This is both an observation and a rant, so bear with me.

I have noticed compared to other cities, OKC has a serious dearth of any quality condo and townhome developments. I am talking about the entire city, not just the core area, as we all know the 2008 crash derailed any hope of large scale condo developments in that area. A quick look on Zillow reveals that OKC has 102 condos and townhouses for sale. That compares to 188 for Tulsa, 66 for Little Rock (of course Little Rock has 67% fewer people than OKC but only 35% fewer listings), and 276 for Kansas City. I realize this isn't super scientific and browsing through the listings showed a lot of 70's shag carpet specials.

I also remember a story in the Journal Record that revealed than up to 9% of people surveyed would like to own a condo/TH but they consisted of 1% of total housing units in the city. Even in my very suburban hometown, townhouse developments, many quite high end, have been popping up and selling out fast.

I have always felt that OKC's housing stock is very undiverse; if you don't want a standard suburban lot or something semi rural you are really out of luck here. At the same time, with more young people moving here, baby boomers looking to downsize, and people waiting later to have kids if at all, you would think developers would start looking seriously at adding some for sale multi family units. Am I really asking too much here?

Because:

1. Single family homes are super cheap.
2. Because it's very easy to get anywhere in OKC, so people can just move to the most affordable option (houses)
3. Previous condo / townhouse developments have sold very poorly due to reasons 1 & 2.
4. Appreciation rates are well below singe family homes


In fact, I asked this question a few years ago and it was rhetorical because I knew the answer: Has OKC EVER had a successful condo project?

The answer at the time was an absolute NO.

All the projects in Deep Deuce (Maywood Lots, The Hill, Brownstones, Block 42, Central Avenue Villas, etc.) were having a terrible time selling their units. Things have turned around but it took years and years after completion. That is a very bad news for a developer.

The one exception has been the Centennial. It sold out quickly.

Besides that, the city is littered with townhome and condo projects that completely failed or spent years in low-sales pergutory. And not just downtown, all over the place.


It's starting to change in the downtown areas due to the access to all the urban amenities, but for the most part condos and townhouses have been very bad investments for both the developers and purchasers.

BTW, you can still buy a very nice home in Mesta Park (not to mention Gatewood, Jefferson Park, etc.) for well less than almost all the condo options downtown.

Everything Pete said is correct. To distill it down even more: cheap, abundant land with absolutely zero barriers to new development on the fringe.

Rather than a pure townhouse or condo, patio homes seem to have found a niche around OKC.

Even Gallardia has relatively small lots given the size of the homes.


When it comes right down to it, land is so cheap around OKC it doesn't make sense to squeeze a lot of units into a small space. Construction is by far and away more expensive than the land. Out here in California, it's just the opposite.

So, rather than share a wall or two or three with neighbors, people can opt for a stand-alone home with a low or zero maintenance small yard. And those projects seem to do pretty well.


I should add that I think the Waterford sold pretty well, as another notable exception to the dozens and dozens of projects that have largely failed.

Location, location location. It's probably why one day some condo projects downtown will make a certain amount of sense.

What part of town are you look in?

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.

So OKC has too much cheap available land but Tulsa, Little Rock, Kansas City, and my hometown of Plano Texas do not? Not trying to be rude here but this assumption does not hold up.

Maybe because you are coming at it from a strictly utilitarian stance; I am looking at it from a lifestyle perspective. Lots of people (myself included) have busy lifestyles and do not have time for yard maintenance nor do they need 2,000 square feet to heat, cool, or maintain. I don't think I am some special snowflake; more people would buy a quality condo on townhouse if it was offered. In fact, I am posting this after I read these articles recently:

Aging Boomers to Boost Demand for Apartments, Condos and Townhouses - Real Time Economics - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/01/07/aging-boomers-to-boost-demand-for-apartments-condos-and-townhouses/)

And these.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20131222/BUSINESS02/312220064/Demand-condos-soars-outside-Nashville

Condo conundrum: Lots of demand, not enough building | Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/housing/232128671.html)

While Nashville and Minneapolis are bigger than OKC, they are largely sprawling urban areas with lots of cheap land (although less so for Minneapolis).

As you pointed out, the Waterford and a handful of other condo developments are holding up well here, because they were built at a high quality and have a strong HOA.

And I will politely disagree that there are a lot of patio homes developments available in OKC. I would actually jump at one, but the only developments I can think of are currently are Gaillardia and Edinburgh, both of which are well north of 400K. I could be wrong though.

Little Rock, Tulsa, Charlotte, etc all have very cheap land as well. That isn't the issue. It's all about timing and the fact OKC's proposals had the unfortunate luck of coming too close to the recession, therefore had not broken ground, therefore cancelled.

So OKC has too much cheap available land but Tulsa, Little Rock, Kansas City, and my hometown of Plano Texas do not? Not trying to be rude here but this assumption does not hold up.

Maybe because you are coming at it from a strictly utilitarian stance; I am looking at it from a lifestyle perspective. Lots of people (myself included) have busy lifestyles and do not have time for yard maintenance nor do they need 2,000 square feet to heat, cool, or maintain. I don't think I am some special snowflake; more people would buy a quality condo on townhouse if it was offered. In fact, I am posting this after I read these articles recently:

Aging Boomers to Boost Demand for Apartments, Condos and Townhouses - Real Time Economics - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/01/07/aging-boomers-to-boost-demand-for-apartments-condos-and-townhouses/)

And these.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20131222/BUSINESS02/312220064/Demand-condos-soars-outside-Nashville

Condo conundrum: Lots of demand, not enough building | Star Tribune (http://www.startribune.com/housing/232128671.html)

While Nashville and Minneapolis are bigger than OKC, they are largely sprawling urban areas with lots of cheap land (although less so for Minneapolis).

As you pointed out, the Waterford and a handful of other condo developments are holding up well here, because they were built at a high quality and have a strong HOA.

And I will politely disagree that there are a lot of patio homes developments available in OKC. I would actually jump at one, but the only developments I can think of are currently are Gaillardia and Edinburgh, both of which are well north of 400K. I could be wrong though.

You make some valid points here. There really are many people who would pay MORE for LESS as long as it came with convenience, nothing too large that they feel lost in it, etc. The minimalist and simplicity movement is growing, and they're looking at much more than square feet.

My problem with the whole condo thing is outrageous HOA fees that when tacked on to your mortgage, they're simply unaffordable for many. In fact, I guess that's basically what you were saying about the patio homes. Good post, adaniel.

Little Rock, Tulsa, Charlotte, etc all have very cheap land as well. That isn't the issue. It's all about timing and the fact OKC's proposals had the unfortunate luck of coming too close to the recession, therefore had not broken ground, therefore cancelled.

The only condo / townhouse project I know of that was cancelled was the forerunner to the Edge.

There just hasn't been the demand for these types of projects... I could name dozens that actually were built and were pretty big failures.


adaniel, if you would provide a price range, house size, and general area, then we can point you to some of the developments that might be suitable.

I think the reasons there have been a lack of them (developers going for more rentals since '08, along with already mentioned reasons) are starting to disappear. Financing is starting to come around as well as demand for for-sale units. I think we will begin to see more projects, starting with Lisbon Lofts, come along in downtown/midtown in the next few years. We will also see more land of St. Anthonys used for more for-sale projects as they own a scattering of midtown properties, many of them suited for townhome type projects.

It'd also be nice to see OKC encourage more density in the core and try to prevent single family homes being built on individual lots. Basically I want more, and I think we will see more, of housing similar to Lisbon Lofts which should begin construction soon.

The reason there are so few of these projects is because all the previous ones have been failures. And often huge, awful failures.

What people say they want and what they actually buy are usually two completely different things, and there has simply not been the demand.

You make some valid points here. There really are many people who would pay MORE for LESS as long as it came with convenience, nothing too large that they feel lost in it, etc. The minimalist and simplicity movement is growing, and they're looking at much more than square feet.

My problem with the whole condo thing is outrageous HOA fees that when tacked on to your mortgage, they're simply unaffordable for many. In fact, I guess that's basically what you were saying about the patio homes. Good post, adaniel.

Whoever places the 1st High-End Residential Tower ( 25 stories ) in the CBD, will have the demand to fill it 100%...w/ all the amenities, it will move quickly.

Whoever places the 1st High-End Residential Tower ( 25 stories ) in the CBD, will have the demand to fill it 100%...w/ all the amenities, it will move quickly.

I think it depends on if its apartments or condos. A lot of the developments in Charlotte and in Little Rock had to be repurposed as apartments following 2008 because they weren't selling as condos.

Just cutting lots to 25' widths helps density a lot and that's what's happening in SoSA. As houses near the core are torn down and land values skyrocket, skinnier houses become logical. It's the perfect compromise: not a condo, but markedly less lawn to keep up. We may see more and more of that as young people who have rented downtown want to buy and yet stay close to amenities.

I think it depends on if its apartments or condos. A lot of the developments in Charlotte and in Little Rock had to be repurposed as apartments following 2008 because they weren't selling as condos.

The price p/sf will be roughly the same, so either /or. I'm surprised that we have not seen this type of development being announced.

The reason there are so few of these projects is because all the previous ones have been failures. And often huge, awful failures.

What people say they want and what they actually buy are usually two completely different things, and there has simply not been the demand.

Maybe he is lumping the Cotton Exchange in there?



I agree, OKVision4U, the first residential tower that goes up is going to make a killing. And this is why I play the lottery.

Just cutting lots to 25' widths helps density a lot and that's what's happening in SoSA. As houses near the core are torn down and land values skyrocket, skinnier houses become logical. It's the perfect compromise: not a condo, but markedly less lawn to keep up. We may see more and more of that as young people who have rented downtown want to buy and yet stay close to amenities.

This would actually be a good compromise and I am a bit surprised this hasn't already caught on. The inner loop in Houston is filling up with these "skinny homes" on lots about half the size of a typical suburban lot. And for the most part they are still pretty low maintenance. As an aside I am REALLY rooting for Lisbon Lofts because that may be the thing that jump starts new for sale development.


You make some valid points here. There really are many people who would pay MORE for LESS as long as it came with convenience, nothing too large that they feel lost in it, etc. The minimalist and simplicity movement is growing, and they're looking at much more than square feet.

My problem with the whole condo thing is outrageous HOA fees that when tacked on to your mortgage, they're simply unaffordable for many. In fact, I guess that's basically what you were saying about the patio homes. Good post, adaniel.

Thanks. If anything I have been thinking more about this because I have friends who SFHs that were way too big for them and now they hate having to mow grass, pay for ac/heat, maintenance, etc. But looking around there is really not a lot of choices for them. You are right about more people embracing a "less is more" mantra and would be willing to pay if it is of high quality.


The only condo / townhouse project I know of that was cancelled was the forerunner to the Edge.

There just hasn't been the demand for these types of projects... I could name dozens that actually were built and were pretty big failures.

adaniel, if you would provide a price range, house size, and general area, then we can point you to some of the developments that might be suitable.

FWIW I think condos during the "bigger is better" 2000s were a tough sale nationally, and especially after the 2008 crash. But demographics are changing and they are becoming more doable for a lot of people. But lets face it developers here are sloooooowwww to adapt to any new trends. And thank you for the offer to help, but as of now I am only dipping a toe into the market. I want this to be a discussion more than anything.

The CBD could have a couple of towers, Bricktown could have a couple of 12 - 16 story towers for high end apartments.

I think you guys are missing the point. Property laws in Oklahoma are weird. I forget the exact specifics, but I know Richard McKown went into a 5 minute lecture once about how state law sucks and needs revisions. There may be a legal issue with HOAs in condos.

Obviously state law is a bigger factor than excessive land, because there should still be enough condo supply in a major U.S. metro to account for "different strokes for different folks." This is why I'm so militantly anti-suburb; because we're overbuilt there and it's doing nothing for us. We really need to diversify our housing supply, badly. The morons elected to the State House would consider that blasphemy though.

FWIW I think condos during the "bigger is better" 2000s were a tough sale nationally, and especially after the 2008 crash. But demographics are changing and they are becoming more doable for a lot of people. But lets face it developers here are sloooooowwww to adapt to any new trends. And thank you for the offer to help, but as of now I am only dipping a toe into the market. I want this to be a discussion more than anything.

I am talking about failures before, during and after the 2000's.

Unless I was looking downtown where new construction is the only option, I'd be looking at existing properties. I just looked through the listings on Realtor.com and there are a bunch of options, and they are cheap.

And because the resale stock is so inexpensive and because past projects have failed miserably, you aren't going to see a lot of new development because there simply isn't the demand at new construction prices -- apart from downtown and even there the sales are far from brisk.

What we are seeing are droves of people renting nice apartments, which is why there are so many more of those projects being built.

I think you guys are missing the point. Property laws in Oklahoma are weird. I forget the exact specifics, but I know Richard McKown went into a 5 minute lecture once about how state law sucks and needs revisions. There may be a legal issue with HOAs in condos.

Obviously state law is a bigger factor than excessive land, because there should still be enough condo supply in a major U.S. metro to account for "different strokes for different folks." This is why I'm so militantly anti-suburb; because we're overbuilt there and it's doing nothing for us. We really need to diversify our housing supply, badly. The morons elected to the State House would consider that blasphemy though.

Hard to discuss this without specifics but there have been tons of condos built in OKC.

And again, besides wanting an inexpensive, well-located, well-built condo -- which isn't going to happen due to the math of development -- what exactly are we missing from property diversity?

Hard to discuss this without specifics but there have been tons of condos built in OKC.

And again, besides wanting an inexpensive, well-located, well-built condo -- which isn't going to happen due to the math of development -- what exactly are we missing from property diversity?

We have nothing but ranch homes. Are you arguing the point about diversity of housing supply?

We have tons of 2-story homes, condos, townhomes, patio homes, apartments of all types...

What specifically are we lacking and where?

Everything and everywhere.

I don't see how this is even up for debate.

Everything and everywhere.

I don't see how this is even up for debate.

There is nothing to debate if you can't be specific.

http://www.condo.com/StateLawDownloads/Oklahoma.pdf

I don't know, I'm not an expert on state law. But if you are to believe what several developers are saying, who would otherwise develop condo properties, then the answer lies in the text of this law.

Unless you're looking for more specifics on what real estate OKC does and doesn't have? We both know that OKC is the land of the ranch house. Arguing otherwise is like pleading that the glass is a quarter full.

I am quite sure that what McKown was saying is that the math of inexpensive condos won't work downtown; or even inexpensive apartments. I don't recall anyone ever saying there was something about Oklahoma law that would make such projects too difficult -- that doesn't even make sense, especially since there are hundreds of condo developments in OKC and Tulsa.


As for the bigger issue, I think these "it all sucks but I don't want to get into specifics" discussions are pointless and was therefore trying to lead things away from sweeping generalities.

Nope. The math thing is a canard because as has been correctly pointed out, condos seemingly exist in other land-locked cities. The local home-building establishment doesn't build nice multi-family. That's just a truth...perhaps because until lately the Oklahoma economy has never produced a great deal of transplants, who typically rent for the first year or two (like myself).

We build great ranch houses. That's what we do. We even come up for alternate typologies for them like "Dallas-style" lol

There are plenty of nice multi-family projects all over OKC, including condos.

We have them but I definitely would not say that OKC has "plenty."

http://www.naisullivangroup.com/OKNews/OklahomaCityplannersseefutureretailtiedtoneighborh oods.pdf


Meeting housing demand over the next 20 years, he said, will require different kinds of
building. He said 90 percent of housing being built now is designed for families with
children, but that demographic represents just 34 percent of the population and is in
decline.

More condos will be needed, Claus said. A city survey showed 9 percent of respondents
wanting to live in a condo or town house, but those kind of homes make up less than 1
percent of the housing supply in Oklahoma City.

^

Yet, the existing condos/townhouses on the market now are going super-cheap, showing very little appreciation over the years -- far less than single family homes.

And the new construction projects have been very slow to sell.


I'm very sure that if demand picks up, there will be plenty of developers who will be happy to build and make money. We are seeing that now in the apartment market.

All of the huge, extravagant condo towers built in other cities during the 2000s were a prime example of the real estate bubble and the excesses of the era. They were based on speculation and not market reality. Yes, it would have been great for the OKC skyline if the market had waited a couple more years to go bust, but like in many other cities, they probably would have sat dark and empty, ended up foreclosed on, and then re-purposed as apartments. Some in Charlotte simply halted construction and sat unfinished and still do to this day.

It sure would be nice to have something like the Austonian in OKC though.

http://www.condo.com/StateLawDownloads/Oklahoma.pdf

I don't know, I'm not an expert on state law. But if you are to believe what several developers are saying, who would otherwise develop condo properties, then the answer lies in the text of this law.

Unless you're looking for more specifics on what real estate OKC does and doesn't have? We both know that OKC is the land of the ranch house. Arguing otherwise is like pleading that the glass is a quarter full.

Denver is dealing with similar construction defect law issues. There is HUGE demand for downtown condo development, but developers aren't willing to take the risk involved. From what I understand, court rulings have allowed HOAs to pool money together on the behalf of individual unit owners to file a claim, thus there is virtually no cost/risk involved to the plaintiff so lawsuits increase exponentially. I've also heard that obtaining insurance is very difficult for developers, so much so that each unit requires $10-$15k in insurance, thus increasing the unit cost to a point where it makes less sense to build.

Condos were overbuilt here in the 1970s and 1980s, including condo conversions from apartments. Many of the "premiere" condominiums were built by a developer known more for his eyewash than quality. The bust hit, that developer went away, and those well-heeled owners were left having to fix structural problems arising from shoddy construction. Today those people and their children remember this, and are justifiably reluctant to buy condominiums.

There is demand for quality condominiums and small lot patio homes, at least in my part of town. There are wealthy boomer empty nesters wanting to downsize, but Chesapeake has bought virtually all of the submarket condo stock (even if available the units would all be 30+ years old, so consider these obsolete). One group recently bought a parcel of land on which they are attempting to sell lots for patio homes, but the lots are priced at $350,000 (on average) - build 3,500 sf at $200/sf and you're looking at $1 million. They haven't sold one in a year because there are too many nearby houses available for less than that, and are easier to finance. (My thought is that high rise condominiums should have been built on that parcel.)

I think the market is ready for condominiums, but buyers will have to get past their memories of the bad products built the 1980s, the market will have to digest Chesapeake's condominiums when they are sold, and a developer will have to step up to the plate.

By the way, I sold one condominium in OKC last year, but own one in another market.

Don't know what part of town you are looking at, but there are a bunch of condo/town home/duplex/foreplex in north OKC. Then, there are a several good zero lot line home developments too.

All of the huge, extravagant condo towers built in other cities during the 2000s were a prime example of the real estate bubble and the excesses of the era. They were based on speculation and not market reality. Yes, it would have been great for the OKC skyline if the market had waited a couple more years to go bust, but like in many other cities, they probably would have sat dark and empty, ended up foreclosed on, and then re-purposed as apartments. Some in Charlotte simply halted construction and sat unfinished and still do to this day.

It sure would be nice to have something like the Austonian in OKC though.It's still going HAM in Miami.

This was to be built back in 2010 I think and it should be completed by now or still u/c but very close.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfnLzgNi3VQ&feature=player_embedded

I don't want to Hijack this thread, but here is one more
http://jenniferfeil.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/One-Thousand-Museum-1-470x313.jpg
62 stories tall.

Here is a website listing all of Miami's condo wether they're done or currently under construction. It is worth looking at as there are extremely impressive ones in there.
http://themiamicondocollection.com


-------

As for OKC, I think it just has to do with lack of interest at this point. Garden homes are apparently becoming very popular Edmond and I know there is a new condo development in Edmond on BLVD. and Covell. It is only 2 or 3 stories, nothing at all special. I think OKC will get some in the near future as the market expands.

If there is another boom where these types of developments take off, especially speculatively, I would expect OKC would be in on it this time. Such a boom would be a fast way to transform the skyline of OKC as well, much moreso than waiting for office towers to be built/announced. It will take out of state money to make it happen. The national economy, six years after going into recession, is still not firing on all cylinders but if/when it does I expect these types of developments to start being announced again.

OKC will never experience a condo high-rise boom like Miami's, but we could definitely support a couple significant towers in the future I bet.

Don't know what part of town you are looking at, but there are a bunch of condo/town home/duplex/foreplex in north OKC. Then, there are a several good zero lot line home developments too.

There are some very nice albeit a bit older patio homes off of 122nd and Meridian that are really nice. I went to a party there last year and was really impressed by the area; this person's home was right off a pond. I am a creature of downtown though and it would be tough for me to go north of 63rd, but I would be open to it. Like I said before I am personally just scoping out the market at this point and wondering if its even worth my time/money.


Condos were overbuilt here in the 1970s and 1980s, including condo conversions from apartments. Many of the "premiere" condominiums were built by a developer known more for his eyewash than quality. The bust hit, that developer went away, and those well-heeled owners were left having to fix structural problems arising from shoddy construction. Today those people and their children remember this, and are justifiably reluctant to buy condominiums....I think the market is ready for condominiums, but buyers will have to get past their memories of the bad products built the 1980s, the market will have to digest Chesapeake's condominiums when they are sold, and a developer will have to step up to the plate.

By the way, I sold one condominium in OKC last year, but own one in another market.

Did not think of this. The few condos on the market here look no different that a typical run down apartment complex from the same era (1970s/80s). Of course nobody will buy that. It doesn't mean there is no market for them, just no market for crappy built ones. Developers here are just so conservative...if it ain't an "okie chateau" on a quarter acre out in Arcadia it won't sell. I hate this attitude...God help you if you want something *gasp* different. If we want to get a quality multifamily development in this city, either in the core or the suburbs, its probably going to take an out of state company. Who wants to start lobbying ?!?

Also I am curious as to your experience in selling you old condo. Did you have a hard time? Di you receive what you though you did price wise?

OKC will never experience a condo high-rise boom like Miami's, but we could definitely support a couple significant towers in the future I bet.

Agree. Many cities much smaller than OKC, Little Rock for instance, got a few in the 2000s.

The problem with aging condo developments is that few have strong proactive associations who invest in common area improvement. As a redeveloper, it is hard and expensive to aggregate the units and do an overall rehab and improvement. A few bad owners can ruin the whole development if there aren't strong covenants that are vigilantly enforced.

Here is my take on it. For decades in OKC there was nothing for condo development to center around and serve as anchor/attractor. Very few places in the world are more spread out than Jacksonville, FL - and that includes OKC, but Jax has lots of mid-rise and high-rise condos. They are all either waterfront or in high-density walkable neighborhoods. OKC really has neither of those two things yet. The Centennial is canal-front and it sold quickly and at premium prices, but Randy Hogan didn't make any more condos on the canal. If he had lined the canal with 3 to 5 story condos he could have sold them all - but we all know he had zero urban building experience (and still doesn't). Likewise with the Oklahoma River. For some reason the city chooses not to urbanize it and instead dedicate the river banks strictly to parks and bike paths. Some section of the river should be walled and development built right to the waters edge.

In downtown Orlando there is Lake Eola Park which rapidly filled up with mid-rise and high-rise condos. Where is OKC's 'Lake Eola Park' that will induce demand for condos? Answer, we don't have one. The canal was our best attempt at it but we know how that went. Then we had the river and we know how that went. Then we had MBG and decided to surround it with a convention center, an old convention center, a single use office tower, plus whatever Stage Center becomes. That leaves Core to Shore but the new central park is being made as suburban as can be so is there any doubt how that is going to turn out.

Condo towers aren't just going to appear out of low density suburban sprawl.

Also I am curious as to your experience in selling you old condo. Did you have a hard time? Di you receive what you though you did price wise?

It was older, lower-priced, in an area with little upside, and a rental property. The sales price wasn't great, but neither was the ROI. Leverage wouldn't affect the cash-on-cash return. Rather than have the money sitting in something that was doing nothing, I decided to put it to work elsewhere. I performed a little market analysis, picked an eager sales rep, priced it to sell and got it done.

Keep in mind that Founders Tower and The Classen are two recent high-quality, high-rise condo conversions that are still largely rental units because they could not sell them as condos.


Did not think of this. The few condos on the market here look no different that a typical run down apartment complex from the same era (1970s/80s). Of course nobody will buy that. It doesn't mean there is no market for them, just no market for crappy built ones. Developers here are just so conservative...if it ain't an "okie chateau" on a quarter acre out in Arcadia it won't sell. I hate this attitude...God help you if you want something *gasp* different. If we want to get a quality multifamily development in this city, either in the core or the suburbs, its probably going to take an out of state company. Who wants to start lobbying ?!?

Again, I disagree with this assessment and I could link to a bunch of properties currently for sale downtown, in the NH area, Quail Springs, 63rd & May and elsewhere that are of quality at reasonable prices.

If you want something new, nice and located in the central core there are plenty of options, it's just going to cost good money.

Does anyone think in five years we will have some apartments converted to condos for sale, specifically in DD? I know the DD apartments have been discussed, but I could also see Level doing the same thing if the need arises.

Condos aren't worth anything unless there's a lot of cool stuff to do right around them. If I have to get in my car and drive to get anywhere fun then there's no reason not to live in a house. The attraction to condos isn't "living in a condo", it's living right next to all the cool stuff.

The only place we have that within walking distance is right downtown.

^

A view and low maintenance would be two other reasons.

But you can get the low maintenance component in a patio home or a new home with a smallish lot, which seems to be the strong preference in the OKC market.

Here is my take on it. For decades in OKC there was nothing for condo development to center around and serve as anchor/attractor. Very few places in the world are more spread out than Jacksonville, FL - and that includes OKC, but Jax has lots of mid-rise and high-rise condos. They are all either waterfront or in high-density walkable neighborhoods. OKC really has neither of those two things yet. The Centennial is canal-front and it sold quickly and at premium prices, but Randy Hogan didn't make any more condos on the canal. If he had lined the canal with 3 to 5 story condos he could have sold them all - but we all know he had zero urban building experience (and still doesn't). Likewise with the Oklahoma River. For some reason the city chooses not to urbanize it and instead dedicate the river banks strictly to parks and bike paths. Some section of the river should be walled and development built right to the waters edge.

In downtown Orlando there is Lake Eola Park which rapidly filled up with mid-rise and high-rise condos. Where is OKC's 'Lake Eola Park' that will induce demand for condos? Answer, we don't have one. The canal was our best attempt at it but we know how that went. Then we had the river and we know how that went. Then we had MBG and decided to surround it with a convention center, an old convention center, a single use office tower, plus whatever Stage Center becomes. That leaves Core to Shore but the new central park is being made as suburban as can be so is there any doubt how that is going to turn out.

Condo towers aren't just going to appear out of low density suburban sprawl.

I agree completely. Lower Bricktown had a good shot at having some great living options and Hogan blew it masterfully.

It's frustrating to see Little Rock, Omaha, and other smaller cities getting mid to high rise housing and we're striking out on anything over 4 to 5 stories.

It's frustrating to see Little Rock, Omaha, and other smaller cities getting mid to high rise housing and we're striking out on anything over 4 to 5 stories.

Hem, we're discussing reasons that condo's aren't built in OKC (lots of land, desire for patio homes, bad history of shoddy condo development, etc.), so can you speak to why mid-to-high-rise condominiums are being built in Little Rock & Omaha?

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

Wow - 20x!!!

Wow - 20x!!!

That's what happens you spread everyone across the prairie and this is why I have been saying density is everything. If you want to keep the wheels of commerce turning during fuel price increases you can't do it at 200 people per sq mile. OKC needs to get its act together - and soon.

BTW - nothing spells density like hundreds of acres in downtown land dedicated parks and open space. [/sarc]

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

This is yet another statistic that paints OKC in a much worse light than it really is. Large swaths of all counties that are considered the MSA see completely empty. Even Oklahoma County is mostly rural when you are discussing land area. Unfortunately these are the statistics out of state developers look at and that's why OKC so often ends up getting the shaft on certain types of development. I am not sure about Omaha, but most of Pulaski County Arkansas is developed and the surrounding counties are pretty small land area wise compared to the counties in central Oklahoma.

Just thought I'd throw this in since it's all related. My sister bought a completely remodeled townhouse today for $69.5k. It's in a little area just south of 122nd & N. May in the Quail Creek division on Rosewood Lane.

This is yet another statistic that paints OKC in a much worse light than it really is. Large swaths of all counties that are considered the MSA see completely empty. Even Oklahoma County is mostly rural when you are discussing land area. Unfortunately these are the statistics out of state developers look at and that's why OKC so often ends up getting the shaft on certain types of development. I am not sure about Omaha, but most of Pulaski County Arkansas is developed and the surrounding counties are pretty small land area wise compared to the counties in central Oklahoma.

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.

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

Hold on one minute. Although it's not an unimpeachable source, Wikipedia states 599,199 people, 607 square miles land (water omitted). That's 988 people per sq mile, almost 5x your number.

Hold on one minute. Although it's not an unimpeachable source, Wikipedia states 599,199 people, 607 square miles land (water omitted). That's 988 people per sq mile, almost 5x your number.

Oh, well then that's completely different!
Er, no. Point still stands.