An interesting tool for all of our OKC Talk experts on planning.

What do you see for Oklahoma City's future? | News OK (http://newsok.com/what-do-you-see-for-oklahoma-citys-future/article/3889336)

I took that survey about a week and a half ago. Really dig it. Posted a link to it on my Facebook page too. Probably should do it again...

Oklahoma City officials review guidelines for future growth | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-officials-review-guidelines-for-future-growth/article/5353731)



Oklahoma City’s new development guidelines are built around seven “big ideas” planners expect will shape the city’s growth through the first half of the century.



Planning commission members and the city council met Tuesday for a briefing on the guidelines, known as “planOKC,” led by Planning Director Aubrey Hammontree. The commission and council are expected to vote on the final product in early 2015.

What are the “big ideas?”

The big ideas are “transportation choice and mobility,” “housing choice,” “healthy citizens,” “community attractiveness,” “thriving neighborhoods,” “efficient development” and “preserving natural character.”
planOKC envisions decision-making that promotes transit corridors feeding off densely populated neighborhoods, while preserving low-density development and agricultural lifestyles in far-flung corners of the city.

Planners say 90 percent of participants in planOKC “growth scenarios workshops” favored more dense development and growth in existing neighborhoods in order to free up money for improving streets. Participants favored guiding growth to give residents a greater range of choices — walking, bicycling and mass transit in addition to cars — to get where they need to go.

From the Journal Record:

Density drive: PlanOKC vision hopes to limit sprawl

By: Brian Brus The Journal Record October 14, 20140

OKLAHOMA CITY – The city can’t afford to be splintered into small, outlying communities, Oklahoma City officials said, as they gave a nod of approval to a map that will shape the metro area’s growth for the next 20 years.

“The one aspect that continually drives me crazy is building density on the perimeter of the city,” Mayor Mick Cornett said. “I just don’t see how we can justify building large apartment complexes far, far away from the city’s core. It is only creating additional responsibilities on our public safety and our streets.

“There is demand for it,” he said. “But I think we cannot fall into the trap of being so development-friendly, so anxious for capital and investment, that we just figure out a way to say, ‘Yes.’ I would prefer our answer not be, ‘No.’ But it needs to be, ‘Yes, if.’”

The City Council and the Oklahoma City Planning Commission met Tuesday in a rare, joint workshop meeting to look over the latest iteration of PlanOKC, a comprehensive set of goals and guidelines to help direct development of transportation, culture, retail and entertainment opportunities, appearance, schools and safety. The underlying goal is to create a more sustainable and healthy environment for residents across 621 square miles, one of the largest cities in the country.

Officials referred to the presentation Tuesday as a preliminary draft, although Planning Department Director Aubrey Hammontree said significant shifts are not expected as it is reviewed by residents and other stakeholders. Councilman David Greenwell urged early adoption by January; Hammontree said February or March is more likely, given the plan’s wide effects.

At the heart of the revision process, which has been underway for at least three years, lies a battle against urban sprawl. The farther away that homes and businesses are developed from the core, the more expensive it is to provide utilities, emergency services and infrastructure. According to projections, if the city is left to follow current trends, the majority of land would be developed as sparsely populated, with a lot of space between homes to drive up taxpayer costs.

However, in a projected scenario in which market forces are balanced with policies toward efficiency and revitalization, the low-density land use would shrink from 58 percent to 42 percent. Undeveloped land held in reserve would grow from 29 percent to 44 percent, and people would be more likely to seek homes in denser population zones.

Councilman Pete White said sprawl itself is merely a symptom that is being driven by another factor that deserves more attention.

“The impact of higher-density housing is based less on planning and more on public schools and poverty,” White said. “The people you see moving back into the central part of Oklahoma are people without children, or if they have children then they can afford to enroll them in private schools.

“You can’t tell me that people, when they tell us they want better public transportation, that’s why they’re moving to Deer Creek,” he said. “They’re moving out there because of the kids and schools.”

Councilman Pat Ryan agreed with White and Cornett about education, adding that he’s noticed at several planning meetings that the quality of education has grown to become the single largest factor in home choice.

“We can come up with all the plans we want too, telling people where they should live,” he said. “But until we have schools and education that’s as good as elsewhere, we’re dead in the water.

“We don’t have problems with sprawl,” Ryan said. “We have problems with educational facilities.”

The city is projected to grow from a population of about 465,000 in 2000 to 744,000 by 2030. At the same time, the largest age group of residents will shift from those who are 35 to 44 years old to the 20-29 age range.

I have to agree that schools are the major reason for sprawl in Oklahoma. My wife and I were actually very interested in moving downtown earlier this year. The reason we hesitated was because of the school situation. We don't have kids yet but it's something we think about. We live in Yukon which is outside of the "core", but I can get from my house to my seat in Chesapeake arena in less than 30 min. Moving to the core, where I'd most likely "have to" move back when my kids are school age, is a risky hassle for such a small difference in geography.

I have to agree that schools are the major reason for sprawl in Oklahoma. My wife and I were actually very interested in moving downtown earlier this year. The reason we hesitated was because of the school situation. We don't have kids yet but it's something we think about. We live in Yukon which is outside of the "core", but I can get from my house to my seat in Chesapeake arena in less than 30 min. Moving to the core, where I'd most likely "have to" move back when my kids are school age, is a risky hassle for such a small difference in geography.

Fair enough. I know I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford to live in the Wilson Elementary district, one of the best in the city. I also live only blocks from Classen SAS, one of the best middle/high schools in the state. So my kids' path from Kindergarten to high school graduate is pretty much fully mapped out AND I get to live in midtown OKC. Living in the Rex feeder area is, for the most part, similarly expensive for anyone wanting something bigger than a 2 bedroom apartment.

That being said, there are many who are not as fortunate as me who make it work in the metro, with kids. This thought that you'd "have to" is probably coming from a less-than-fully informed place about the realities of specific schools in OKCPS. A better way to put it is, "We'd love to live in the core, but we don't feel like jumping through any hoops/improvising in regards to our kid's schooling, so we are choosing instead to live in the suburbs where this particular child-rearing issue is simpler to navigate." Again, it is a valid choice, just like someone wanting 5 acres of land is a valid choice. But it is not a "have to".

...but I realize in my rush to quibble I glazed over the fact that I mostly agree with you. No one in their right mind has their heart swell when looking at a uniform row of tract housing in Deer Creek. They buy there by and large, "for the schools." Totally agree. To me, the negatives of living out in the sprawl outweigh the negatives of dealing with OKCPS, but I admit it is a tradeoff. My above post comes from my deeply-held belief that the trade-off is not as clearly one-sided as most OKCitizens believe, and that if they learned more about the specifics of OKCPS schools more (but certainly not all) would come down on the side of living in the core.

does this thread stay on topic, or shall we just link the hundreds of other threads that have already been down the path these last couple posts may take it :)

does this thread stay on topic, or shall we just link the hundreds of other threads that have already been down the path these last couple posts may take it :)

Sorry dude. Guilty as charged.

I like this plan. Accounting for the longterm costs of infrastructure maintenance and public safety needs to be weighed in when we approve greenfield development.

does this thread stay on topic, or shall we just link the hundreds of other threads that have already been down the path these last couple posts may take it :)

it's always the same crap. I highly doubt plan OKC will even make a dent in sprawl anyhow.