there are three issues that frustrate me greatly with this.

1. It takes on this "if you don't agree, you're just stupid" moral sophomorism. It assumes that the benefits of "new urbanism" are universal, and if you don't see them, you're just uneducated/unaware. You're not entitled to have a contrary opinion.
2. It assumes everyone has this nascent desire to live an in urban or one-off urban space. I do not. I have no desire for a quasi-urban-jungle motif in our area, nor cramming people into these 800-sf residental cells that are all the rage in many of these new "urban panaceas."
3. It presumes the "we know better" notion of "well, you only think you like it here. We can make it better for you." one of the basic freedoms i love about our country is that no one is a paragon of virtue. If person a likes the urban spaces, great. Power to 'em. If person b likes suburban spaces, great. Power to 'em. But the time either side starts superimposing their preference on someone else because "it's better, trust us" is where i get my irish up. I have *no* problem with a bit of an urban renaissance where apropos. I have a great deal of trouble with the idea that it should be imposed because someone else thinks its "better."
amen!

What Soonerdave is missing though is that what he thinks is 'normal' is actually someone elses preference that was forced on all of us. The free-market small government solution is New Urbanism, which is really just Old Urbanism before the federal government got involved. It's funny (in a sad way) that many of my fellow right-wingers are so quick to look to government to provide them mobility between their house and their local shopping center. The founding fathers would be disappointed in the people supposedly carrying their banner of limited government today.

If the public is being asked to contribute to personal transit and restoration of private businesses shouldn't the most financially sustainable solution be the prefered solution? If not, why not? The so-called 'private sector' already had their chance in the 240 business area and failed, and now are asking for a bailout.

If their big idea to save the area is to repave streets and put flower beds in 10 acre parking lots, then I say No because we can't afford the tax burden that requires.

There are three issues that frustrate me greatly with this.

1. It takes on this "if you don't agree, you're just stupid" moral sophomorism. It assumes that the benefits of "new urbanism" are universal, and if you don't see them, you're just uneducated/unaware. You're not entitled to have a contrary opinion.
2. It assumes everyone has this nascent desire to live an in urban or one-off urban space. I do not. I have no desire for a quasi-urban-jungle motif in our area, nor cramming people into these 800-sf residental cells that are all the rage in many of these new "urban panaceas."
3. It presumes the "we know better" notion of "well, you only think you like it here. We can make it better for you." One of the basic freedoms I love about our country is that no one is a paragon of virtue. If person A likes the urban spaces, great. Power to 'em. If person B likes suburban spaces, great. Power to 'em. But the time either side starts superimposing their preference on someone else because "it's better, trust us" is where I get my Irish up. I have *no* problem with a bit of an urban renaissance where apropos. I have a great deal of trouble with the idea that it should be imposed because someone else thinks its "better."

Here’s a quick disclaimer: I’m not formally schooled in New Urbanism.
I’m schooled in New Urbanism through OKC Talk and a lot of investigation I’ve done from the links in the http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/33058-new-urbanism-library.html and some others.

First, if you’re frustrated with my post (mostly TO: Plutonic Panda), you took it to heart when the tone I used was not directed at you, but rather at Plutonic Panda. I would most definitely talk differently to him than I would to you. I find his willful ignorance quite frustrating. I can’t imagine that we need/want/can afford the highways in his little McWorld.
Further, I agree with you whole-heartedly. I’ve NO desire to live in a residential cell or a dense urban environment at this time and I’m quite satisfied that I have the option to not live there.
So, if the only part of my post that frustrated you was the bolded part, we’re golden. You took personally something that was not intended for you.
If, on the other hand, you are in agreement with Plutonic Panda and cannot see that the design principles of New Urbanism are NOT to make everything urban, then maybe you’re frustrated that you haven’t done any real investigation into New Urbanism, that you’re reacting to the title of the design principles rather than the principles, themselves. New Urbanism does not mandate a quasi-urban-jungle. Perhaps its the inclusion of the word "urban" in the accepted name of the line of thinking that you think you oppose that is the problem. Perhaps its the fact that "New Urbanists" get all starry-eyed (scarily so) and/or argumentative when discussing new or existing structures and how they adhere to design principles that is the problem. Perhaps its the fact that these worshiping or public shaming exhibitions mostly take place in reaction to urban structures (but that's where the "battle" is more important) is the problem -- but New Urbanism design principles apply to suburban plots, as well (it's just not as critical and easier to fix, as a rule).
I know you’re a long-time participant to OKC Talk. I like the posts I’ve read of yours and value your opinion (especially in regards to education in Oklahoma). I know you’re not the FNG here (hello – 4½K posts!) and most OKC Talkers also respect your opinion, but I’m sorry to say your frustration must stem from a bit of ignorance (note I did NOT say stupid). Perhaps your ignorance is simply because you are uninterested. I get it. There are several threads that I simply don’t comment on because of my ignorance and or lack of interest. If, on the other hand, you’re interested, you should take a look at a recent thread: http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/36211-urban-vs-suburban.html. I know you haven’t posted anything in that thread, so you might not be aware of some of that discussion. One of the most interesting posts in there was

Here are just a few of the differences between a New Urbanism suburb and a Euclidian suburb.

New Urbanism Suburb
A) Connected street network
B) Five minute pedestrian shed
C) Mass transit accessible
D) Open space consist of public square
E) Parks and water are accessible and inviting
F) Homes have uniform setback and front porches with living space at the front of the house to keep eyes on the street
G) Garages located at read of home via an alley
H) Sidewalks on both sides of street
I) Narrow streets, on-street parking, tree colonnades and other traffic calming techniques
J) Residential out structures (garage apartments/granny flats/etc)

Euclidian Suburb
A) Dendritic street network with cul-de-sacs
B) Not walkable to anywhere
C) Not transit accessible
D) Open space is useless buffers between compatible land uses
E) Private ownership of park and water frontage
F) Homes don't have front porches and living space is set at the back of the house away from the street
G) Garages are dominant feature facing the street
H) Usually no sidewalks but sometimes on one side street
I) No traffic calming (in fact, most streets are engineered for 45 mph and higher speeds)
J) Residential out structures not allowed
See? It’s not really Urban .vs. Suburbs (pay no attention to the title of the thread this was taken from). It’s New Urban design .vs. Euclidian design (or worse yet: New Urbanism design .vs. … NO design).

Urban vs. suburban is a false question.

City/Town vs. Sprawl is the real question.

A city or town can offer suburban neighborhoods with nice homes and yards, as with most parts of Oklahoma built before 1930, and a few built up until the 1940s.

The difference is that cities and towns can provide those options:
- Efficiently for better infrastructure
- Without isolating social groups and land uses
- While allowing a choice between driving/walking/biking depending on the trip or preference

Sprawl provides those options by:
- Isolating land uses to make them far away from each other
- Isolating social groups to keep income levels separated
- Taking away all transportation options other than personal car

The point is, both city and sprawl can offer high and low density options, but a spatial arrangement as a city provides both high and low density options with greater efficiency, flexibility, and adaptability.
SoonerDave, I hope I haven’t offended you.
I can’t say the same thing about Plutonic Panda.

I grew up in a suburb that was built in the 40s. When I was a kid, like maybe until I was 5 or 6 years old (probably around '83 or '84), there was a little corner store just two houses down. I remember walking there with my mom and getting candy, or milk, or whatever. I'm thinking there was a little old man who ran the store. Anyway it went out of business a long time ago as the neighborhood declined. What had been a nice little quiet neighborhood became kind of a dangerous place.

Newer suburbs have no option for things like the corner store. I don't think there's anything wrong at all with wanting neighborhoods to have little parks, and corner stores, and sidewalks, and places to walk to. The idea that an area should have a functional "Main Street" with stores and shops that people can easily walk to from their houses shouldn't be all that controversial. That within a 5 minute walk of my house I should be able to eat at three or four restaurants, buy groceries, do some basic shopping, and have access to a transit system that takes me around the city -- this is pretty basic normal stuff.

Now, honestly, I don't know that south I-240 is the best place to pick to start implementing New Urbanism. There's zero mass transportation there, and zero possibility for mass transportation. I think our targeted areas for re-urbanization should be places that will be served by the future regional transit system. That's not here. Once this type of development is more common and more accepted by people in OKC, then we might look at expanding it to other places.

hoyasooner, I wouldn't say there's no mass transit available through the I-240 corridor... Though there isn't a dedicated local loop, EMBARK route 13 (http://embarkok.com/data/pdf/013_Schedule_web.pdf) (S Western/I-240 Crosstown) does serve the I-240 corridor from OCCC to the Walmart at Santa Fe at 30-minute intervals.

If they want to get serious about revitalizing the I-240 corridor, one of the first things they need is to establish a Mini-Hub for EMBARK somewhere along or just south of I-240. This would then support a true local loop down here, as well as provide an interchange point for regional operations down to the Moore and/or Norman area(s) - as rail is not our only option for regional transit (nor should it be).

Here’s a quick disclaimer: I’m not formally schooled in New Urbanism.
I’m schooled in New Urbanism through OKC Talk and a lot of investigation I’ve done from the links in the http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/33058-new-urbanism-library.html and some others.

First, if you’re frustrated with my post (mostly TO: Plutonic Panda), you took it to heart when the tone I used was not directed at you, but rather at Plutonic Panda. I would most definitely talk differently to him than I would to you. I find his willful ignorance quite frustrating. I can’t imagine that we need/want/can afford the highways in his little McWorld.
Further, I agree with you whole-heartedly. I’ve NO desire to live in a residential cell or a dense urban environment at this time and I’m quite satisfied that I have the option to not live there.
So, if the only part of my post that frustrated you was the bolded part, we’re golden. You took personally something that was not intended for you.
If, on the other hand, you are in agreement with Plutonic Panda and cannot see that the design principles of New Urbanism are NOT to make everything urban, then maybe you’re frustrated that you haven’t done any real investigation into New Urbanism, that you’re reacting to the title of the design principles rather than the principles, themselves. New Urbanism does not mandate a quasi-urban-jungle. Perhaps its the inclusion of the word "urban" in the accepted name of the line of thinking that you think you oppose that is the problem. Perhaps its the fact that "New Urbanists" get all starry-eyed (scarily so) and/or argumentative when discussing new or existing structures and how they adhere to design principles that is the problem. Perhaps its the fact that these worshiping or public shaming exhibitions mostly take place in reaction to urban structures (but that's where the "battle" is more important) is the problem -- but New Urbanism design principles apply to suburban plots, as well (it's just not as critical and easier to fix, as a rule).
I know you’re a long-time participant to OKC Talk. I like the posts I’ve read of yours and value your opinion (especially in regards to education in Oklahoma). I know you’re not the FNG here (hello – 4½K posts!) and most OKC Talkers also respect your opinion, but I’m sorry to say your frustration must stem from a bit of ignorance (note I did NOT say stupid). Perhaps your ignorance is simply because you are uninterested. I get it. There are several threads that I simply don’t comment on because of my ignorance and or lack of interest. If, on the other hand, you’re interested, you should take a look at a recent thread: http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/36211-urban-vs-suburban.html. I know you haven’t posted anything in that thread, so you might not be aware of some of that discussion. One of the most interesting posts in there was

See? It’s not really Urban .vs. Suburbs (pay no attention to the title of the thread this was taken from). It’s New Urban design .vs. Euclidian design (or worse yet: New Urbanism design .vs. … NO design).

SoonerDave, I hope I haven’t offended you.
I can’t say the same thing about Plutonic Panda.

No problem, Dubya - we're all good. I had a lousy morning and hadn't hit the forums in a while, and that post just hit me the wrong way. It's all good.

I'm all for smarter design, making better use of things. I admit I do get set back a bit these days with the phrase of "urbanism" because I do think there's a decent subculture that really wants to reinvent the world in that image, but I realize that's not a universal notion at all. Some of the notions, like garages on back alleys, sidewalks, etc etc have been tried in a hit-and-miss fashion in various neighborhoods - in fact I remember some of it being tried down in Moore some time ago.

It's all a matter of balance. Like I said, there are no panaceas, just try as best we can to make things better. That's fine for me. Just don't try to stuff me into a 600 sq ft shoebox on the 40th floor somewhere :)

Why shouldn't the I-240 corridor be the best place to implement new urbanism? There are hundreds of examples from around the US where failed retail areas have been rebuilt which have gone on to be some of the most successful and sought after places to live, and generate enough tax revenue to pay for their own upkeep.

As for mass transit, I prefer neighborhood based bus service like baralheia mentioned. On the Bus System thread I posted a route map that has a bus running within 3 blocks of every house within the OKC core with 15 minute intervals and it uses the exact same number of buses used today.

On the Bus System thread I posted a route map that has a bus running within 3 blocks of every house within the OKC core with 15 minute intervals and it uses the exact same number of buses used today.

Rats. That post no longer has images. Do you still have those images saved somewhere?

Rats. That post no longer has images. Do you still have those images saved somewhere?

Keep in mind this is just a proof of concept sketch. Actual transit hubs and routes could be anywhere.

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKC%20Stuff/SouthOKC.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/OKC%20Stuff/SouthOKC.jpg.html)

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/OKC%20Stuff/express_route.jpg (http://s1178.photobucket.com/user/KerryinJax/media/OKC%20Stuff/express_route.jpg.html)

Why shouldn't the I-240 corridor be the best place to implement new urbanism? There are hundreds of examples from around the US where failed retail areas have been rebuilt which have gone on to be some of the most successful and sought after places to live, and generate enough tax revenue to pay for their own upkeep.

I guess why I'm a bit hesitant to suggest anything too drastic for the 240 corridor is that it isn't a "failed retail area." I think we need to keep in mind a clear distinction between areas that are, in fact, failed, and those that perhaps aren't terribly attractive, but are a far cry from failed. There are clearly some ugly spots, like the old Albertson's building on May, and the defunct-turned-police-station car lot near I-35, but that's very near the area of the interchange rebuild. The 240 Penn Park seems busy with its variety of stores and restaurants, and even the old Walnut Creek center isn't totally abandoned since Hobby Lobby took over the Homeland space.

Just want to make sure we keep the idea of balance in place. Surgical strikes could do very well here.

I definitely agree SoonerDave....240 is far from being a failed area. It continues to attract business. if it didn't, we wouldn't have seen the old walmart torn out and turned into that (ug) strip center. We'd have an empty Krispy Kreme instead of an awesome The Garage. I don't count the old car lot since the state forced them out as part of the interchange construction buyout...the DMV is just using it until its time to doze it.

I'm not shy to point out the paving issues along the interstate, but I would like to see something to green up the space a bit as well. There isn't a lot of space to work with along the frontage at really any part of the road, but it would be nice to get some sort of greenery around. Trees or something (not Bradford Pear please). You can actually do a lot of visual good with simple things like Crepe Merdles (spelling?). Midwest City placed a huge number of them along the "wall" of I-40 on 29th toward the east end of Town Center and beyond. In a space that only has a few feet, it actually helps turn it into something very pretty in spring/summer as they all bud and you get a wall of color instead of industrial Tinker buildings.

The area doesn't really have an identity though either. Yeah it's heavily Hispanic, but really only north of 240 and that identity is more focused at Capital Hill. So I'm not sure if you could create an identity zone out of it (240-land or whatever lol). But is definitely a very unattractive and practical section of road.

One thing that they should do is just about every intersection from May to Shields can be a SPUI. If they were to do some quick simple light changes those intersections can move a lot more smoothly especially traffic going from Northbound to Westbound 240.

Yeah, I would definitely agree that the I-240 corridor is not a "failed retail area" - the South OKC Chamber of Commerce (http://southokc.com/) has done somewhat well in this regard - but the area could still use some help with both commercial and residential zones. As mentioned before, Walnut Square, Shields Plaza, and the former Albertsons on May need some work, as do several apartment complexes along the highway. The highway itself needs tweaking done to the ramps and service roads, and some actual greenery along the road would be fantastic. I agree, some crepe myrtles mixed in with a few trees could look super nice. I don't know how maintenance intensive they are, however.

I definitely agree SoonerDave....240 is far from being a failed area. It continues to attract business. if it didn't, we wouldn't have seen the old walmart torn out and turned into that (ug) strip center. We'd have an empty Krispy Kreme instead of an awesome The Garage. I don't count the old car lot since the state forced them out as part of the interchange construction buyout...the DMV is just using it until its time to doze it.

That's still a problem spot though. A planning process may actually be particularly helpful in dealing with that situation. The state has had it for a decade..

As usual, the public sector is the worst building code and community aesthetic offender. People in OKC's public sector have very low aesthetic standards, don't understand the value of them, and they disregard what is best for the city by making land assembly as easy for themselves as possible.

In this instance the state bought out the car dealership once its interchange plans were announced, because they didn't want land speculation to raise the land costs of the project before they even have funds in hand.

But if we know the building is going to be torn down, would you be happy as a tax payer if your money was used to spruce up an old car lot that was doomed in the next 10 years? I agree, it's utilitarian, but hey, that's how it was built by Fred Jones. The state hasn't done anything to it, good or bad, but they haven't let it fall to pieces or anything. The place was new enough, that even if they don't do anything, it's not exactly crumbling. The grounds are maintained, there aren't a bunch of grass/weeds growing in the parking lot, there aren't broken windows....it's just a plain white metal/stucco building.

Also keep in mind that the state only had OHP using it as a way-station for vehicles until the DMV moved in relatively recently from their overcrowded space at OHP Troop A (one building I actually would like to see dozed and rebuilt to bring it into this century).

Does anyone know what going on on 240 beside the 240 stril mall. Its like next to the shopping center and behind Golden COrral and Dennys and Canes. They seem to be moving dirt around.

Does anyone know what going on on 240 beside the 240 stril mall. Its like next to the shopping center and behind Golden COrral and Dennys and Canes. They seem to be moving dirt around.

I saw an application in the City Planning Department for something of this nature. They may rework the road a bit too, but it is for the eventual 102,000 sq. ft. expansion of 240 Penn Park. Which is the newish shopping center with BestBuy, Michael's, Old Navy, etc.

^

Right. Conn's is actually moving into a bigger space and then they are building loads of spec space:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/conns072015.jpg

Glad to see Phase 2 progress. Last time I drove through there a few months ago I was wondering how long that would be vacant.

The airport really is missing the game by taking ages to get their retail project on the east side of the airport going. Pretty soon this stretch of 240 will be well saturated and there won't be a lot of big name tenants left to draw to anchor the airport project.

Speaking of, that is the slowest dang project I have ever seen. They have been talking about it for probably close to 10 years now. It has taken 5+ years just to get 1 mile of the new Portland alignment completed. They still have another mile to go and it hasn't even started! Amazing!

Im surprised Conns is doing that well. It will be interesting to see what they can get to move into the other space. The tough part about this location, is that it's not visible from the interstate. All of the frontage eateries take up the view.

So is something going into where the old Conn's was? I hate to see one strip mall picked over for another.

So is something going into where the old Conn's was? I hate to see one strip mall picked over for another.

Their existing space is currently listed for lease. I'm sure they'll find someone to take it.

Their existing space is currently listed for lease. I'm sure they'll find someone to take it.

I vote for Service Merchandise.

Pete I was looking at the drawing. The larger retail on the oposite end of Conn's in the photo it looks like a Cost Plus World Market.

Pete I was looking at the drawing. The larger retail on the oposite end of Conn's in the photo it looks like a Cost Plus World Market.

NO WAY!!!! If that's true, I'm going to kiss you!!!!

This is looking great! I can't wait to see the old Albertsons at 240 and May come back to life too - albeit for now, just an OnCue on the pad site fronting 240 - and with any luck, someone will develop the empty lot on the NE corner of 240 and Santa Fe.

Im surprised Conns is doing that well. It will be interesting to see what they can get to move into the other space. The tough part about this location, is that it's not visible from the interstate. All of the frontage eateries take up the view.

It's actually not going to be setback much further than it's current location, which is also covered by Hooters, Old Chicago, Gas Station, Fedex Kinkos, and Wright Career College. I would assume that's why the massing is so large in the front, so they can get their name up high on the building for visibility.

I wouldn't be worried about the empty space Conn's will leave either, I remember 5-8 years ago when that particular shopping center was DEAD. Now it's completely full. It seemed to happen really fast too after 240 Penn Park, although it could definitely benefit from a reconfiguration, or a the very least, a repaving of the parking lot and some landscaping.

True 'dat Architect. I did notice dirt work was being done there when I went to Green Acres yesterday. So looks like it's moving along....not that there was much dirt work to do since it was flat, but there are already boards out to mark the foundation outline.

This is looking great! I can't wait to see the old Albertsons at 240 and May come back to life too - albeit for now, just an OnCue on the pad site fronting 240 - and with any luck, someone will develop the empty lot on the NE corner of 240 and Santa Fe.

Okay, I'll bite - are you talking about a "real" OnCue coming to that location, or are you just *wishing* for one? I really can't tell. Not trying to be sarcastic - an OnCue there would be a winner. That old Albertsons's site is an eyesore - it needs help.

To the best of my knowledge, it's in the works... Pete posted that in the OnCue OKC Expansion thread (http://www.okctalk.com/general-real-estate-topics/31431-oncue-okc-expansion-2.html#post899901). I'm pretty sure nothing is official on that spot though... At least not yet.

As for the old Albertsons there at I-240 and May, here's what the developer wants to do with it:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/i240mayb.jpg
http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/i240maya.jpg

According to Pete: "Land Run is subdividing the old Homeland property, adding a retail strip along May and sub-dividing the old grocery store." He thinks the OnCue would go in place of the two proposed buildings fronting I-240.

The subdivision and renovation of the main building is probably waiting for Wild Bill's Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment's lease to run out.

To the best of my knowledge, it's in the works... Pete posted that in the OnCue OKC Expansion thread (http://www.okctalk.com/general-real-estate-topics/31431-oncue-okc-expansion-2.html#post899901). I'm pretty sure nothing is official on that spot though... At least not yet.

As for the old Albertsons there at I-240 and May, here's what the developer wants to do with it:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/i240mayb.jpg
http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/i240maya.jpg

According to Pete: "Land Run is subdividing the old Homeland property, adding a retail strip along May and sub-dividing the old grocery store." He thinks the OnCue would go in place of the two proposed buildings fronting I-240.

The subdivision and renovation of the main building is probably waiting for Wild Bill's Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment's lease to run out.

Looks a lot like what they did with the old Albertson's space on SW 104th and Western about 10 years ago or thereabouts. Gotta admit, anything with that old box at that location would be an improvement! Great to hear its on tap.

It looks like the OnCue at I-240 and Sooner Road is now open.

The Olive Garden off I-240 is set for a major remodel.

Building permit just submitted.

Mowing along the service roads would go along way......looks awful!

The Envision 240 group announced earlier this year that a contract had been signed for another group (county I think ) to take on the mowing and the underpasses were to be painted. The pace at which this revitalization plan is progressing is frustrating.

forget mowing....re-pave the freaking frontage roads already!!!!!!!!!!!

forget mowing....re-pave the freaking frontage roads already!!!!!!!!!!!

I seem to recall they did that about 2 years ago.

I do admit, the potholes returned very quickly.

How often should it be repaved and how do you suggest we pay for it?

They need to be reconstructed in cement and done right then you wouldn't need to replace them for 30 years or more

I seem to recall they did that about 2 years ago.

I do admit, the potholes returned very quickly.

How often should it be repaved and how do you suggest we pay for it?

It was only the service road(s) (maybe only the north side) between Penn and May and they're still smooth, until you come up on the May intersections where old asphalt still remains. Although they have concreted a small portion of the right turn lane on the Westbound service road at May, right in front of Jack In The Box.

Yeah, they only did the section west of Penn up to May...the totally ignored the whole rest of the section between Penn and 35. You know, the part that has the MOST traffic.

Does anyone know if the Envision 240 effort is still active?

Doesn't seem like it. They stopped and didn't do any of the pavement projects on the frontage roads that could actually use it. Really the intersections need to be converted to concrete. There are a lot of opportunities for landscaping in the grassy areas of 240 to help brighten the strip up....even some crepe myrtles can add color to a gloomy stretch and take zero effort to maintain. I feel like the city basically gave up before they really ever started. All i can say is that hopefully this pavement project with the maps extension will help look at the roads. And 240/35/Shields access is going to be all jacked up after the junction is done, hopefully they can look at something to do to help with that.

At one time they did have some plantings but the city or ODOT (not sure which) wanted the South OKC Chamber to pay for the maintenance. I really wish OKC would let South OKC go to either become its own city or part of Moore since they have no interest in investing in this area.

I really wish OKC would let South OKC go to either become its own city or part of Moore since they have no interest in investing in this area.

Exactly. Whether it be urban sprawl or whatever, having a more focused say in the growth of the area where I spend literally 99% of my time would be nice for the thousands of us who live there.

At one time they did have some plantings but the city or ODOT (not sure which) wanted the South OKC Chamber to pay for the maintenance. I really wish OKC would let South OKC go to either become its own city or part of Moore since they have no interest in investing in this area.

Definitely not a terrible idea. At the very least it would probably get mowed which would be an improvement.

Not sure if I'd fit into this area, but I'm really close. The chamber should start a petition for the southside to secede, lol.

Exactly. Whether it be urban sprawl or whatever, having a more focused say in the growth of the area where I spend literally 99% of my time would be nice for the thousands of us who live there.

And give up all the sales tax revenue generated in the area? Not a chance. And let me tell you this...it is going to get worse before it gets better. There's a "hate the suburbs" vibe in city gov't right now. They're glad to parasite off our sales tax revenue but beyond that we're viewed as a pariah. As an example...city wasn't nuts about the new WalMart at I-44 and SW 104th, but they were advised how much sales tax revenue was being lost by shoppers hopping on I-44 and tripping down to TriCity and the WalMart down there. So in it went. Yet the city won't do anything but this minimalist traffic control setup for what's sure to be a traffic nightmare at that location once it opens....argh...

And give up all the sales tax revenue generated in the area? Not a chance. And let me tell you this...it is going to get worse before it gets better. There's a "hate the suburbs" vibe in city gov't right now. They're glad to parasite off our sales tax revenue but beyond that we're viewed as a pariah. As an example...city wasn't nuts about the new WalMart at I-44 and SW 104th, but they were advised how much sales tax revenue was being lost by shoppers hopping on I-44 and tripping down to TriCity and the WalMart down there. So in it went. Yet the city won't do anything but this minimalist traffic control setup for what's sure to be a traffic nightmare at that location once it opens....argh...

Well put.

And that Wal-Mart is across the highway from (what looks to me like) a replica of the renovated Norman area around the super Target...but still sits empty. I actually come to this board about 99% of the time hoping to see Pete announce a new development out there. My hope is that the Wal-Mart at least sparks an interest in the area...would love to see a BWW, Chipolte,Starbucks.etc in the not-too-distant future.

Well put.

And that Wal-Mart is across the highway from (what looks to me like) a replica of the renovated Norman area around the super Target...but still sits empty. I actually come to this board about 99% of the time hoping to see Pete announce a new development out there. My hope is that the Wal-Mart at least sparks an interest in the area...would love to see a BWW, Chipolte,Starbucks.etc in the not-too-distant future.

I really wonder if after they finish the last phase of the Portland realignment is when this area starts to get some tenants. Fingers crossed.

I really wonder if after they finish the last phase of the Portland realignment is when this area starts to get some tenants. Fingers crossed.

I drive down Portland from 89th to 104th about once a week or so and I see they are still working on infrastructure there, I don't think the area is quite ready for tenants yet. The realignment will probably coincide with the readiness of the 89th to 104th section.

I drive down Portland from 89th to 104th about once a week or so and I see they are still working on infrastructure there, I don't think the area is quite ready for tenants yet. The realignment will probably coincide with the readiness of the 89th to 104th section.

Didn't know it was ongoing...thanks for the response. With SOKC's luck, the first tenant will be a wal-mart to pair with the one across the highway.

I drive down Portland from 89th to 104th about once a week or so and I see they are still working on infrastructure there, I don't think the area is quite ready for tenants yet. The realignment will probably coincide with the readiness of the 89th to 104th section.

What infrastructure? I've driven that stretch several times and it looks to me like the most activity there its seen are drag races as evidenced by the wide, black tire skids at various locations. Light poles have been up and running since the street opened, storm drainage is in place...the grass is getting overgrown on the sides and I don't really see much activity of any kind, and the traffic lights at 104th and Portland have been up and operating for quite some time now.....

What infrastructure? I've driven that stretch several times and it looks to me like the most activity there its seen are drag races as evidenced by the wide, black tire skids at various locations. Light poles have been up and running since the street opened, storm drainage is in place...the grass is getting overgrown on the sides and I don't really see much activity of any kind, and the traffic lights at 104th and Portland have been up and operating for quite some time now.....
Ditto.

A small group townhouses are being built in this area on SW 74th and Sherwood. Bella Terra Lofts.

This project should get maps 4 money.

Proposed 1 million for this area as part of maps 4 beautification if the city council votes yes. The council has delayed the vote on the Maps 4 parks and beautification proposals twice.