There are parts of Norman that are well suited for this type of development but there are other parts that are not.

I believe the majority understands this and would like to see that the development is done in a ways that fit the need of different parts of town.

There are parts of Norman that are well suited for this type of development but there are other parts that are not.

I believe the majority understands this and would like to see that the development is done in a ways that fit the need of different parts of town.

Central Norman between Main, Elm, Constitution and Classen being the best places for such development. That is already a higher density part of town that can support additional high density, especially residential around OU with commercial in the downtown area.

It is hard to believe that something like this is currently illegal in Norman.

http://www.omaha.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=OW&Date=20120808&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=708089924&Ref=AR&Profile=1685&maxw=598&maxh=400

http://www.hba1.com/projects/housing/uno_scott_court/Scott-Court-01_lg.jpg

Where is the property rights crowd?

Silence from them as all of a sudden what someone does on their own property has an impact on them. However, tell them that building a 4 lanes road out to their country estate isn't cost effective and they will come out of the wood work. Wierd how that works.

Silence from them as all of a sudden what someone does on their own property has an impact on them. However, tell them that building a 4 lanes road out to their country estate isn't cost effective and they will come out of the wood work. Wierd how that works.

Touché - but none of those individuals will recognize the disconnect in their thinking.

Touché - but none of those individuals will recognize the disconnect in their thinking.

I posted this in the General Urban Development section but it applies here as well.

Warning: does contain graphic language 4 times.

Q1ZeXnmDZMQ

It is hard to believe that something like this is currently illegal in Norman.

On the first picture, I'd love to see something like that in Norman. I think the sad reality is, though, that if that were approved... in the end... it would look nothing like that. I've seen too many things go wrong with UNP and other things around town to think anything but that. Also, I want to correct you on what you just said -- developments like this are not and have not been illegal in Norman. The city is simply not processing any requests to the planning commission until they come up with a land use plan. It remains to be seen what the outcome of that will be.

You might be surprised to learn that Norman has had some mixed use retail (of similar size and configuration to what you just posted) developed over the last few years. It's probably the reason why some are opposed to anything new... it's only a few years old and it already looks like crap, there is very little survivable retail on the first floor, and it seems like it attracts nothing but transient college students. That's just a sad reality. The development in question includes a second identical structure to the south, multiple stand-alone condos behind it, and another row of slightly different units behind that. I don't remember the number of units off the top of my head.

2579


I think the key to the high density meetings at city hall is having a real and honest discussion about the crap they let builders get away with in this town, and a promise at limiting that nonsense for developments like this.

Regarding your second photo... I don't understand. I see a single, stand-alone big box that is three stories. It doesn't appear to me to have any mix of retail... looks like it is all residential to me. At best this would be medium density according to how the city categorizes things. These types of developments are still moving forward and were not frozen as part of the high density discussions. Anyway, I Google'd "Scott Court" from the image and it is basically campus lodging, which can be a large complex of shared apartments, condo developments, and so forth. We already have a lot of that in Norman, so I don't understand your point. Other than aesthetics, how is that any different than Crimson Park, Campus Lodge, The Edge, etc. which were all built here within the last 10 years? I agree the picture you posted looks pretty, but as far as function and configuration goes I think we have plenty of these developments around town already. I also think the average permanent resident is probably not impressed with any of them.

A photo of one of the campus housing complexes built in the last few years (this is a very generous photo):

2580


Just trying to understand where you are coming from. Not seeing it in this one.

Just to restate my viewpoint in case it isn't clear, it is that I like high density, but I don't think Norman developers know what they are doing and I don't think the city has the balls to enforce any codes or ordinances against them to prevent a giant trashy apartment apocalypse in this town. I am only getting that out of the way right now because I don't want to be hit over the head with replies about how great high density is... you're preaching to the choir. I'd just rather not see it in Norman unless they can man up and learn how to do it right.

Questor, the main problem with the place in the first picture that you posted is that it doesn't interact with the street and the setback is too large.

There are parts of Norman that are well suited for this type of development but there are other parts that are not.

I believe the majority understands this and would like to see that the development is done in a ways that fit the need of different parts of town.


aka NIMBY, irrespective of any particular topic de jour.

Also, I want to correct you on what you just said -- developments like this are not and have not been illegal in Norman.

Norman has a maximum density of 26 units per acre. Anything more than that are not allowed. To get around that they have to build radiant structures (like your first picture) - and those have failed around the world since they day they were conceived.

aka NIMBY, irrespective of any particular topic de jour.


There are some things that are ok… but others that are not. Most of this is simple common sense.
Kind of like not putting a strip joint in next to a grade school.

Questor, the main problem with the place in the first picture that you posted is that it doesn't interact with the street and the setback is too large.

Yeah I think so too.

Norman has a maximum density of 26 units per acre. Anything more than that are not allowed. To get around that they have to build radiant structures (like your first picture) - and those have failed around the world since they day they were conceived.

NewsOK article wasn't exactly right. Items zoned RO, small lot, are allowed up to 33/acre, while RO large lot up to 43/acre. RO is mixed use and those values are for residential only; commercial does not contribute to the value.

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/planning/zoning-summary

Here's something interesting... OKC's zoning definitions. Their medium-density R-3 maxes out at 23/acre. This is comparable to Norman's RM-6 21/acre. What's interesting about the OKC list is that only one actually talks about mixed use... the Bricktown Core Development (BC) district, and density isn't even mentioned on this summary sheet. The words "high density" appear no where in OKC's zoning lexicon.

http://www.okc.gov/Planning/code/On-LineZoningDefinitions.html

I'm not pointing all of this out to win some online argument. I am simply saying I think that OKC and Norman codes are not all that different, and yet I am generally much happier with developments in OKC than I am Norman. I don't think that pointing to Norman's code and saying it's the problem is really a root cause. And regardless of all of this I think if someone wanted to they could buy up enough land in Norman to meet the requirements of RO, could place the residential close to the street corner, could load up retail on the first and possibly second floors to drop density per acre, and could use the empty space behind for a parking garage if they wanted to. There are always creative ways to do what you want to do and meet code.

Also I wanted to point out that Norman's PUD zone definition pretty much allows a free for all, depending on the whims of the planning commission and other city entities.

Zoning ordinance text, page 10:

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/sites/default/files/WebFM/Norman/Planning%20and%20Development/Zoning%20Ordinance%207-31-12.pdf

Could Norman's zoning actually be more progressive than OKC's?

Personally I don't even like segregated zoning. Mixed use should be allowed everywhere. The only requirment (other than heavy industrial) should be that buildings are about the same scale, regardless of use.

It appears Norman has decided to squash could be a sizable development opportunity:

http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x1133189977/No-high-density-yet

Really great that we get architecture grads with the drive to build something that looks very nice and then squander it because some people might get upset about a little density.

I am really surprised. It looks like Stillwater and Manhattan are going to build up way before Norman.

Is high density development allowed anywhere in Norman, like downtown? Is it a problem because it's in a single family neighborhood, even though there are apartments in the vicinity? That whole area from Boyd to Brooks in between the tracks and Jenkins should be zoned for high density. If a commuter line is started there will likely be a stop there so perfect place for TOD.

How were the Boyd lofts approved,many the East Village? Boyd has no mixed-use

Norman has not decided to squash that kind of development. According to this article they want standard development guidelines to be in place first. I don't see that as unreasonable.

Norman City Council rejects high-density housing proposal | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/norman-city-council-rejects-high-density-housing-proposal/article/3721952)

Norman has not decided to squash that kind of development. According to this article they want standard development guidelines to be in place first. I don't see that as unreasonable.

Norman City Council rejects high-density housing proposal | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/norman-city-council-rejects-high-density-housing-proposal/article/3721952)

Go back and read what I actually wrote about Norman squashing this development OPPORTUNITY. I have no problem with wanting standard development guidelines being in place and don't find that unreasonable either, but the houses that this development would replace need replacing. They are rundown and I don't see the problem with approving something dense for an area that surrounds the university. The developers said they would meet whatever aesthetic requirements Norman wanted them to but that they needed the density to make it work. How often does Norman see proposals willing to make that kind of agreement? I strongly believe this should have been approved. When are we going to actually see the new guidelines? At some reasonable time when the developer might still be willing to come back with this proposal? Probably not.

Is high density development allowed anywhere in Norman, like downtown? Is it a problem because it's in a single family neighborhood, even though there are apartments in the vicinity? That whole area from Boyd to Brooks in between the tracks and Jenkins should be zoned for high density. If a commuter line is started there will likely be a stop there so perfect place for TOD.
I would agree that this would be a good area for high density development however there have been persistent rumors that OU would eventually like to use most of this land “ from Boyd to Brooks in between the tracks and Jenkins”.
I have heard that OU would like to eventually build a new basketball arena, a new baseball park, parking garages and more academic space in this area.
The area just east of the tracks where there are a number of older mostly rental homes has good street access and would have good access to a commuter rail station.

This would tie in well if the city ever built a partly elevated Front street project that would run from the campus area to all the way north past Robinson to connect with Flood street. It would run on the west side of the tracks.

I enjoyed my time at OU, even though it wasn't typical undergrad time. That said, if OU has designs on land for future expansion purposes, then OU ought to actually acquire the land, or at minimum hold an option on it. If not, the land is, and ought to be, freely available for any willing seller/buyer transaction that comes along.

I can't think of a better location in Norman for high density residential than easy walking distance to the heart of campus. I had a relative live in one of the older rentals just off this area back in the late, late 80's. It was fugly as all get out, but it was also dirt cheap .. a big gelling point since he was also maintaining a household back home and each week he spent almost as many nights back home as he spent in Norman.

Go back and read what I actually wrote about Norman squashing this development OPPORTUNITY. I have no problem with wanting standard development guidelines being in place and don't find that unreasonable either, but the houses that this development would replace need replacing. They are rundown and I don't see the problem with approving something dense for an area that surrounds the university. The developers said they would meet whatever aesthetic requirements Norman wanted them to but that they needed the density to make it work. How often does Norman see proposals willing to make that kind of agreement? I strongly believe this should have been approved. When are we going to actually see the new guidelines? At some reasonable time when the developer might still be willing to come back with this proposal? Probably not.

I certainly not questioning that this may have been a good opportunity. The problem, as I see it, is that without specific guidelines in place they may be setting precedents that could be used later by other developers to demand similar types of developments even if they don't meet some new guidelines. If that area is a good fit for that kind of development developers won't be forever put off by a delay to develop those guidelines.

I would agree that this would be a good area for high density development however there have been persistent rumors that OU would eventually like to use most of this land “ from Boyd to Brooks in between the tracks and Jenkins”.
I have heard that OU would like to eventually build a new basketball arena, a new baseball park, parking garages and more academic space in this area.
The area just east of the tracks where there are a number of older mostly rental homes has good street access and would have good access to a commuter rail station.

This would tie in well if the city ever built a partly elevated Front street project that would run from the campus area to all the way north past Robinson to connect with Flood street. It would run on the west side of the tracks.

OU48A, you seem to regularly be in the know about the rumors regarding OU, but I have never heard so much as one word about the possibility of any of this. While I'm certainly not trying to call you out, what would they do with the existing facilities if they did build new stuff in this area north of Boyd? And why would they expand north? That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. They have a tremendous amount of land to the south, especially around Constitution in the area they've been clearing off the old barracks and apartments.

Also, I think kevinpate has an excellent point. If OU does hope to expand, they ought to actually acquire the land or it ought to be available to other entities that are interested. This is probably a pipe dream, but I wish OU was more transparent about their hopes for the future. I'm sure that would rile the NIMBYs, but I would like to have a better idea about what my alma mater wants to see for the future.

OU48A, you seem to regularly be in the know about the rumors regarding OU, but I have never heard so much as one word about the possibility of any of this. While I'm certainly not trying to call you out, what would they do with the existing facilities if they did build new stuff in this area north of Boyd? And why would they expand north? That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. They have a tremendous amount of land to the south, especially around Constitution in the area they've been clearing off the old barracks and apartments.

Also, I think kevinpate has an excellent point. If OU does hope to expand, they ought to actually acquire the land or it ought to be available to other entities that are interested. This is probably a pipe dream, but I wish OU was more transparent about their hopes for the future. I'm sure that would rile the NIMBYs, but I would like to have a better idea about what my alma mater wants to see for the future.

Most of this is a wish list at this point, in need of large amounts of money, not very much official has been done that I am aware of.

But if you are familiar with this area you may already know that OU has been gradually buying up property east of Jenkins and north of Brooks. OU has already torn down houses, build parking lots, and park space in this area. This is only very slowly occurring. It makes sense to buy property as it naturally becomes available for sale. I have been told that the OU’s foundation probably owns more property in this area but that it is being rented out for now though a property management company and that it will be torn down when practical.

There was a published report several years ago that talked about the possibility of a new basketball arena located at the NE corner of Jenkins and Brooks. This land is more centrally located than the vacant land on the south base. Building new high destination facility’s close to the football stadium and close to a commuter rail station with a large park and ride has several obvious advantages.

Having become better acquainted with things at OU in recent years I have learned that there are a lot of things that go on that never make the newspapers or much outside a certain circle of people and a lack of clarity is often the case. IMHO there are different factions in some cases that have different ideas.

But a narrow strip of condos / apartments along the tracks would help create a sound barrier for OU and still preserve large amounts of land for OU. I could see that.

If I'm reading that correctly, the Council is saying the request was denied and all requests will be denied until the issue of creating a master plan for high density is settled. I don't know that this is a bad thing.

Also, who the heck are the Elsey brothers? Does anyone know who they are, what they have gotten funded and built out to completion in the past, and so on? Have they had successful high density developments elsewhere in the past? Are they this project's architects, or are they guys with money looking to buy land and get something going on it by pairing up with others? If the latter, who have they paired-up with in the past? What are their construction, architectural, and developer connections?

Just because somebody walks into city hall with an idea that doesn't mean such things should just be automatically approved.... I mean I have no idea who these people are... maybe the council doesn't either. Does anyone here, and can you share some information if you do? Have they previously approached city staff and worked with them on any plans? Where are they?

As I understand it, the Elsey brothers are architects from Kansas. I know they have some carried out some developments in Manhattan, Kansas and Stillwater, Oklahoma. I've not seen either development so I cannot comment on the quality of either. I think they were the architects for this proposed development and not just the guys with the money for the land.

You're right. But they did say they would be willing to work with the council on the aesthetics, but I'm just worried that the council won't develop an ordinance in a timely manner that will be friendly to this kind of development. Does anyone know what the citizen meetings led to? Is the council hoping to see quality density developments or did the NIMBYs win out, ultimately resulting in an ordinance unfriendly to density?

Most of this is a wish list at this point, in need of large amounts of money, not very much official has been done that I am aware of.

But if you are familiar with this area you may already know that OU has been gradually buying up property east of Jenkins and north of Brooks. OU has already torn down houses, build parking lots, and park space in this area. This is only very slowly occurring. It makes sense to buy property as it naturally becomes available for sale. I have been told that the OU’s foundation probably owns more property in this area but that it is being rented out for now though a property management company and that it will be torn down when practical.

There was a published report several years ago that talked about the possibility of a new basketball arena located at the NE corner of Jenkins and Brooks. This land is more centrally located than the vacant land on the south base. Building new high destination facility’s close to the football stadium and close to a commuter rail station with a large park and ride has several obvious advantages.

Having become better acquainted with things at OU in recent years I have learned that there are a lot of things that go on that never make the newspapers or much outside a certain circle of people and a lack of clarity is often the case. IMHO there are different factions in some cases that have different ideas.

But a narrow strip of condos / apartments along the tracks would help create a sound barrier for OU and still preserve large amounts of land for OU. I could see that.

Do you know where I could find the published report you mention?

Do you know where I could find the published report you mention?


I wish I could remember where I read it. But it was about 4 or 5 years ago and most likely in the Daily Oklahoma but I am not real sure, sorry. I am pretty sure it was more speculation than anything about what they would like to eventually do.

If you will Google a satellite map of this area you will see that OU already has decent size chunk of the land under its control that would be needed for a new arena. This is in an area bordered by Brooks on the south, Jenkins on the west, Trout on the east and University PI on the North. I drove though this area on Friday. It looked like most of the remaining homes in this area are in a state of poor repair. Some look like they should be condemned.

I strongly wish OU would be much more forthcoming about their long range construction goals and desires. I really hate it when they spend even a small amount of money on something only to tear it back out just a few years later.
It would be more cost effective if they did and it also might help with their fund raising efforts.

This article High density zoning district currently under consideration » Headlines » The Norman Transcript (http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x1839368183/High-density-zoning-district-currently-under-consideration) is pretty depressing. The article states that "a growing demand for urban housing within a walkable distance to the university and/or ships and businesses is driving the high-density movement in Norman and follows a national trend of urban renewal." However, our lame ass council can't get over protecting the charm of suburgatory. I'm sorry but I really find all this reluctance to change frustrating as hell. Why can't we agree that density is cool and that it's probably not going to just magically appear in the middle of their quaint neighborhoods, but rather in designated areas and with a great attention to detail and fit. Hell, it might even make more people want to live in Norman.

... Hell, it might even make more people want to live in Norman.

You do realize you have hit the fear nail rather squarely on its head? There is a segment of Norman that recognizes many people want to live in Norman because of how it is but fear, rightly or wrongly is irrelevant as the fear is real to them, Norman will cease to be Norman if it grows too much or too fast. This group is not unorganized and even where they recognize certain aspects of Norman is warty, they like Norman as it is, warts and all.

You do realize you have hit the fear nail rather squarely on its head? There is a segment of Norman that recognizes many people want to live in Norman because of how it is but fear, rightly or wrongly is irrelevant as the fear is real to them, Norman will cease to be Norman if it grows too much or too fast. This group is not unorganized and even where they recognize certain aspects of Norman is warty, they like Norman as it is, warts and all.

Oh yes, I realize it. I do wish it weren't quite so though.

The historic district folks want to limit "high density" to three stories, while a developer wants 75 feet.?! lol!

"A growing demand for urban housing within a walkable distance to the university and/or shops and businesses is driving the high density movement in Norman and follows a national trend of urban renewal. But residents, especially those in Norman’s historic districts near where much of the high density construction requests are focused, are concerned about increased traffic, parking problems, and the potential for damaging the charm and character of existing single family neighborhoods."

There are only 2 Historic Districts in Norman, the Classen Miller one and the Chautauqua one, and I don't understand how the Chautauqua one would be affected, unless the developers somehow re-jiggered the boundaries, which I doubt will happen.

That Jungman guy quoted in the article lives in the Classen Miller district and I have a feeling those people are pissed off about that new suburban looking 2 story apartment called Monnett Garden, which is just west of the train tracks, south of Duffy, and east of Monnett.

3097


3096

I suppose I don't blame them too much since there was the LOFT 401 that is sort of creeping toward their 'hood. Are these discussions reacting to phantom developments or have there been some actual proposals, I haven't been paying too close attention.

There was a proposal by a developer made up of two brothers out of Kansas I think and they had proposed some housing north of Sarkey's off Boyd. But these NIMBY clowns protested the hell out of it, apparently so they can keep the charm of the rundown homes that are currently there.

I am really surprised. It looks like Stillwater and Manhattan are going to build up way before Norman.

Surely, OSU's buyout of the rather large student ghetto just to the north of it has helped to stimulate development of two or so mid rise apartment complexes. Development like that was needed to help discourage students from over crowding a rather old, but not real crappy, Westwood neighborhood just to the west of OSU, which has been a local issue of controversy.

"A growing demand for urban housing within a walkable distance to the university and/or shops and businesses is driving the high density movement in Norman and follows a national trend of urban renewal. But residents, especially those in Norman’s historic districts near where much of the high density construction requests are focused, are concerned about increased traffic, parking problems, and the potential for damaging the charm and character of existing single family neighborhoods."


What is sad is that high density decreases traffic. Eliminate the need for the car and you eliminate the car; eliminate the car and you eliminate traffic AND the need for parking.

What is sad is that high density decreases traffic. Eliminate the need for the car and you eliminate the car; eliminate the car and you eliminate traffic AND the need for parking.So you want everyone to walk everywhere? When you need to go across the country you take a train? Like I said before I want a light rail in OKC more than anything but if I am imagining the world you are, it seems really boring to me. I think there need to be balance for people like me who like cars but also for people that want to use mass transit for their everyday travel and then there are those who make the best of both worlds.

There was a proposal by a developer made up of two brothers out of Kansas I think and they had proposed some housing north of Sarkey's off Boyd. But these NIMBY clowns protested the hell out of it, apparently so they can keep the charm of the rundown homes that are currently there.

This. Elsey is a good developer..solid track record.

So you want everyone to walk everywhere? When you need to go across the country you take a train? Like I said before I want a light rail in OKC more than anything but if I am imagining the world you are, it seems really boring to me. I think there need to be balance for people like me who like cars but also for people that want to use mass transit for their everyday travel and then there are those who make the best of both worlds.

Why would you want to drive your car if you lived in a high density area that had all your daily needs (and wants) within walking distance? While I was in Philly I looked at some apartments and condos and The Phoenix as a pretty good marketing edge. You can go anywhere in the world without stepping outside and no car needed.

Philadelphia Condominiums - The Phoenix :: Luxury Residences :: 1600 Arch Street (http://www.phillyphoenix.com/)

Why would you want to drive your car if you lived in a high density area that had all your daily needs (and wants) within walking distance? While I was in Philly I looked at some apartments and condos and The Phoenix as a pretty good marketing edge. You can go anywhere in the world without stepping outside and no car needed.

Philadelphia Condominiums - The Phoenix :: Luxury Residences :: 1600 Arch Street (http://www.phillyphoenix.com/)Well first off I like driving but I would also like to be able to walk to the store to pick up something to eat or whatever, so I understand your point. I live in Edmond so it isn't very dense and I like it that way. I prefer having a yard(front and back) and is cheaper to own bigger home than bigger apartment(if you want to live in nice areas). So to me there are pros and cons for each. Cons here is having to drive everywhere to get something. But, on the other hand, sometimes I like driving to the store and looking out my window. I just can't imagine a city that is 100% urban. Some people like high density urban environments and I think they're neat and one day I would love to become a developer and develop such areas. But, as far as living I just like were I'm at.

Just to be clear, no one is asking you to move, but both Edmond and Norman should also include high density areas for those that want to live in a traditional town style development. Edmond and Norman don't have to be 100% suburban or low density.

I don't think anybody should be forced to live 100% urban or suburban. I really don't think many are asking or talking about that, Plutonic Panda. However, the cost of sprawl and the street network to support that life style should reflect the true cost to sustain that. If you love driving you should be willing to pay to use that. The big beef most on this forum (and other likeminded individuals who are not on this forum) have with suburbia is that the cost is enormous to the city budgets, but very little of that cost is being paid by the primary users of it. Usually at the cost of the inner city being neglected (why we are now spending so much money to grow the inner city again, if we hadn't hav subsidized sprawl, we wouldn't be investing as heavily to rebuild downtown -- it'd still be functional and pretty spectacular).

I understand people need to be willing to pay and I support that. I would also support a new gas tax that would primarily go to building a brand new Light Rail and then go to rebuilding our interchanges ASAP!

Just to be clear, no one is asking you to move, but both Edmond and Norman should also include high density areas for those that want to live in a traditional town style development. Edmond and Norman don't have to be 100% suburban or low density.I agree with that. In fact I would love for Edmond to have an extensive urban development in the central core surrounding UCO. I mean I would like a pretty big area for that. I would also be in favor of completely removing Broadway starting from 2nd street all the way to Bryant and putting in a street car and creating a new entertainment, shopping, and residential area not seen in OKC. I don't know Norman that well but that will probably change when I attend OU in the Fall.

All this urbanism dense living seems very faddish. Right now there's a lot of interest and tremendous subsidies to make everything bright and shiny but when the shine wears off people will move back to the burbs for the same reasons our grandparents did. There's nothing new under the sun. It's all been played out before.

Whether I'm right or wrong I do enjoy all the new stuff.

All this urbanism dense living seems very faddish. Right now there's a lot of interest and tremendous subsidies to make everything bright and shiny but when the shine wears off people will move back to the burbs for the same reasons our grandparents did. There's nothing new under the sun. It's all been played out before.

Whether I'm right or wrong I do enjoy all the new stuff.I agree to some extent. I don't know how faddish it is. I just can't imagine living in a concrete jungle no matter how dressed up it is. But, that is just view of it and I'm sure many people on here would disagree.

I agree but to be fair, most people haven't experienced or lived in the kind of density that most new urbanists like JTF actually would like to see. It is pretty doubtful that aside from projects like Carlton Landing, traditional, "urban" neighborhoods are not likely to be built or preserved (Deep Deuce) in Oklahoma. There will be exceptions but I don't see the 'fad' really taking off here.

Extreme fans of urbanism who can will probably eventually leave for places that are really committing to that kind of density.

I don't know what all of this is to be honest. A lot of people don't leave and the point is that cities can embrace all of its citizens, provide a place for everyone, and become much more diverse places. Diversity isn't just racial but also exists between lifestyles, income groups, and people who like red cars versus people who like black suvs.

In the past we've gotten too caught up in entire suburbs where everyone looks the same, thinks the same, lives in the same house, and drives the same car. That's why a lot of people roll their eyes at Edmond or look down on Moore, or [insert typical reaction to a suburb's stereotype]. However, showcasing Downtown OKC is by far putting our best foot forward in attracting growth and new business.

I wonder if this will pass tonight. I think it'd be a great addition, but knowing Norman, I doubt it passes.

High-density project on agenda for Norman City Council | News OK (http://newsok.com/high-density-project-on-agenda-for-norman-city-council/article/3809570)

I wonder if this will pass tonight. I think it'd be a great addition, but knowing Norman, I doubt it passes.

High-density project on agenda for Norman City Council | News OK (http://newsok.com/high-density-project-on-agenda-for-norman-city-council/article/3809570)

i'm also saying no, it won't pass... which is sad. I would like to see more of their plans. as if not done right, i too might oppose it, just not for any of the reasons that it will get voted down

i'm also saying no, it won't pass... which is sad. I would like to see more of their plans. as if not done right, i too might oppose it, just not for any of the reasons that it will get voted down

what is interesting is that if the developer is correct and he can build the highrise housing by current zoning right he very well might just building the housing anyway if this is voted down. if which case he could just leave the planned retail empty and go get the rezoning after the fact

This location seems like a pretty good place for this type of development.
I don’t understand why Campus Corner merchants wouldn’t want more people closer to their businesses.

Well, it makes too much sense.

This was in the Transcript today...Work on density zoning continues » Headlines » The Norman Transcript (http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x701043971/Council-creates-three-categories-of-high-density-zoning)

I like the direction they are going in.

Initial proposed ordinance was:
HDR-1 - up to 45' high
HDR-2 - up to 55' high
HDR-3 - up to 75' high

Mayor Rosenthal has proposed changing them to:
HDR-1 - 3 stories or up to 45' high
HDR-2 - 4 stories or up to 55' high, discouraged next to single family homes
HDR-3 - unlimited height, on arterial streets only, prohibited next to single family homes

So things are continuing to evolve and it appears in the right direction. We need to get away from the 75' high restriction. I'm not sure the location restriction is good, because that wouldn't allow them to build on a secondary street downtown or other higher density areas.

Interesting that there is now virtually no difference between HDR-1 and the controversial apartment development on the west side. Leave it to normanites to approve higher density on the outskirts and fight it to the death in the urban core.

The CC area development discussion was postponed, again, at the request of the developer.
Vote on high-density rezoning request postponed for fifth time » Headlines » The Norman Transcript (http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x701045068/Vote-on-high-density-rezoning-request-postponed-for-fifth-time)

Has anyone seen the renderings for this Risser project?

That's the one just north of campus corner right? If so, there's new renderings out from the meeting last week. Check the city of norman's planning commission agenda from June 13th.

Yeah. I looked up the agenda though and didn't see any renderings included. The link for that week doesn't have open links like the other agendas. Can you post them here? Or at least the link to the active agenda where you saw them?

Here are the schematics for the Campus Corner development:

http://norman.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=1ffa8adb-03b4-428a-b194-ef22eb213174.pdf