A few days ago, I got the chance to take a look at some vacant mid-century homes that are currently up for sale. One of them was near NW 10th and Rockwell. The house itself was really cool-- great landscaping in both the front and back yard, nice facade, great floor plan. It looked to be in decent shape for the most part (except that the front door had obviously been kicked in at some point). Most of the other houses in the immediate neighborhood also looked like they were well-kept (or at least, not poorly kept).

The rest of the surrounding area, though? It looked like a demilitarized zone.

Driving east on NW 10th from MacArthur to Rockwell was one of the most depressing things I've done in a long time. There's very little retail to speak of-- it seems to be nothing but 1970s apartment complexes, several of which are boarded up and rotting, some with entire units that have been completely burnt out!

In high school, I had a friend who lived in the NW 19th and MacArthur area. Back in the late 90s and early 2000s, the area wasn't bad. It wasn't great either, but it was certainly better than it is now.

My question is: What happened here? I mean, pretty much everything north of I-40 and west of I-35 is rundown now. Does it have something to do with the downtown revitalization? Is it because everyone moved to Moore/SW OKC? What causes whole areas to decline so rapidly? Why did they build so many apartments there in the first place?

It has nothing to do with downtown and everything to do with demographics.

I think it's a huge stretch to say everything north of I-40 and west of I-35 is rundown. That's -what - about 70% of OKC?

I will say this - I subscribe to Rudy Guiliani's broken window theory. When a neighborhood starts to go downhill, it needs to be addressed early or it starts to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Not sure what this has to do with the downtown rejuvenation. There are plenty of inner city neighborhoods that are north of 40 and west of 35 that are healthier than they've been in decades.

Also, I think you are intermingling commercial areas and apartments with actual neighborhoods that people spend time in. No doubt a lot of commercial areas and apartments built in that area now look like crap, but that was throwaway development to begin with. That stuff wasn't meant to last 40 years. Most of the neighborhoods that are largely owner occupied still look fine.

OKC's large geographic size has always cut both ways because land was relatively cheap, and over time, disposable. Don't forget that residential renters are fickle, and they'll move when they get a better offer from the newer place down the street.

The bust of the 1980s left a "high water mark" of commercial development in NW OKC near 122nd & MacArthur/Rockwell. You could go there for years and find unfinished strip centers, sometimes with the buildings finished but not even concrete poured inside. It wasn't until many years later that development resumed, those places filled in, and expansion continued. Left behind were properties further in, like along Britton Road east of Lake Hefner, also run down.

This is typical of urban development in large geographic cities.

Driving east on NW 10th from MacArthur to Rockwell was one of the most depressing things I've done in a long time. There's very little retail to speak of-- it seems to be nothing but 1970s apartment complexes, several of which are boarded up and rotting, some with entire units that have been completely burnt out!

At least few of those apartment complexes completely failed and were abandoned, which became a magnet for criminals to either move in or use them temporally, so various types of crimes would have spiked in the near vicinity. From what I heard from one city official was that most of the burning were either from manufacture of drugs on the premises or to destroy evidence of other crimes talking place there. They have been working on changing ordinariness since in cases like this it has been cheaper for the owners to just ignore the properties than fix, sell or doze it.

It is also possible that the reduction of workforce at the old AT&T manufacturing plant starting probably in the eighties and eventual closing in the later nineties would have furthered the slide.

The answers are in this thread; the over building of apartment complexes that were then not maintained, the loss of high paying jobs at not just the AT&T plant, but also Dayton Tire, etc. And then add in the adult oriented businesses that opened up along with the Red Dog Saloon on NW 10....

Let me be more specific. I'm mostly talking about the Putnam City/Bethany/Warr Acres part of town, but parts of that area are technically OKC. I'm not talking about anything north of NW Expressway. That's a whole different can of worms.

Also, I did say that the neighborhood/subdivision was still looking pretty good for being 40-ish years old. The problem is the rest of the area. Why doesn't the city do something about the abandoned apartment complexes? If I've been informed correctly, that sort of thing affects home prices in a big way. Why let the whole area go to pot (no pun intended) when there are some nice neighborhoods there? The fact is that abandoned structures are crime magnets and the longer they let it sit, the more money and time it will cost to renew it in the future.

Edit: Didn't know there used to be an AT&T plant. I was born in 1983; cut me some slack. :tongue: Also I had forgotten about the closure of Dayton Tire. That was definitely a blow.

Edit: Didn't know there used to be an AT&T plant.

It was the complex of buildings on the north east corner of Reno and Council.

Oh yeah, I think I know the one-- near the new outlet mall, right? I was wondering what that used to be.

I agree West OKC west of I-44 and south of 39th St is starting to look more and more like the Southside. In the late '90s that wasn't the greatest area but it definitely wasn't as bad as it is today. Now its downright ghetto in many places.

Oh yeah, I think I know the one-- near the new outlet mall, right? I was wondering what that used to be.

Yea, just north of the new mall

More of NW OKC is still nice than people claim. It's just shocking because the wide swath from Bethany to Nichols Hills did used to be "the Edmond" of a bygone era.

East Cleveland in the 1800s was Millionaires Row, including Rockefeller. Now it's the most dangerous locality in Ohio (which says a lot). Far-out sprawl, no matter how nice, will ALWAYS decline...sometimes dramatically.

Edmond is nice now, for the most part. But in 50-75 years it probably won't be. Most everything along Boulevard has already gone to crap.

Oh yeah, I think I know the one-- near the new outlet mall, right? I was wondering what that used to be.

It's one of many monuments to Right-to-Work's success in Oklahoma. The empty tire plant about half a mile south of it is another one. That law sure didn't work out as advertised...

That's a bit of an overstatement. The Western Electric facility was a victim of the breakup of the original AT&T; it wasn't the only victim, either...

Lucent/Celestica, which owned the Western Electric plant when it closed, began winding down operations, preparing to shut it down in 2000; the Right to Work ballot was passed by voters in 2001.

I will freely admit that I'm not terribly familiar with the area in question. From the comments in the thread, it would appear that the problems of this area are not so much the housing subdivisions as the commercial corridors - vacant buildings, blighted streetscapes, etc. My mind turns to Lincoln Blvd, and how a concerted effort to upgrade that corridor has begun to turn the tide. The neighborhoods surrounding that street are likely in much worse shape than the area in question, but leaving that aside, it's apparent that the Lincoln Blvd of today is an improvement over the Lincoln Blvd of my youth.

Gets me thinking - what if the city could focus like a laser beam on the commercial corridors of struggling areas? What would that look like? I'm just spitballing, but I'm thinking of the oft-discussed MAPS 4. If such a program could raise a billion dollars, what would $300 million or so do for NW 10, NW 23, NW 36? (In this idea, $300 million could go to NE OKC and $300 million to the inner southside - call it "MAPS for neighborhoods")

I wouldn't advocate clear cutting of the Lincoln Blvd variety - this area is not so far gone - but what if the city could take the money, marry it with other types of grants and programs and get to work? Could we purchase struggling shopping centers, rehabilitate them and sell them (a stretch)? Could we buy the vacant apartment complexes, raze them

Wow. So frustrating time and again to pen a lengthy response only to have it erased and/or be told "I can't perform this action because I'm not logged in" even though I've logged out, logged in, and re-written three times. It finally posts and it only posts a portion of it. You'll have to just take my last post and imagine the rest. I promise I was pithy and intelligent :) Good night.

Driving east on NW 10th from MacArthur to Rockwell was one of the most depressing things I've done in a long time.


That would be a bummer . . . Especially on account of Rockwell is west of MacArthur.
Why . . . It would probably take about a year to make the one mile journey.
(on the other hand, if the journey rather than the destination is the main thing . . . =)

Lucent/Celestica, which owned the Western Electric plant when it closed, began winding down operations, preparing to shut it down in 2000; the Right to Work ballot was passed by voters in 2001.

My dad worked at that plant for like thirty years and I can tell you that it's closing almost certainly had nothing to do with right to work. After it was bought by Celestica it was a shell of itself and the market for that equipment was getting bad soon to get worse, 2000 was also the height of the MCI fiasco and when the dot com bubble burst leaving overcapacity in telcom company's networks, which is the type of equipment they produced there, so the market went from multiple companies expanding their networks to virtually no one expanding for several years. There was rumors when Celestica bought them for to get the customer base than the manufacturing capability as Celestica had enough manufacturing capacity to fill both companies needs and many people were planning their next job, I can not say for certain that was their intent but their behavior after purchase was inline with those suspicions.

I will freely admit that I'm not terribly familiar with the area in question. From the comments in the thread, it would appear that the problems of this area are not so much the housing subdivisions as the commercial corridors - vacant buildings, blighted streetscapes, etc. My mind turns to Lincoln Blvd, and how a concerted effort to upgrade that corridor has begun to turn the tide. The neighborhoods surrounding that street are likely in much worse shape than the area in question, but leaving that aside, it's apparent that the Lincoln Blvd of today is an improvement over the Lincoln Blvd of my youth.

Gets me thinking - what if the city could focus like a laser beam on the commercial corridors of struggling areas? What would that look like? I'm just spitballing, but I'm thinking of the oft-discussed MAPS 4. If such a program could raise a billion dollars, what would $300 million or so do for NW 10, NW 23, NW 36? (In this idea, $300 million could go to NE OKC and $300 million to the inner southside - call it "MAPS for neighborhoods")

I wouldn't advocate clear cutting of the Lincoln Blvd variety - this area is not so far gone - but what if the city could take the money, marry it with other types of grants and programs and get to work? Could we purchase struggling shopping centers, rehabilitate them and sell them (a stretch)? Could we buy the vacant apartment complexes, raze them

I think in terms of suburban areas, the free market should be allowed to decide. OKC should concentrate more police coverage in problem areas but I think any incentives to revitalize far west OKC would be better spent in the urban core or areas directly to the north.

Gets me thinking - what if the city could focus like a laser beam on the commercial corridors of struggling areas? What would that look like? I'm just spitballing, but I'm thinking of the oft-discussed MAPS 4. If such a program could raise a billion dollars, what would $300 million or so do for NW 10, NW 23, NW 36? (In this idea, $300 million could go to NE OKC and $300 million to the inner southside - call it "MAPS for neighborhoods")

I am not sure you can focus like a laser on the commercial corridors, most of the mile grid streets/arteries within the i240/i44/i35 interstate loop could stand some sort of improvement. Another thing that has not been helping the NW is more people seem to be getting concerned about Putnam City Schools.

I think in terms of suburban areas, the free market should be allowed to decide. OKC should concentrate more police coverage in problem areas but I think any incentives to revitalize far west OKC would be better spent in the urban core or areas directly to the north.

Disagree. The idea we should continue to pour money into downtown and let the rest of the city rot is appalling. Especially considering the vast majority of city revenue comes from the areas we're talking about, NW OKC. There's property taxes generated downtown but there's little to no sales tax. The residents (who don't live downtown and have no intention of ever living downtown) have agreed through maps to work on downtown to a point and for a reason. I don't think most of the citizens would agree to make that the long term policy nor support leaders who act in that manner.

NW 10th should be on the slate for rehab all the way to Council. The city started on it and worked outward to Penn. They need to continue. If not, I'd suggest maybe they deannex everything west of Western and north of 23rd and we'll use our tax dollars to rework it ourselves.

Disagree. The idea we should continue to pour money into downtown and let the rest of the city rot is appalling. Especially considering the vast majority of city revenue comes from the areas we're talking about, NW OKC. There's property taxes generated downtown but there's little to no sales tax. The residents (who don't live downtown and have no intention of ever living downtown) have agreed through maps to work on downtown to a point and for a reason. I don't think most of the citizens would agree to make that the long term policy nor support leaders who act in that manner.

NW 10th should be on the slate for rehab all the way to Council. The city started on it and worked outward to Penn. They need to continue. If not, I'd suggest maybe they deannex everything west of Western and north of 23rd and we'll use our tax dollars to rework it ourselves.

It's not that all the money should be poured into downtown and the rest of the city let rot. It's should that money be spent to revitalize a declining suburban area when the original demographic of that area have moved on to other suburban areas, most notable West Edmond and West Moore (OKC city limits)? What do you propose should be done to revitalize that corridor?

I disagree with the premise. The occupancy rate of homes in NW OKC is essentially the same as it's always been. (Apartments on 10th street notwithstanding.) NW OKC is not Detroit.

We didn't replace it with homes in other places. The homes are still there. People still live in them and will continue to live in them. We added homes in other places.

It's one of many monuments to Right-to-Work's success in Oklahoma. The empty tire plant about half a mile south of it is another one. That law sure didn't work out as advertised...

This was about the time that tires were made in Asia way less expensive than here, the same happend to the textile industry just a decade before. Right to work had little effect on either.

My question is: What happened here? I mean, pretty much everything north of I-40 and west of I-35 is rundown now. Does it have something to do with the downtown revitalization? Is it because everyone moved to Moore/SW OKC? What causes whole areas to decline so rapidly? Why did they build so many apartments there in the first place?

Did you mean to say west of I-44? Plenty of good neighborhoods north of I-40 between 35 and 44.

Did you mean to say west of I-44? Plenty of good neighborhoods north of I-40 between 35 and 44.

The bad areas may vary from street to street, it is not usually to find a pocket of one in the other. Areas may have made a comeback too, at one time the area around the capital and medical complex had as bad a reputation as anywhere in the city. The area between i235 and i35 also has had a ton of houses demolished that are still bare land, which indicates it had some extended bad times.

The area between i235 and i35

Not to be overly pedantic or that it matters much in the big picture, but that's not NW OKC.

Not to be overly pedantic or that it matters much in the big picture, but that's not NW OKC.

I was responding to others comments


I mean, pretty much everything north of I-40 and west of I-35 is rundown now.


Did you mean to say west of I-44? Plenty of good neighborhoods north of I-40 between 35 and 44.

I was responding to others comments

I know, as was I in part.

The real issue at hand demonstrated in this thread IMO is the acceptance of the effects of sprawl on the one hand with a half attempt to redirect public funds towards an urban center as the be all end all of the future. I get there's reasons to have a healthy core. But a properly managed city would place priority on existing established neighborhoods and infrastructure over new at distances further out. All of them. If the city does not have the means to do this, acquire blighted properties like we have along 10th street, make changes to roads and sidewalks and encourage revitalization, they need to divest themselves of some of the property they have under their management. That would not be cutting a donut out of the city and say, discarding everything from the urban core to maybe the 5 or 7 mile mark and keeping everything inside and out that's new and shiny with some particular desired demographic. It would be working on the urban core AND the donut first.

discarding everything from the urban core to maybe the 7 mile mark and keeping everything inside and out that's new and shiny with some particular desired demographic.

Even just dumping the agriculture zoned land is problematic, look at budget issues with Bethany or Warr Acers for what happens to a predominantly suburban city when all the develop-able land runs out. Part of why building more urban style seems like the most realistic alternative to hitting a wall eventually.

Condemning and demolishing some of the abandoned aparment complexes would certainly help along 10th street. Other than that Im not sure what you can do or would want to do.

The outlet mall, Westgate, Francis Tuttle and expanding and/or new businesses along reno and south council might have somewhat of a positive impact in the coming years.

The bad areas may vary from street to street, it is not usually to find a pocket of one in the other. Areas may have made a comeback too, at one time the area around the capital and medical complex had as bad a reputation as anywhere in the city. The area between i235 and i35 also has had a ton of houses demolished that are still bare land, which indicates it had some extended bad times.

Sorry - meant 235 not 35. The OP referenced everything west of 35. Lots of great historic neighborhoods that fall in that area.

I apparently got mixed up on my directions. Sorry.

Basically, all I was trying to say is that NW 10th is depressing and that something ought to be done. Though I don't know why I even care; it's not like I live in that part of town anymore. If people that live up there are fine with it, then I suppose it's not a big deal.

urban sprawl = operation rolling ghetto. All those new great places in Edmond and Moore - check them out in 20 more years.

Perhaps it has to do with changing demographics and a population shift no longer able to sustain. Downtown OKC is getting better all the time along with Midtown, Lincoln Blvd, East Bricktown which I call front door to OKC. The flip side being the rest of OKC is marginal with small pockets of nice neighborhoods with large pockets of blight. It's asthetic appearance needs improvement, including the sorry roads. Why do residents stand for horrendous roads? Can anyone objectively answer this?

I think if the right measures are taken, a suburb can last just as long as it's "parent" cities core can. I think it all comes down to the city leaders. I don't Edmond is going downhill anytime soon, neither do I think that about Norman. I don't know too much about Moore. I think Bethany/Warr Acres area was neglected for a long time. I don't believe that just happened. Time will tell though. Not only that, but our future leaders. OKC could hit the dirt just easily as Edmond could. The best example of this was Downtown OKC not too long ago.

I think it's the norm in OKC, not the exception, for older neighborhoods to look extremely run down. There are definitely nice old neighborhoods, but there are a lot more that are not. I think the root cause of this is the same reason why even neighborhoods that aren't that old all too quickly look like homes aren't being maintained properly... it's also the same reason no one pours money into updating the interiors of their homes here and just let things keep on like its 1999... homes are very cheap, there's a ton of land, and home builders keep on building. There's more economic incentive to move into a brand new home every so many years than there is to stay. It means you don't see many 1,000 square foot $500k homes, but it also means that you don't see many immaculately cared for, modernized older homes like you do on the West Coast.

It also means that usually the biggest appreciation is in new home markets during the first several years the neighborhood is new... but then kind of starts to level out the older the house gets. Which keeps driving people with more money to newer neighborhoods.

Just what I've observed anyway.

I think it's the norm in OKC, not the exception, for older neighborhoods to look extremely run down. There are definitely nice old neighborhoods, but there are a lot more that are not. I think the root cause of this is the same reason why even neighborhoods that aren't that old all too quickly look like homes aren't being maintained properly... it's also the same reason no one pours money into updating the interiors of their homes here and just let things keep on like its 1999... homes are very cheap, there's a ton of land, and home builders keep on building. There's more economic incentive to move into a brand new home every so many years than there is to stay. It means you don't see many 1,000 square foot $500k homes, but it also means that you don't see many immaculately cared for, modernized older homes like you do on the West Coast.

It also means that usually the biggest appreciation is in new home markets during the first several years the neighborhood is new... but then kind of starts to level out the older the house gets. Which keeps driving people with more money to newer neighborhoods.

Just what I've observed anyway.

To me, the homes in West OKC are more akin to the ones on the South side than they are to the historic, character-filled homes directly north of the urban core. They are post-war tract homes that haven't stood the test of time. I don't see them ever having the kind of historical value most pre-war homes do. That is probably why you don't see the grassroots rush to gentrify West OKC like you do the 23rd st corridor.

I think even today's homes will stand the test of time moreso than most of the homes built in the 1950-1975 era.

I'll say that for someone who prefers urban living, IMO the death of suburbs is/was highly exaggerated. Lots of people simply don't care for dense urban environments. More importantly, cities' troubled urban school districts will always give families pause. Towns that offer good schools, solid (but not always cheap) real estate, a diverse tax base, some culture and arts, and at least some measure of white collar employment with simple access to other job centers will always be in demand. In this area, I can really only think of Norman, and to a lesser extent Edmond, that meet these descriptions. There are plenty of homes in both towns built in the 1960-1985 time period that look great.

Of course on the other end of the spectrum is the outposts of commuter oriented cheap housing centered around the occasional WalMart and some other big box stores. Who actually believes these places will last? They'll be abandoned once the next "it" place is discovered by the real estate industry. It frankly amazes me how people think Oklahoma is somehow insulated from these trends. So there will likely be a steady stream of crap development in the future. I drive through Moore and Yukon and think to myself, "What will this look like in 10 years?" Moore could go either way IMO if it could diversify its tax base, otherwise we'll be responding to a thread in 2023 asking What Happened to Moore.

To me, the homes in West OKC are more akin to the ones on the South side than they are to the historic, character-filled homes directly north of the urban core. They are post-war tract homes that haven't stood the test of time. I don't see them ever having the kind of historical value most pre-war homes do. That is probably why you don't see the grassroots rush to gentrify West OKC like you do the 23rd st corridor.

I think even today's homes will stand the test of time moreso than most of the homes built in the 1950-1975 era.

Here is another take on the value of "post-war tract homes." The "mid-century modest" neighborhoods offer an affordable piece of the American dream for working class families and young adults. These neighborhoods have real diversity as opposed to many of the gentrified neighborhoods in the urban core.

The Mid-Century Modest Manifesto ? Retro Renovation (http://retrorenovation.com/mid-century-modest-manifesto/)

point of clarification? thank you.
when someone refers to "NW OKC" (as in the title of the thread)
what geographical boundaries are [they] (the OP) referring to?
(sorry, my bad: "to which definitional geographic boundaries are [they] referring?)

perhaps a better question might be: what opportunities for improvement does NW OKC offer . . .?
or . . . what is going to happen to NW OKC!

personally, i think that the relocation of the state fairgrounds from over on eastern to where it is now had something to do with all of it. does NW OKC stop at about . . . 36th and May? . . . or is that too provincial?

dang. it's hard to know just what happened . . .

I'll say that for someone who prefers urban living, IMO the death of suburbs is/was highly exaggerated. Lots of people simply don't care for dense urban environments.


I think it's also important to recognize that the urban core doesn't have all the jobs in the city. My wife and I would commute longer if we lived in the core, with her in Edmond and myself working in NW OKC. It just makes more sense for us to live near Hefner. Our other option would really be SE Edmond. While 10th has turned into a Ghetto, along with 122nd&Penn and some other pockets(MacArthur and Britton? I forget where the ****ty apartments are over there) a good chunk of suburban NW OKC is still bland and unremarkably decent.

Were I single, and without dogs, I'd probably want to live in the core. Dogs rule out the condos and apartments as I'd rather leave mine in the backyard when weather permits than crate or risk them destroying the house. When I lived in Douglas/Edgemere, it was nice and Western was close by, but the age of the house caused issues and the one bathroom is a huge pain in the ass. Midtown seems to have the same 50's and earlier designs, so I'm assuming one bathroom and small rooms.

I live in suburbia as it minimizes the commute more than anything, but with our city it doesn't put me out of reach. It's only 15 minutes to the core if I want to do something there, and only 10 minutes from the big box retail area if I want mindless consumption. While I would certainly like more ped/bike infrastructure and some neat restaurants and shops to walk to, I'd rather they come to me than the other way around.

You guys are over thinking this. The main problem is that we can't afford to maintain suburbia. I can get a loan for a BMW 750 but if I can't afford the $250 oil change every 3,000 miles how long is it going to look nice? Somewhere I have a presentation from StrongTowns that explains why suburbia can't be maintained and will always fall into disrepair. When I find it I will post it.

Found it.

52NhFMFgLEY

Here is another take on the value of "post-war tract homes." The "mid-century modest" neighborhoods offer an affordable piece of the American dream for working class families and young adults. These neighborhoods have real diversity as opposed to many of the gentrified neighborhoods in the urban core.

The Mid-Century Modest Manifesto ? Retro Renovation (/mid-century-modest-manifesto/)

Not to mention homes built earlier have undersized and substandard-for-today knob and tube wiring; the worst of the lead paint varieties; decentralized and antiquated heating and cooling systems; no insulation or insulation that has collapsed; frequently asbestos insulation in the attic, on piping, siding and roofing and other features that are great when they are brought up to the standards of the post war tract homes and beyond.

You guys are over thinking this. The main problem is that we can't afford to maintain suburbia. I can get a loan for a BMW 750 but if I can't afford the $250 oil change every 3,000 miles how long is it going to look nice? Somewhere I have a presentation from StrongTowns that explains why suburbia can't be maintained and will always fall into disrepair. When I find it I will post it.

Please define the mile marker from downtown OKC where you would propose suburbia starts and is no longer viable.

BTW, my home is about 7 miles from downtown and I live, work, shop, go to the doctor etc all much closer together than I can go to downtown OKC and probably much closer together than most people who live and work in downtown can do those things.

It isn't a function of distance. It is a function tax collection being able to fund the infrastructure necessary to support the development. If it cost you more to go to work than you earn at work how long can you keep that job?

There is a good quote in the video. If you lose money on every transaction you can't make it up in volume.

It isn't a function distance. It is a function tax collection being able to fund the infrastructure. If it cost you more to go to work than you earn at work how long can you keep that job?

There is a good quote in the video. If you lose money on every transaction you can't make it up in volume.

That's the point. It doesn't cost more for me to go to work, to shop, to do my daily activities, than I can earn.

That's the point. It doesn't cost more for me to go to work, to shop, to do my daily activities, than I can earn.

His point was it probably costs the city more to maintain services to any suburban property than it will ever collect from that citizen or business. So while they may make money the first few decades they are loosing money on the vast majority if not all property in the suburban areas as it comes time for maintenance.

I understand the issue completely. It isn't true for most of the area we are talking about. The area we are talking about is 90% of the revenue generation for OKC.

Cut my particular area out, just south of Bethany, along with all the businesses just south of Bethany, and Bethany would gladly take on the revenue and the management. That probably makes a lot more sense than having it managed by OKC anyway. It would be 7 miles closer.

I get the ideas. The simple minded 'let it rot and pour it all into downtown' isn't the answer.

New Urbanism is as much about connected centers of activity than one central place of activity.

Well for starts maybe the apartments should be demolished. As with 122nd and Penn, it seems like every time a ton of apartment complexes get built in one concentrated area that area goes downhill.

I understand the issue completely. It isn't true for most of the area we are talking about. The area we are talking about is 90% of the revenue generation for OKC. .

Maybe so but it is 93% of the cost. It is hard to have good school system when so much of the available money goes to build new schools on the fringe. Go look at the millions spent on a new subdivision and ask yourself how nice existing parts of town would be if those resources had been spent there instead.

.

Maybe so but it is 93% of the cost. It is hard to have good school system when so much of the available money goes to build new schools on the fringe.

Again. Define the fringe of OKC and provide a cite specific to OKC finances that shows the area we are talking about is not affordable with the taxes that are generated by the same area.

We've been talking generally about close in NW OKC, Bethany, Warr Acres, PC school areas. post war building etc. Stick with that and back up your assertions with some facts. Are those areas in your definition of fringe that do not generate enough taxes to pay for their upkeep?

If the area we are talking about generate the revenue to pay for their upkeep then why do you think they are becoming run down?

If the area we are talking about generate the revenue to pay for their upkeep then why do you think they are becoming run down?

That's been well covered up thread, the ease of sprawling further out, including commuting from new homes even far outside the city limits and into other city limits like Edmond and Guthrie. The willingness to spend our extra dollars generated in my part of the city to revitalize other parts of the city like downtown. That money wasn't generated downtown, it was surplus generated by the rest of OKC.

And has been pointed out, the area is not in Detroit type decline. It has seen improvements, new commercial areas from MacArthur to Council, the ATT plant has some new tenants and parts have been recently upgraded for office space. I have three new houses across the street from my house in the post war neighborhood and I just spent $40K remodeling mine in the last few years. We saw fit to afford Maps for kids and there is a new middle school to replace the older one at Council Grove and others in the neighborhood have been upgraded.

Now, how about the facts I asked you for?

Well for starts maybe the apartments should be demolished. As with 122nd and Penn, it seems like every time a ton of apartment complexes get built in one concentrated area that area goes downhill.

Re-reading this post reminded me of the day at least a couple of decades ago when I was driving east on 122nd and saw that the entire area to to the north--in the vicinity of Penn, that had previously been pristine countryside--was now covered by concrete slabs sprouting plumbng "trees" . . . my first thought was, "dang! that don't look right" but then--since I was a carpenter (actually a framer and cornice guy) by trade it started to look like potential dollar signs. Interestingly, not long ago, The Village razed a ton of apartments that might have been raised at about the same time. I'm not sure, because back then I lived way out in Eastern Oklahoma County.

Re-reading this post reminded me of the day at least a couple of decades ago when I was driving east on 122nd and saw that the entire area to to the north--in the vicinity of Penn, that had previously been pristine countryside--was now covered by concrete slabs sprouting plumbng "trees" . . . my first thought was, "dang! that don't look right" but then--since I was a carpenter (actually a framer and cornice guy) by trade it started to look like potential dollar signs. Interestingly, not long ago, The Village razed a ton of apartments that might have been raised at about the same time. I'm not sure, because back then I lived way out in Eastern Oklahoma County.

When my grandparents bought their house at 32nd and Shartel it was the north fringe of OKC.

In hindsight, in order to achieve the desired urban density that some dream about, I suppose that The Planners back then should have erected a giant wall--or iron curtain--up around 36th Street, so that the dreaded sprawl could be avoided and a lot more high rises (like the ones that Lucy and Desi and The Honeymooners lived in) could have been built. Somehow I don't think that Heritage Hills, Crown Heights and Mesta Park would have the same "charm" they have today if that plan would have been implemented, but . . . =)

if

Yeah. JTF used that word upthread too and I started to mention that it's a little late. We did. Can't put it back in the bottle nor pretend we didn't. The better course than this nonsense that we're going to abandon everything at the 'fringe',

(10th street and out? 23rd street and out? 36th street and out? 236th street and out?)

would be to determine the best way to preserve the huge investments we have made in buildings, housing and supporting infrastructure and steward them into connected areas of centralized activity and checking compounding the problem as best as can be done. That does not mean put everyone and all the commerce downtown. That means more people doing as I do, living, working, shopping in the same general area with connections to other areas and to do that closer to town with existing areas than to continue to sprawl more and more. That means putting jobs where the people live and shop.

It would be better to project 180 tenth street from downtown out and encourage redevelopment along that entire corridor and as a connector between areas than ignore it and continue to build farther out.