already have it. Stop saying every level of government favors cars over people in every case because it's bs. If it were true, we wouldn't have walkable urban areas.

If you want development like Europe that was heavily developed before the car, you can go live there. Even though parts of the U.S. were developed before the car it wasn't long and America has a car loving culture. That isn't going to change and it doesn't need to.

Diversity is good and I love Europe for what it is, but I don't want to see cities in the US designed anything like cities in Europe.

Yeah, but those of us living urban areas are being forced to subsidize that suburban lifestyle to the detriment of our collective health and the environment.works both ways.

The majority outweigh you. The majority of people in OKC won't use a street car in downtown OKC yet they are paying for it.

For anyone interested. The following link is the latest concept to redevelop 120-160 acres in the heart of San Diego where the existing Qualcomm stadium is and to use the revenue from the development to fund a new stadium. Interesting design ideas and interesting commentary from the locals.

New Chargers stadium site could attract $1.6 billion in land sales, NFL and other sources. | UTSanDiego.com (http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/apr/01/stadium-sherman-development/)

I think you're misguided on this notion because the U.S. real estate and transportation system is very far from a free market. The government (at local, state, and federal levels) dramatically alters the market, which affects the subsequent decisions made by individuals. I'll briefly highlight 5 key ways, and I encourage you to look more into each of them:

1) Mis-taxation of different development modes
Predominantly in the form of ad valorem (property) taxes, they are based solely on the assessed value of the land/structure, depending on the type of structure. They are not based on the actual costs incurred by governments required to maintain the public infrastructure and provide services. Infrastructure such as roads and water lines cost a great deal more in less dense areas; the same can be said for fire and police protection, but it really applies across the board. Governments also limit the ability of regulated industries like electric and cable providers to charge more even though it costs them more to serve sprawled out areas.
I believe it was Chuck Marohn from strongtowns.org who estimated that a typical suburban cul-de-sac repays the city the cost to build it only after 77 years. The rub is that the lifespan of the cul-de-sac street is only about 25 years, meaning the city perpetually loses money maintaining the development. He estimated that it would require an immediate 46% increase in property taxes (with a subsequent 2% increase each year) to pay for the cul-de-sac in its 25 year lifespan. This ignores the rest of the services those property taxes ostensibly are supposed to pay for.
Here is a well-cited illustration of how sprawl development costs twice as much to serve vs traditional development patterns: Sprawl Costs the Public More Than Twice as Much as Compact Development | Streetsblog USA (http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-public-more-than-twice-as-much-as-compact-development/)

2) Parking minimum requirements
As you are most likely well-aware, governments require a minimum number of parking spaces for different types of structures in the vast majority of areas (CBDs and very historic districts being the primary exceptions). This can severely impact the cost of land-restricted (i.e., urban) developments and making it favorable to seek out greenfield developments. This topic is very well trodden, but please read The High Cost of Free Parking if you haven't already done so: The High Cost of Free Parking, Updated Edition: Donald Shoup: 9781932364965: Amazon.com: Books (http://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Free-Parking-Updated/dp/193236496X)

3) Transportation favoring cars over other methods
Almost every level of government in most places in the U.S. favors vehicular road transportation over other methods. This happens even when the total cost of that transportation (public and private spending) exceeds other methods (rail, bus, bike, walk). In many cases, it's a self-reinforcing cycle where zoning and land use codes increase the dependency on cars as the primary (and oftentimes) only viable mode of transportation, regardless of individual preferences. Minimum lane width requirements and artificially low gasoline-taxes contribute to the financially unviability of this policy.
See and example on Texas explicitly favoring road construction and maintenance over mass transit options: Budget limits transportation spending - Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/memorial/news/article/Budget-limits-transportation-spending-6012526.php)

4) Single-use zoning regulations
The preferred land-use regulations in the U.S. also skew the market. Single use developments that are partitioned off from one another increase the prevalence of car-dependence and suburban style development, regardless of the wishes of developers or the surrounding community. Additional regulations such as mandated setbacks and height restrictions make it artificially more expensive on land-restricted areas, again regardless of what a free market might actually dictate.
See: Zoning in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning_in_the_United_States)
See also the YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard movement): Permits Filed: 215 Freeman Street, Greenpoint - New York Yimby (http://newyorkyimby.com)

5) Federal housing law
There are two key ways this skews the market: federally-insured mortgages and the mortgage interest tax deduction.
Federally insured mortgages encourages people to purchase larger, and relatively more expensive homes even when the buyers wouldn't be able to secure a loan for the property in a free market
The mortgage interest tax deduction also favors home-ownership and having a mortgage, making it artificially cheaper to afford a house.
See: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412776-How-Would-Reforming-the-Mortgage-Interest-Deduction-Affect-the-Housing-Market.pdf

Now these aren't the only ways governments affect the way we live. There are plenty others like building safety regulations (sprinkler systems, electrical and plumbing codes) and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Incentive programs, historic preservation tax credits, and low-income housing all fall under this umbrella as well. I think it's fair to assess all of these as a group and decide which ones really fall under the realm public safety and well-being and which ones are seemingly arbitrary methods for the government to artificially pick winners and losers in the housing and transportation sectors.

Who knows, maybe even after all the unnecessary, artificial government policies are weeded out, a majority people will still choose suburban-style development. I'd be completely fine with that because then they would be paying their fair share for the construction and upkeep of their lifestyles without forcing people who live in denser, more productive regions to subsidize them. I'm sure you would agree with this premise.ps, I am going to check out those last two points. I didn't get a chance to check the links as i was at work.

1) Mis-taxation of different development modes
Predominantly in the form of ad valorem (property) taxes, they are based solely on the assessed value of the land/structure, depending on the type of structure. They are not based on the actual costs incurred by governments required to maintain the public infrastructure and provide services. Infrastructure such as roads and water lines cost a great deal more in less dense areas; the same can be said for fire and police protection, but it really applies across the board. Governments also limit the ability of regulated industries like electric and cable providers to charge more even though it costs them more to serve sprawled out areas.
I believe it was Chuck Marohn from strongtowns.org who estimated that a typical suburban cul-de-sac repays the city the cost to build it only after 77 years. The rub is that the lifespan of the cul-de-sac street is only about 25 years, meaning the city perpetually loses money maintaining the development. He estimated that it would require an immediate 46% increase in property taxes (with a subsequent 2% increase each year) to pay for the cul-de-sac in its 25 year lifespan. This ignores the rest of the services those property taxes ostensibly are supposed to pay for.
Here is a well-cited illustration of how sprawl development costs twice as much to serve vs traditional development patterns: Sprawl Costs the Public More Than Twice as Much as Compact Development | Streetsblog USA (http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-public-more-than-twice-as-much-as-compact-development/)


This study doesn't really apply to OKC. I live in OKC limits and I along with all of my neighbors are not provided city water, sewer,sidewalks, public transportation, storm and waste services so take all those off. Most rural developments out this way are built by the developer (ie...the road and infrastructure of the neighborhood) so the cul de sac argument of recuperating the cost doesn't really apply here either. My kids go to Moore schools and the school district provides the bussing...not OKC. I question why it costs so much more for "governance". As far as police, when I lived in downtown, I saw numerous cops...not that I live out, the only time I see an OKC cop is when they are running a speed trap on 104th.

There is really no way to compare apples to oranges. There are valid arguments and fallacies on both sides of the argument and way too many variables. There are a lot of assumptions. How do you figure the revenue from taxes. Most homes I see in the rural developments are pretty expensive which means they are generating more tax revenue. I am paying about 5 times more in property tax now than what I was in Heritage Hills East. In HHE, I had new sidewalks, curbs, water, sewer, and had to have the police out couple of times when someone threw brick through window or when we heard someone prowling in backyard. (In 7 years here, never had to call police)

The urban core could not support all the things this city has to offer without those from outside the core. It is the diversity of our citizens that is making this city great. I can't wait for the streetcar even though I don't think it will ever run to 104th street because a strong downtown make the experience better for all. People will always want to live different lifestyles. Some value raising their kids next to great parks and close to the libraries and arts while others want to raise their kids where they can go out back and ride their dirt bike and fish in the creek. I enjoy waking up in the morning and seeing the deer or turkeys in the back yard. Others want to wake up and walk down the block to the local coffee shop. Nothing wrong with either. I have lived in both at different stages of my life and will probably change again as kids mature and move and lifestyle needs change.

This study doesn't really apply to OKC. I live in OKC limits and I along with all of my neighbors are not provided city water, sewer,sidewalks, public transportation, storm and waste services so take all those off. Most rural developments out this way are built by the developer (ie...the road and infrastructure of the neighborhood) so the cul de sac argument of recuperating the cost doesn't really apply here either. My kids go to Moore schools and the school district provides the bussing...not OKC. I question why it costs so much more for "governance". As far as police, when I lived in downtown, I saw numerous cops...not that I live out, the only time I see an OKC cop is when they are running a speed trap on 104th.

There is really no way to compare apples to oranges. There are valid arguments and fallacies on both sides of the argument and way too many variables. There are a lot of assumptions. How do you figure the revenue from taxes. Most homes I see in the rural developments are pretty expensive which means they are generating more tax revenue. I am paying about 5 times more in property tax now than what I was in Heritage Hills East. In HHE, I had new sidewalks, curbs, water, sewer, and had to have the police out couple of times when someone threw brick through window or when we heard someone prowling in backyard. (In 7 years here, never had to call police)

The urban core could not support all the things this city has to offer without those from outside the core. It is the diversity of our citizens that is making this city great. I can't wait for the streetcar even though I don't think it will ever run to 104th street because a strong downtown make the experience better for all. People will always want to live different lifestyles. Some value raising their kids next to great parks and close to the libraries and arts while others want to raise their kids where they can go out back and ride their dirt bike and fish in the creek. I enjoy waking up in the morning and seeing the deer or turkeys in the back yard. Others want to wake up and walk down the block to the local coffee shop. Nothing wrong with either. I have lived in both at different stages of my life and will probably change again as kids mature and move and lifestyle needs change.

Your property taxes are set by the county, no?

The overall point is that suburban living is heavily subsidized. The point I think generally trying to be made by the pro-urban crowd is that we just want those living in the suburbs to pay for it. It sounds like you have come far closer than your average deer-creek development since you do not have city services.

If every suburban home had water wells, non-city built & maintained roads (including "thoroughfares" like SW 104th&MacArthur, lacked city-based services, and residents paid non-subsidized gas prices to use their automobiles to move about, then there would be no argument for urbanists to hold against suburban-dwellers. There would also be far fewer people living in suburbia.

Nobody in this country lives an unsubsidized lifestyle, so I'm not trying to say that today's urbanism is devoid of that (see the TIF issue downtown as one example). But the amount of suburban subsidy is quite a bit higher. That much is obvious from historical development patterns.

Your property taxes are set by the county, no?

The overall point is that suburban living is heavily subsidized. The point I think generally trying to be made by the pro-urban crowd is that we just want those living in the suburbs to pay for it. It sounds like you have come far closer than your average deer-creek development since you do not have city services.

If every suburban home had water wells, non-city built & maintained roads (including "thoroughfares" like SW 104th&MacArthur, lacked city-based services, and residents paid non-subsidized gas prices to use their automobiles to move about, then there would be no argument for urbanists to hold against suburban-dwellers. There would also be far fewer people living in suburbia.

Nobody in this country lives an unsubsidized lifestyle, so I'm not trying to say that today's urbanism is devoid of that (see the TIF issue downtown as one example). But the amount of suburban subsidy is quite a bit higher. That much is obvious from historical development patterns.

Forgot about gas...propane here for that too. Sw 104th and MacArthur were here long before neighborhood as both directly feed the FAA and Mike Monroney Center. Thus, the city infrastructure was already in place. Which brings up another interesting point...two of my neighbors work for FAA so their commute doesn't really tax the system. People work all over the city and not just downtown. Shouldn't they live near their work? How many people in Deer Creek and those areas work in Edmond, Mercy and surrounding medical facilities, Lynn Energy, etc. How do you figure in the economic impact offsetting the subsidies? What about all the people in East OKC that work at Tinker...should they live downtown also? How do you figure Tinker's economic impact? A lot of East OKC was developed when GM was still out at 240 and Sooner. Brand new apts were just built out east on 240...these are dense and taking advantage of the infrastructure that was there from the GM plant and South Tinker....do we attribute all of the subsidy to them or so we get to offset it with the economic benefits from those companies? How much tax base comes from Memorial road, I 240 corridor, the outlet malls....would any of this be there if everyone lived downtown? Do we offset the cost for this?

I am not super familiar with Deer Creek but it appears that they have their own water district and their own fire department so not completely subsidized by downtown OKC residents. I noticed some houses for sale at Coffee Creek and Penn that were septic systems and Deer Creek water.

I agree that OKC should not have annexed the whole damn county and I wish we were not part of OKC.

It is both downtown and suburbia that that make for a great community. There is no way downtown alone could have paid for the canal, the Peake, the streetcar, new library, civic center remodel, the new park, etc. In those aspects, an argument can be made that suburbia is subsidizing downtown. I don't mind as it makes for a great city. If you want the good...comes with the bad. The nice airport and all the other nice things we have come from the population of the whole city.

It isn't has easy as telling people they have to move downtown or pay more. How about we divide maps up by urban and suburbia projects and only the tax base from those areas pay for the projects. When I spend money in the urban core, the extra penny goes to urban projects and when I spend money in the suburban area....it goes to those projects. That had been one of the complaints about MAPS is that it favors downtown. I have the same message for those people also....it benefits all of us and makes for a stronger more vibrant city.

I agree that everyone is subsidized but my point is simply that I don't think it is easy just to say that suburbia is heavily subsidized when there really is no way to compare and certainly no way to figure in the economic impact the surrounding businesses contribute back into the city economy and/or the actual costs.

Please don't frame this as a downtown vs. the suburbs argument. I apologize for my poor word choice by not qualifying "suburban-style development" as sprawling suburban-style development. I am a fan of traditional neighborhood design with a mix of uses and a fair number of single family homes, which was the suburban norm for many many years. I am not a fan of government mandated, subsidized, and heavily-encouraged sprawl (both commercial and residential) that all-too-often fails to be fiscally self-sufficient.


The majority of what you said is common knowledge and is besides the point. It costs less to serve high density vs. low density. No way! Here's the thing, I don't care. I'll take my suburban yards and sprawled out neighborhoods with green yards and blue skies vs. your concrete jungle.

You want both, we already have it. Stop saying every level of government favors cars over people in every case because it's bs...

Plutonic Panda, this isn't a well-reasoned response because it's not what I said, and it's not very true on your part. My initial point was to refute your notion that our real estate and transportation systems, and the decisions that result from them, are a free market. U.S. government policy, in the majority of cases, provides disincentives to traditional urban or suburban development by limiting what type of structure can be built on a plot of land and how much of a structure can be built on that land—essentially a heavy tax on this type of development. Car-favored transportation policy follows as traveling by car becomes the only viable way in those resulting built-environments—essentially a tax on families who may choose to spend car dollars differently in a less skewed market. Yes there are examples like the streetcar that swing the other direction, but they are anecdotal when looking at the grand scheme of things. I believe I did a sufficient job proving my case, so I won't belabor the issue too much more, but I will leave you with two more examples:
The Cost of Sprawl: More Than $1 Trillion Per Year, New Report Says - Developments - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2015/03/19/the-cost-of-sprawl-more-than-1-trillion-per-year-new-report-says/)
US Federal Budget FY16 Estimated Spending Breakdown - Pie Chart (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail_fy16bs12015n_606566_401#usgs 302) (about three quarters of ground transportation dollars go towards car transportation)

I do welcome a well-reasoned response from you.

Also Jeepnokc as for subdivision developers building their roads initially, this is oftentimes correct, but the perpetual maintenance and upkeep are then offloaded onto the city/county/etc. At this point, they become steep liabilities for the respective government where upkeep and replacement cost more than the tax base created by them.

To the both of you, I encourage you to read the following resources to gain a more accurate picture of the economic portion in particular.
Strong Towns Blog ? Strong Towns (http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/)
New Urbs | The American Conservative (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/urbs/)
The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream: Christopher B. Leinberger: 9781597261371: Amazon.com: Books (http://www.amazon.com/The-Option-Urbanism-Investing-American/dp/1597261378) (by Chris Leinberger)

And for a civic and quality of life perspective on the effects of our modern society, including sprawl, Robert Putnam cannot be recommended enough:
http://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-Collapse-American-Community/dp/0743203046
Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis: Robert D. Putnam: 9781476769899: Amazon.com: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Our-Kids-American-Dream-Crisis/dp/1476769893)

I will respond more in depth tomorrow, but I will say this for now, what I said most certianly was a well-reasoned response, it just wasn't whay you wanted to hear. No matter.