Point taken, but when the OKC figure is off by a factor of almost five, then I start questioning the data.

I agree with the premise that those markets have high rise residential housing due to their greater population density, but it's fair to see corrected relative density numbers.

Pete - I am still curious why you were arguing the point that we do have condos? Apparently it's worse than I realized: 1%

I hate when that happens but it's happening more and more lately, so I just be too optimistic myself.

Even if OKC was 2X as dense, it would still be 10X less dense than Omaha and Little Rock. If OKC was 10X as dense it would still be 1/2 as dense as Omaha and Little Rock. Reality is, OKC is spread out. When I lieved in Norman it was 19 miles from our apartment to downtown OKC. Drive 19 miles from downtown Omaha and you'll be 10 miles in the country.

I don't think these density numbers have anything to do with it. If you were to take the numbers of the actual urbanized area, not city limits and not entire MSA, the density of OKC wouldn't be that far below Omaha and Little Rock. When you mention the commute from Norman to downtown, remember Omaha and Little Rock are also much smaller than OKC. Lets take Memphis as an example since its similar in size to OKC. It takes that long if not longer to commute from downtown to Germantown or Collierville. OKC isn't the only metro area with sprawl problems.

Where OKC does fall short compared to other cities is per-capita income and concentrated wealth. The type of grand high-rise condos built in Little Rock and Omaha during the 2000s were aimed at luxury buyers. There is a perception, real or not, that OKC is a poor market for that type of development. It's also the same reason these other cities that are much smaller than us seem to get much better retail. National investors see OKC as risky, and that was especially true in the 2000s when these condo developments were in vogue.

The perception is slowly changing (though not fast enough) and next time there is a condo boom I think OKC will get attention that it did not get the last time.

Point taken, but when the OKC figure is off by a factor of almost five, then I start questioning the data.

I agree with the premise that those markets have high rise residential housing due to their greater population density, but it's fair to see corrected relative density numbers.

I don't think the density factor is the driving purpose for Little Rock / Omaha having Residential towers as much as it is the momentum of the CBD being "late to the party". We missed the building boom of the 80's, we missed the "dot com" / Tech booms for other citys, so we are looking at our first "boom" in 40 years. Plus, OKC just doesnt view itself ( historically ) as an urban town. We are closer to the Ft. Worth vs. Dallas mentality. Ft. Worth is now getting their residential towers, but they have been behind Dallas for 20 years.

This is now our push for urban life. There is a desire ( 21 - 40's ) to be downtown again. If a large residential tower / complex was placed in a prime location w/ full amenities & high end retail on the lower floors, it would go quickly.

As much as I would like to see more townhouses and condo's appear in OKC, I hope that it doesn't follow the same course as Houston's inner loop. Many of Houston's greatest neighborhoods have been flattened to make way for identical town homes and in some areas (not all) it has become the worst of both worlds: the mind numbing conformity of the suburbs with no space AND none of the walk-ability.

Literally 98% of all town homes in Houston have the exact same floorplan; Garage on first floor with mudroom, office, bathroom. Second floor has the kitchen and dining room, also a "powder room" and the third floor has the bedrooms. Mix it up by throwing on stucco with a particular color/texture to look Spanish, Italian, Modern or Victorian, rinse and repeat.

OKC needs more options, but I hope we learn from the lazy mistakes of other cities.

This is part of the reason.

Density of Omaha MSA: 4,400 people per sq mile
Density of Little Rock MSA: 4,090 people per sq mile
Density of OKC MSA: 208 people per per sq mile

I know that those numbers suit what your trying to say JTF, but the urban population and density numbers are what should be used in this conversation. I don't have them on me right now, but if I recall OKC and Omaha were basically the same density wise give or take a couple hundred per sq mile.

This is part of the reason.

Density of Omaha MSA: 4,400 people per sq mile
Density of Little Rock MSA: 4,090 people per sq mile
Density of OKC MSA: 208 people per per sq mile

I have to question that statistic. OKC, even with its total land area, has almost 1,000 people per square mile. I won't kill the messenger, but I'd like to know the source so that the source can be re-educated.

I really doubt density can truly kill dense development. It's a misconception that is overdriven to argue against developing condos. In the 1960s and 1970s, Oklahoma City witnessed a lot of high-rise and mid-rise development, both residential and office. And in the 1970s and 1980s before the oil bust, there were a lot of suburban multi-family units built. That seems to stick even in today's OKC market. Multi-family units for rent.

But back to the subject, the Tiffany house and Lakewiew tower, both mid-rise residential, were built at a time when OKC's density was MUCH less. 607 square miles and 368,000 people in 1970. We are twice as populated today. As far as condos go, I put the blame on national investors. Yes, OKC's per capita income is not as high as some places, but it isn't high in San Antonio either. And OKC's income growth is closing a lot of gaps.

I know that those numbers suit what your trying to say JTF, but the urban population and density numbers are what should be used in this conversation. I don't have them on me right now, but if I recall OKC and Omaha were basically the same density wise give or take a couple hundred per sq mile.

If I remember right I think OKC's urban density was around 2,100/sq mile and Omaha's was 2600/sq mile. Somewhere around there.

This is part of the reason.

Density of Omaha MSA: 4,400 people per sq mile
Density of Little Rock MSA: 4,090 people per sq mile
Density of OKC MSA: 208 people per per sq mile

Seriously, I have to call you out on this one as these numbers aren't even close to being correct.

Actual Density of MSA's

OKC: 224.5
Omaha: 196.4
Little Rock: 166.7

I am guessing the densities listed for Omaha and Little Rock are that of the urbanized area. Density shown for OKC is actually the density of the CSA.

This is part of the reason.

Density of Omaha MSA: 4,400 people per sq mile
Density of Little Rock MSA: 4,090 people per sq mile
Density of OKC MSA: 208 people per per sq mile

Hey JTF - What's your source for this?

Slightly off topic but since people keep bringing up the Centennial and to reiterate what JTF said above, the reason they filled up so quickly is because Devon, CHK, and others bought mostly all of them up at way overpriced prices. My folks bought one from Devon in Early 2012 and Devon easily took a $100K hit on the unit, since it came furnished. The good news now is the majority of the units are sold to residents or residents renting from people (Harold Hamm being one of them next door).

Only problem now is that since there are more people living there, there have been issues of our HOA dues not going directly back into our property, but in a generic Hogan fund going to his other endeavors. When head of HOA asked to see the books (trying to give control of HOA dues back to homeowners instead of hiring it out) they got real defensive and but that's another topic entirely.

Hey JTF - What's your source for this?

The Wikipedia page for each metro area which in turn comes from the census data. You guys can argue the data all you want but if you just go look in Google Earth you can see the relative density with your own eyes. OKC is spread across a lot more area. You will be miles into rural Nebraska by the time you drive the distance from downtown to Moore. It is not even close and OKC did this by design in the '60s when they decided to annex every available parcel of land and then paved four lane roads all the way to Guthrie and Shawnee.

If you want to see how other 'great plains' cities compare just go look a Calgary and compare its geographic size to OKC. All of Calgary would fit inside the I-35/I-240/I-44 loop and it has the same population as all of metro OKC.

And if you guys think you can bump the OKC numbers up by subtracting water or carving out rural land just remember, that same game can be played in Omaha and Little Rock. Urbanized metro Omaha is only 16 miles across the longest way. Edmond to Norman is 35 miles and eastern Oklahoma County is the lowest of low density sprawl.

I'm calling BS on this comparison to Omaha. I'm up there a few times a year and was just there this past weekend. It's over 15 miles from downtown to 168th and Maple, and that's hardly country out there.

Not excusing OKC because there is room for improvement, but maybe visit Omaha and quit relying on stats.

I'm calling BS on this comparison to Omaha. I'm up there a few times a year and was just there this past weekend. It's over 15 miles from downtown to 168th and Maple, and that's hardly country out there.

Not excusing OKC because there is room for improvement, but maybe visit Omaha and quit relying on stats.

13 miles from downtown Omaha to 168th and Maple. You hit open farm land 1 mile away. I'm looking right at it with an aerial photo.

http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/agree.html

Said 15 miles on Google Maps for me, but perhaps we're using different starting points (I used Century Link Center).

You know what that farm land is trending towards? Housing.

Said 15 miles on Google Maps for me, but perhaps we're using different starting points (I used Century Link Center).

You know what that farm land is trending towards? Housing.

I just picked a place downtown (baseball stadium I think) but I am happy to use your number. However, thanks to UrbanNebraska it look like Omaha is trying to target more of their growth towards downtown.

http://www.okctalk.com/other-communities/27100-omaha-development-update.html

Alas, population density is just one factor, and really not even the biggest. OKCs main problem is that we don't have anything for condos to coalesce around. The canal had one waterfront condo and it sold out with a premium price and then no more condos were built. As was pointed out earlier, people don't live on top of each for the fun of it. They do it for access to local attractions and amenities.

I saw the other day where the old real-estate adage of Location, Location, Location has been replaced with Access, Access, Access.

I'm all about the access, it's why we're looking at moving closer to downtown.

Maybe I'm missing it, but I guess I don't see amazing urban condo developments when I go to Omaha.

Maybe I'm missing it, but I guess I don't see amazing urban condo developments when I go to Omaha.

From what I gather in UrbanNebraska's posts they are renovating existing buildings or build new low/mid-rise condos. They aren't adopting the Austin style 'taller is better' approach. Downtown Omaha has just under 9,000 residents and condo sales are picking up; 152 in 2011 and 168 in 2012.

Downtown Omaha condo sales heat up again - Omaha.com (http://www.omaha.com/article/20130411/MONEY/704119925)

The Wikipedia page for each metro area which in turn comes from the census data. You guys can argue the data all you want but if you just go look in Google Earth you can see the relative density with your own eyes. OKC is spread across a lot more area. You will be miles into rural Nebraska by the time you drive the distance from downtown to Moore. It is not even close and OKC did this by design in the '60s when they decided to annex every available parcel of land and then paved four lane roads all the way to Guthrie and Shawnee.

If you want to see how other 'great plains' cities compare just go look a Calgary and compare its geographic size to OKC. All of Calgary would fit inside the I-35/I-240/I-44 loop and it has the same population as all of metro OKC.

And if you guys think you can bump the OKC numbers up by subtracting water or carving out rural land just remember, that same game can be played in Omaha and Little Rock. Urbanized metro Omaha is only 16 miles across the longest way. Edmond to Norman is 35 miles and eastern Oklahoma County is the lowest of low density sprawl.

I don't know what Wikipedia pages you are looking at, but those urban densities aren't right. And you can't just look at each metro's Wikipedia page individually. If you just go to the "OKC Metro Area", "Omaha Metro Area", etc. pages, the numbers they pull into the information on the side is never consistent. Some Metro Area pages list CSA data, others list MSA data, and others list Urban data. You have to get the numbers from a table so the data set you're pulling from is consistent across the board. Using the numbers for each city's urban population and urban area you would get this:

OKC: 2,098 per sq. mile
Omaha: 2,673 per sq. mile
Little Rock: 1,670 per sq. mile

Edit: The disparity in your numbers is that large because the Omaha MSA isn't even a real MSA. The total area of the entire Omaha MSA is like 190 sq. miles, and 150 of that is the city of Omaha. You can't compare the density of a city to the density of a full metro area that includes the surrounding counties (which have MUCH lower densities than the actual city). You have to use the urban numbers. But I think you know that.

And your reasoning on including OKC's rural areas into it's population density is so wrong. If we're talking about the density of the urban core of the metro then why does the rural and county land even matter? If one was to compare the densities of two metros using strictly MSA numbers, then Omaha has a greater density than NYC because the population density of the entire NYC MSA is only 1,876 per sq. mile. I don't think you are going to try and tell anyone that Omaha is more dense than NYC are you?

13 miles from downtown Omaha to 168th and Maple. You hit open farm land 1 mile away. I'm looking right at it with an aerial photo.

Google Earth (http://www.google.com/earth/download/ge/agree.html)

Omaha sprawls all the way to Lincoln almost. It's very uneven, and mostly falls along one thoroughfare. But their sprawl hasn't kept them from developing different housing modes.

it's unique in that it's sprawl is mostly only westward (a little south too with Papi/La Vista).

The Wikipedia page for each metro area which in turn comes from the census data. You guys can argue the data all you want but if you just go look in Google Earth you can see the relative density with your own eyes. OKC is spread across a lot more area. You will be miles into rural Nebraska by the time you drive the distance from downtown to Moore. It is not even close and OKC did this by design in the '60s when they decided to annex every available parcel of land and then paved four lane roads all the way to Guthrie and Shawnee.

If you want to see how other 'great plains' cities compare just go look a Calgary and compare its geographic size to OKC. All of Calgary would fit inside the I-35/I-240/I-44 loop and it has the same population as all of metro OKC.

And if you guys think you can bump the OKC numbers up by subtracting water or carving out rural land just remember, that same game can be played in Omaha and Little Rock. Urbanized metro Omaha is only 16 miles across the longest way. Edmond to Norman is 35 miles and eastern Oklahoma County is the lowest of low density sprawl.

Here are the correct statistics (this is why I don't rely on Wikipedia)

Omaha MSA total area: 4,407 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 196.35 per sq. mile
Little Rock MSA total area: 4,199 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 166.67 per sq. mile
Oklahoma City MSA total area: 5,582 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 224.48 per sq. mile

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Damn facts always get in the way of a good spin.

Here are the correct statistics (this is why I don't rely on Wikipedia)

Omaha MSA total area: 4,407 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 196.35 per sq. mile
Little Rock MSA total area: 4,199 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 166.67 per sq. mile
Oklahoma City MSA total area: 5,582 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 224.48 per sq. mile

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Thanks for keeping me honest. I started to wonder where the heck I did find that data and it looks like I copied form the wrong data fields.

Now why can't I find a youtube of clip of the old lady in my Cousin Vinny who needs new glasses.
http://rongeri.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/mrs-riley-from-my-cousin-vinny.jpg

Thanks for keeping me honest. I started to wonder where the heck I did find that data and it looks like I copied form the wrong data fields.

Now why can't I find a youtube of clip of the old lady in my Cousin Vinny who needs new glasses.
http://rongeri.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/mrs-riley-from-my-cousin-vinny.jpg

Let the record show that Mr Gambini is holding up two fingers.

Your honor, please!

OKC finally started getting the attention of real estate speculators just as we were approaching 2008. Projects that had not broken ground when the recession hit were cancelled. Had the 2008 recession happened in 2010, OKC would probably have a few downtown high-rise condo towers.

You can't continue to blame the 2008 recession in 2014. Bank have been loaning for sever years now and residential towers are being built all across the country. If they're not happening now, they probably weren't going to happen then either. That's the reality.

You can't continue to blame the 2008 recession in 2014. Bank have been loaning for sever years now and residential towers are being built all across the country. If they're not happening now, they probably weren't going to happen then either. That's the reality.

I disagree. Not only lenders but developers also have not returned to anywhere close to the level of speculation that was happening prior to 2008. Residential towers are being built but today it's more likely to be supported by market realities. Little Rock hasn't had a new residential tower announced since 2008, but had three built prior. I think had the recession been delayed to 2009 or 2010, OKC would have seen a tower or two announced.

In the area of retail on the other hand, OKC was screwed pretty bad by the 2008 recession. This city was very close to getting some developments that would bring it in line with most other cities its size in terms of retail options but pretty much all of that got cancelled and was never revived.

Warning Signs From Columbus About America?s Big Suburban Housing Glut | Streetsblog Capitol Hill (http://dc.streetsblog.org/2014/01/24/warning-signs-from-columbus-about-americas-big-suburban-housing-glut/)

This is an interesting article that indicates we may need to be thinking about increasing this type of housing.

Ha I'm friends with Angie Schmitt, yeah Cbus is a sprawls sun belt mess unlike the other two C's but it's urban core is also phenomenal. Very Austin-like.

Ha I'm friends with Angie Schmitt, yeah Cbus is a sprawls sun belt mess unlike the other two C's but it's urban core is also phenomenal. Very Austin-like.

I agree. Columbus is actually becoming quite the hipster destination. It's not on a lot of people's radar yet but their core is phenomenal.

Totally agree.

I caught an episode of House Hunters on HGTV the last night and the woman they were following was looking for a condo in downtown Memphis. It was amazing to see the quality of downtown condos she had to pick from. She also looked at a house in the Harbortown area (for those who know what that is).

HGTV has two version of House Hunters - the regular House Hunters which takes place here in the US and features almost exclusively suburban homes, and House Hunters International which has a mix of urban and rural (not much international suburbia) depending on the country. I have been wondering when the US version was going to start focusing on more urban settings, especially if they want to start to appeal to younger viewers and stay relevant.

I caught an episode of House Hunters on HGTV the last night and the woman they were following was looking for a condo in downtown Memphis. It was amazing to see the quality of downtown condos she had to pick from. She also looked at a house in the Harbortown area (for those who know what that is).

HGTV has two version of House Hunters - the regular House Hunters which takes place here in the US and features almost exclusively suburban homes, and House Hunters International which has a mix of urban and rural (not much international suburbia) depending on the country. I have been wondering when the US version was going to start focusing on more urban settings, especially if they want to start to appeal to younger viewers and stay relevant.

What price point was the Memphis shopper using? I think some of OKCs problem is that we were finally getting some for sale downtown housing just as the recession hit. People who suddenly couldn't afford to buy were renting. Developers, who resemble sheep, were suddenly all in in the rental market. And they'll likely stay all in until there's a rental glut. But that hurts downtown, as for sale housing is typically better built and maintained than apartment complexes and creates more stability.

Don't quote me but I think she was looking for 2 bedrooms in the $210-$220 range. I think I have the episode recorded so I'll check and make sure.

On edit..

First condo (The Candy Factory) is listed at $210,000

Second condo (The Paper Factory) is listed at $210,000

One house in Harbortown (3 bedroom/2 bath) is listed at $208,000

Lower suburban land costs drive much of the lack of urban condo development as most builders are still suburban based. Most of the initial urban developers in Austin came from out of town/state, local developers have increased but are building smaller developments near downtown. The larger condo towers are still dominated by the out of town developers.

There is an Atlanta based group that has several in Texas ... Houston / Dallas. The outside investment communities are what OKC could really use right now. When they hit town, they move things off "high center" in market demand.

I caught an episode of House Hunters on HGTV the last night and the woman they were following was looking for a condo in downtown Memphis. It was amazing to see the quality of downtown condos she had to pick from. She also looked at a house in the Harbortown area (for those who know what that is).

HGTV has two version of House Hunters - the regular House Hunters which takes place here in the US and features almost exclusively suburban homes, and House Hunters International which has a mix of urban and rural (not much international suburbia) depending on the country. I have been wondering when the US version was going to start focusing on more urban settings, especially if they want to start to appeal to younger viewers and stay relevant.

Downtown Memphis is awesome. The city as a whole has a lot of problems and quality of life issues but downtown is cool and has various things OKC could take cues from. Their entertainment district is one of a kind (it would be due to the musical legacy the city has). Most of their historical urban bones has survived the ages unlike other cities that had urban renewal disasters. As for new development, I love Harbortown/Mud Island and think it should be a model for OKC's Core2Shore. I am also a fan of the Pyramid as it adds a unique feature to the city's skyline.


What price point was the Memphis shopper using? I think some of OKCs problem is that we were finally getting some for sale downtown housing just as the recession hit. People who suddenly couldn't afford to buy were renting. Developers, who resemble sheep, were suddenly all in in the rental market. And they'll likely stay all in until there's a rental glut. But that hurts downtown, as for sale housing is typically better built and maintained than apartment complexes and creates more stability.

This. The recession came at the worst possible time for OKC in so many ways. The city was practically ignored during most of the Bush economic boom and only as it was ending were we finally starting to get attention from large-scale developers.

It wasn't so much that people couldn't afford to buy, it was that for a time nobody - NOBODY - could get financing. And then the lending rules changed requiring developers to have a ridiculous number of buyers already in the bag before getting a construction loan, effectively ending spec condo devekopment, which had fueled the crazy growth in other markets. Meanwhile, the downtown rental market - which was easier to finance and had been terribly underserved to that point - was still underserved. Developers just took the path of least resistance.

There should be signs all over the C2S / Bricktown / Film Row, stating " Coming Soon "....This IS the time for the boom! Why are we not seeing this?

There should be signs all over the C2S / Bricktown / Film Row, stating " Coming Soon "....This IS the time for the boom! Why are we not seeing this?

Because money still is t flowing like it was before 2008 (which is a good thing - that's why 2008 happened), and OKC isn't a proven market for it.

I don't think our downtown would have provided the right environment for condos 5 or 10 years ago. Remember we have basically brought our downtown back from the dead. Condos are clearly desirable, we want them to be in our downtown area. It will take more time because of where we started from.

It wasn't so much that people couldn't afford to buy, it was that for a time nobody - NOBODY - could get financing. And then the lending rules changed requiring developers to have a ridiculous number of buyers already in the bag before getting a construction loan, effectively ending spec condo devekopment, which had fueled the crazy growth in other markets. Meanwhile, the downtown rental market - which was easier to finance and had been terribly underserved to that point - was still underserved. Developers just took the path of least resistance.

We still don't have much condo supply no matter how reasonable the development trend has been. I agree with you. It's this simple: financing makes the world go round, and there are rules for what gets financed.

There should be signs all over the C2S / Bricktown / Film Row, stating " Coming Soon "....This IS the time for the boom! Why are we not seeing this?

We are not in a speculative market at all. In fact, real estate investors are still being very cautious. The housing market is just starting to show signs of life again. It would take a speculative market to get condo towers in OKC in 2014.

OKC was a very speculative market in the late 70's to early 80's, all those years between booms seemed to temper the "spec mentality" here and led to much smaller developments by locals and seemed to chase the national developers out of the market. For the large single family developments that can be a good/bad thing, for urban type of developments it generally requires the large, national builders with a proven track record and a large credit facility.

Because money still is t flowing like it was before 2008 (which is a good thing - that's why 2008 happened), and OKC isn't a proven market for it.

I don't think our downtown would have provided the right environment for condos 5 or 10 years ago. Remember we have basically brought our downtown back from the dead. Condos are clearly desirable, we want them to be in our downtown area. It will take more time because of where we started from.

It's one thing to pull back on the lending strings, but it is another thing to hold them "so tight" they strangle a market. East & West Coast are still having this issue. The central US ( The Oil Belt ) is thriving. So, the commercial lending should be taking advantage of this. MidFirst should be building a tower DT too. This would be a very encouraging statement to all of Oklahoma.

MFB should be leading the finance charge for all major developments in DT OKC...., Mixed Use Towers / Condo Towers / Large Retail / Large Residential.

It's one thing to pull back on the lending strings, but it is another thing to hold them "so tight" they strangle a market. East & West Coast are still having this issue. The central US ( The Oil Belt ) is thriving. So, the commercial lending should be taking advantage of this. MidFirst should be building a tower DT too. This would be a very encouraging statement to all of Oklahoma.

MFB should be leading the finance charge for all major developments in DT OKC...., Mixed Use Towers / Condo Towers / Large Retail / Large Residential.

I think we're going to see investors go for what they know is already a success. At this point in OKC, that means apartment buildings like the Edge and LEVEL.

I think we're going to see investors go for what they know is already a success. At this point in OKC, that means apartment buildings like the Edge and LEVEL.

hoyasooner, you are probably correct. This has been their comfort level in large commercial lending.

The primary difference is this, in the past it has been when Oklahoma City was in a Boom time, the other regions where too. Today, the central US has an advantage of "Economic Momentum going into 2014" and for the next 20 years that other regions don't. It would take very little additional investment into our local economy and would we see the critical mass hit much quicker here...vs. previous booms. Jobs / Jobs / Jobs.

If the commercial lending groups would flood the market w/ local investment ( Large Projects / Towers / Large Developments in the DT ) they would see an explosion in growth from other cities. We would be "The Place to Be" for an individual / family / corporation looking for the next opportunity. The energy companies are taking out all the risk in growth by continuing to invest in the DT area. MAPS is continuing to pour 3/4 Bil in one single area....DT. Zero Risk.

The demand is there, ...we just don't have the supply. MidFirst Bank, where are you? ....this is the time to become a Major Investment Group.

I'm happy to see that developers in SoSA are splitting lots into 25' wide parcels and giving us skinny houses. That's the kind of space that gives great density and a great lifestyle in single family housing close to a downtown. If I weren't so spoiled by my location, I'd buy there as I would love the size of the patch of green you get with a 25' lot.