I just saw another thread similar to this about apartment density and it got me to thinking. How dense do we want OKC's urban areas to be and how realistic is it that we can actually achieve it?

I don't have a particular number in mind, just wondering what everyone thought on the issue.

Posted this elsewhere, but the study linked below make a good case for increased density.

http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena/dept/cron/project/urban-sustainability/Stormwater_Sarah%20Madden/References/Jacob&Lopez2009.pdf

Consider this: in several "sprawling" cities like Atlanta, Denver, and Dallas, there are at least a handful of census tracts that have over 10K people per square mile. You would be hard pressed to find anything in OKC with over 5K/sq mile, although Deep Deuce may now be close since the census was taken. So we still have some ways to go to even be comparable to other cities in this part of world.

The success of Deep Deuce shows there is an appetite for more dense areas, but IMO its going to take a paradigm shift among city planners and, especially developers, if that success should spread elsewhere. IMO its probably going to take an out of state company to construct a "game changer" type project that will ultimately jump start more dense developments in OKC.

^Oklahoma City has numerous census tracts with over 5K/sq mi.

There are several over 5k and quite a few in the 6-8k range.

Decennial Census - Oklahoma Department of Commerce (http://okcommerce.gov/data-and-research/demographics-and-population-data/decennial-census/)

Urban areas should be as dense as the city can provide power, water, sewage, etc. I think downtown in the 1 sq mile could have the same density as Manhattan. Their resources are cramped more than ours, so I don't see downtown ever being too dense.

I would love if Downtown (13th/Classen/River/235) had at least 50k residents. It's over 2 square miles, but some of that is the business district where I don't expect a lot of people to ever live (unless we convert FNC and build 1 or 2 residential high-rises. Cox site for sure would have to be redeveloped).

So that would realistically kick the density of the other areas up to about 30k - 40k people per square mile. I'd guess we're a little under 20% of the way to that kind of density.

ON EDIT: 20% there inclusive of all the current announced and under construction projects.

So what IS the population of the downtown area (13th/Classen/River/235)? Anyone know?

You can achieve density in one of two ways...

1. uniform density like Paris.
2. tent-pole density like most American cities.

Paris has a density of 92 dwelling units per acre and the vast majority of the city is built at that consistent density. This didn't happen by accident and isn't rooted in 2000 years of development. The Paris that we know today was essentially created between 1850 and 1890 by Baron Haussmann.

In tent-pole density the idea is that you have nodes of very high density that taper off to areas of low-density, which then flow back into another area of high density. Doing this you can create the same average density across the cross-section as the uniform density, but in so doing create a wide range of housing types.

So which one do people like more? I think the obvious answer is that people prefer a uniform density.


Just to the east of central Paris the modernist architects and planners tried to implement tent-pole density with mid/high-rise single use buildings, wind-swept plazas, no ground level retail, and parks bigger than the local population could ever use (in essence, built everything at the scale of the automobile). If you visit this area today it is looks like an episode of life after people. The absence of people is shocking and depressing, especially in contrast to the areas of uniform density that is just a mile away.

This is a picture of the France National Library that is the heart of this area. It has won awards.

http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb374/euroskyscraper1000/3197755220_89600873cc_b.jpg

Here is a very good article about Parisian density.

Paris Density (http://www.robertgordonarchitect.com/RGA/Paris_Density.html)

You can achieve density in one of two ways...

1. uniform density like Paris.
2. tent-pole density like most American cities.

Paris has a density of 92 dwelling units per acre and the vast majority of the city is built at that consistent density. This didn't happen by accident and isn't rooted in 2000 years of development. The Paris that we know today was essentially created between 1850 and 1890 by Baron Haussmann.

In tent-pole density the idea is that you have nodes of very high density that taper off to areas of low-density, which then flow back into another area of high density. Doing this you can create the same average density across the cross-section as the uniform density, but in so doing create a wide range of housing types.

So which one do people like more? I think the obvious answer is that people prefer a uniform density.


Just to the east of central Paris the modernist architects and planners tried to implement tent-pole density with mid/high-rise single use buildings, wind-swept plazas, no ground level retail, and parks bigger than the local population could ever use (in essence, built everything at the scale of the automobile). If you visit this area today it is looks like an episode of life after people. The absence of people is shocking and depressing, especially in contrast to the areas of uniform density that is just a mile away.

I don't think the obvious answer is always uniform density. If we're talking about the 1 or 2 sq. miles of DT OKC that others have mentioned, then yes uniform density is probably preferred. After all, that's not really a large enough area for tent-pole density if I'm thinking about it right. But over the entire area of a city I think most people would prefer tent-pole density. I think most people would like to have a variety of housing options without having to go 20 miles outside the city into the suburbs.

Not to mention with uniform density, across an entire city, comes outrageously high real-estate prices.

I based what people like on where they vacation and how much the pay to live there. People flock to and pay a lot to live in uniform density. I'm not totally sure the actual density matters much, so long as it is uniform, but I would like to see some studies done about that aspect.

So what IS the population of the downtown area (13th/Classen/River/235)? Anyone know?

Using Population Explorer, the population is around 27,400 (I used Western for simplicity because it's a goes all the way to the river). It's about 2.9 sq miles in area, with a population density of 9,448/sq mi.

Using I-40 as the southern boundary, population is 26,400 in 2.4 sq mi, with a density of 10,819/sq mi.

You can achieve density in one of two ways...

1. uniform density like Paris.
2. tent-pole density like most American cities.

Paris has a density of 92 dwelling units per acre and the vast majority of the city is built at that consistent density. This didn't happen by accident and isn't rooted in 2000 years of development. The Paris that we know today was essentially created between 1850 and 1890 by Baron Haussmann.

In tent-pole density the idea is that you have nodes of very high density that taper off to areas of low-density, which then flow back into another area of high density. Doing this you can create the same average density across the cross-section as the uniform density, but in so doing create a wide range of housing types.

So which one do people like more? I think the obvious answer is that people prefer a uniform density.


Just to the east of central Paris the modernist architects and planners tried to implement tent-pole density with mid/high-rise single use buildings, wind-swept plazas, no ground level retail, and parks bigger than the local population could ever use (in essence, built everything at the scale of the automobile). If you visit this area today it is looks like an episode of life after people. The absence of people is shocking and depressing, especially in contrast to the areas of uniform density that is just a mile away.

This is a picture of the France National Library that is the heart of this area. It has won awards.

http://i1202.photobucket.com/albums/bb374/euroskyscraper1000/3197755220_89600873cc_b.jpg

Here is a very good article about Parisian density.

Paris Density (http://www.robertgordonarchitect.com/RGA/Paris_Density.html)

That looks like a terible example to back up that all tent pole development will fail, it practically came out of the worst of 1960s/70s urban planning. You can make tent pole walkable and inviting, just as you can make near uniform unwalkable and depressing. In any case we are planing to do development in the US, so are going to need to find a way to make it work in somewhat of a tent pole metro (even if uniform on a local scale) unless somehow have a budget to rebuild everything.

I'm not against tent-pole density. In fact, if you look at the New Urbanism Library thread I have posted several videos about it. It's just that tent-pole density isn't the end game, it is an intermediate step as we grow from a sea of sprawl into a walkable city.

On a side note - I kind of wish we had an emperor that could just say "build this" and that is what got built :).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%27s_renovation_of_Paris

I based what people like on where they vacation and how much the pay to live there. People flock to and pay a lot to live in uniform density. I'm not totally sure the actual density matters much, so long as it is uniform, but I would like to see some studies done about that aspect.

I agree that it would be an interesting study to see. However, I don't think people CHOOSE to flock to areas where they have to pay a ton to live. I feel like most of the people who willingly relocate to areas like that do so because that city is the capital of the industry they work in, such as Tech employees in the Bay area or Finance employees in NYC, and they are wealthy enough that real estate prices don't matter. Most all migration data you look at shows that people are moving FROM cities like that, and their void is being replaced by immigrants who are moving into the country or the aforementioned industry folks.

Vacationing, on the other hand, is a different story. People do vacation to cities like that, but it also just so happens that those cities are incredibly cultured and historical. And I think the fact that so many vacation to those cities shows that most people choose not to live in uniform density cities. They would rather vacation there for a week at a time than live there year round.

I think the uniform density, culture, industrial hub, etc.. are all related and that this is especially true over time. As for what is the ideal uniform density - I personally prefer Paris' 92 dwelling units per acre. Paris has about 55,000 people per sq mile, Manhattan has over 70,000 per sq mile - but Manhattan really isn't uniform.

I've been to Manhattan, but never Paris. I hope to make it there soon though.

I've been to Manhattan, but never Paris. I hope to make it there soon though.

Go - it will change your life (it did mine anyhow). In the movie Midnight in Paris there is a line "That Paris exists and anyone could choose to live anywhere else in the world will always be a mystery to me." I didn't appreciate or even comprehend this quote until I went there for myself.

mwuqNUC3VPw

Using Population Explorer, the population is around 27,400 (I used Western for simplicity because it's a goes all the way to the river). It's about 2.9 sq miles in area, with a population density of 9,448/sq mi.

Using I-40 as the southern boundary, population is 26,400 in 2.4 sq mi, with a density of 10,819/sq mi.

How accurate is that? Living downtown, it sure doesn't fell like 25,000+ people live there.

yeah…I really doubt that over 20k people live in downtown. If there were 4,000 residential units to live in downtown that would mean that there needs to be an average of 5 people per unit. There are nowhere near 4,000 residential units downtown (right now) and I could see at most an average of 2.25 people per unit.

How accurate is that? Living downtown, it sure doesn't fell like 25,000+ people live there.

yeah…I really doubt that over 20k people live in downtown. If there were 4,000 residential units to live in downtown that would mean that there needs to be an average of 5 people per unit. There are nowhere near 4,000 residential units downtown (right now) and I could see at most an average of 2.25 people per unit.

I had the same thought that it seemed too much, so I then used US Census data by adding up the populations of census tracts and came with about 7,000 people living within Western, 13th, I-235, and the river. I don't know why there's such a disparity between the two data resources. My apologies!

Here is an easy to use census map. Under the View More Maps heading there is a density map.

Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census - NYTimes.com (http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map)

My research for population in this area:

2010 - 6,460
2013 - 6,527
2018 - 6,703

Source - US Census / ESRI forecasts

And just for comparison, in Dallas, from Downtown up to the beginning of Highland Park, and from 75 west to the Tollway (roughly similar two mile radius):

2010 - 27,156
2013 - 28,170
2018 - 30,296

My research for population in this area:

2010 - 6,460
2013 - 6,527
2018 - 6,703

Source - US Census / ESRI forecasts

There is only a predicted 2.5% growth over five years for this area, and 7.5% for Dallas? I hardly believe that.

My research for population in this area:

2010 - 6,460
2013 - 6,527
2018 - 6,703

Source - US Census / ESRI forecasts

LOL…we're gonna add 1600+ residential units but only 176 people…SOMEBODY SHOW THESE NUMBERS TO GARY BROOKS!

To be fair, given how many census tracts they have to keep info on from around the country (hint: a lot) they base their estimates on historical evidence, not future predictions. In the next census tally, the tract will have doubled.

Soonerinfiniti,

Do you know what the future of development in that area in Dallas looks like? I'd be interested to know if they're going to see the same substantial growth we will (OKC will probably be at 10k+ by 2018, or a gain of 65%+). Dallas would then have roughly 45k people in that area. That would be pretty substantial. Obviously they are there because they already have some of the density we're just now developing, so there is likely not a whole lot of space for these 250+ unit massive developments coming to OKC in droves, but are they going even more vertical or do they actually have a decent amount of space down there to continue increasing the numbers?

I would like to see 10k+ living downtown, but is there that much demand? Serious question. Where will these people come from?

I would like to see 10k+ living downtown, but is there that much demand? Serious question. Where will these people come from?

Well, no one really knows. What we do know is that in the next 5 years, some 1700+ residential units will come online and many of those units will have more than one person. So just filling up those units will bring us up to about 10k with the ~6500 we already have. The people will come from a variety of places I imagine. But nearly doubling the downtown residential stock over the next 5 years is going to tell us a lot about what people in this city actually want. And I don't think price is going to be an issue as there will be some basic savings living downtown, and if the demand isn't there at current prices, then a slight lowering will probably increase the demand.

These high density units are going to be major game changers for downtown.

I would anticipate this city can support a lot more urban housing. I think we've just scratched the surface. As we get more of it, it will become more popular.

Personally, I'd like to see this city define a sort of future central urban area, a region that we hope to have fully urbanized by say, 2050. In my mind that would connect all the best attractions in OKC. Everything from Remington Park, the Cowboy Hall of Fame and the Zoo, over to the north end of Lincoln, all the way down past the capitol to the west edge of the JFK neighborhood, over to downtown, down into Capitol Hill, over to Stockyard City and the fairgrounds, up to OCU.

That's a very large amount of space. I'd like to see that area reach, as closely as possible, the type of density that we have in Deep Deuce. Now, that's going to take a long time (as I said, I'd like this by 2050). And there's an obstacle in that a lot of these areas are already filled up with neighborhoods full of houses (some historic and some not so much). I'm not suggesting that we have any sort of Eminent Domain taking where we bulldoze these places to make way for new apartments or condos. I'm suggesting that we fill in the gaps as best we can with good urban design. We change zoning requirements in this "future central urban area" so that they are similar to the ones that apply to downtown today. If you're gonna build something on Classen, it should be something that would be acceptable in our future extended downtown.

A lot of buildings get torn down and replaced over the course of 30 years, just in the normal course of existence. We should make sure that when they are replaced, it's with something that moves us closer to our goal of a dense urban city. Lincoln and Classen should both be much more than they are today. Instead of driving down them and seeing a Grandy's or a Braums (when you aren't seeing an empty field or a run down sheet metal warehouse), you should see development the city is proud of.

I do think the zoning laws need to change for everything 35/40/44 ring (and especially in the 235/40/44 ring) some of those are municipal and some of them are state level. Parking requirements need to be lifted, a change in the ABC-1/2/3 laws need to change, and density needs to be encouraged. But in general the difficulty will be how to address the issue of single-family home neighborhoods in many of these areas. For instance in the box of 30th/May/50th/235, a substantial percentage of that is single family residences. How do you increase the density of these areas without wiping out wide swaths of single family homes?

My research for population in this area:

2010 - 6,460
2013 - 6,527
2018 - 6,703

Source - US Census / ESRI forecasts


Not discounting your research (because the people that do these forecasts don't know what going on they're just using trends), but the mere fact that upwards of ~2000 living units are slated to come online (that we know about) in the next few years should (barring projects falling through) blow these projections out of the water you'd think.


Edit: Sorry, didn't read far enough along in the thread and other already said all this.

I do think the zoning laws need to change for everything 35/40/44 ring (and especially in the 235/40/44 ring) some of those are municipal and some of them are state level. Parking requirements need to be lifted, a change in the ABC-1/2/3 laws need to change, and density needs to be encouraged. But in general the difficulty will be how to address the issue of single-family home neighborhoods in many of these areas. For instance in the box of 30th/May/50th/235, a substantial percentage of that is single family residences. How do you increase the density of these areas without wiping out wide swaths of single family homes?

You wouldn't be able to. But there's still a lot of commercial land in that area, and light industry, that you could replace. I think some of the really run down neighborhoods could get bought up by a developer. But it's not like anyone is going to bulldoze Heritage Hills. If anything you'd just see home values in those areas go up and up and up.

After giving it some thought, what if over time the city bought up some lots on some of the main N/S arteries and then put out RFPs for development of those lots? If there were dense, walkable spines on Walker, Shartel, Western, Classen, Blackwelder/Georgia, every 2 or so blocks, that would certainly help that end goal.

And then 30th, 36th and 50th would be E/W targets.

It's probably easier for an outside agency to accurately predict growth in Dallas than in downtown OKC. Dallas has established growth trends to rely on, and the population growth in downtown OKC is a new animal and unknown to most people, even many of the people in the OKC metro.

This is a slightly different topic but didn't want to start a new thread. Where can I found downtown design standards? Or is it all subjective? Things like new construction has to add sidewalks or things like that. Anyone know where I can find that?

Barcelona

http://i.imgur.com/1ePb80R.jpg

Barcelona

http://i.imgur.com/1ePb80R.jpg

But wait! Where's all the skyscrapers?! ;)

Oh. Here they are.

http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/66/Barcelona_Finanse_Center_(1).jpg

Oh. Here they are.

http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/66/Barcelona_Finanse_Center_(1).jpg

You couldn't let me have my fun could you? :mad:

But most of those buildings wouldn't even be "skyscrapers" by the standards over in the mystery tower threads ;)

This is very interesting and incredibly depressing. These are the exact same areas.

From https://twitter.com/shanehamp.

First is from 1953; the second is present day:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1OJEXCCIAAUh6K.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1OJEXTCIAEy8L1.jpg

From the same source, here is Tulsa in 1967 vs. now:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1ODo81CAAEu4SP.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1ODov5CEAAYDjM.jpg

And Lawton 54/present:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1OBwo5CIAA43VM.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1OBw5rCEAEbBt_.jpg

1932 v. 2014

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bz7hYriIEAAR9VF.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bz7hazcIEAAjgnj.png

The OU Institute for Quality Communities has done a series of sliders that compare and contrast the changes in various downtowns before and after widespread urban renewal and highway building:

60 Years of Urban Change: Midwest | The Institute for Quality Communities (http://iqc.ou.edu/2014/12/12/60yrsmidwest/)

And on this page, they have done the same for OKC, Tulsa and cities in Texas. Pretty incredible.

60 Years of Urban Change: Oklahoma and Texas | The Institute for Quality Communities (http://iqc.ou.edu/2014/12/09/60years/)

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okcslider.jpg

Pete, that is amazing. Thanks so much for posting it. When I see how much damage was done it renews my spirit in the battle against the automobile as the dominant mode of transportation.

The OU Institute for Quality Communities has done a series of sliders that compare and contrast the changes in various downtowns before and after widespread urban renewal and highway building:

60 Years of Urban Change: Midwest | The Institute for Quality Communities (http://iqc.ou.edu/2014/12/12/60yrsmidwest/)

And on this page, they have done the same for OKC, Tulsa and cities in Texas. Pretty incredible.

60 Years of Urban Change: Oklahoma and Texas | The Institute for Quality Communities (http://iqc.ou.edu/2014/12/09/60years/)

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/okcslider.jpg
Pete, I certainly understand and agree with the point you are making but the last photos don't cover the same area.

Pete, I certainly understand and agree with the point you are making but the last photos don't cover the same area.

They all are pretty good alignments, they may not be pixel perfect but that is hard to do with any two aerial photos.

Did you move the slider? At the site you have to click on the line or in the circle, then hold & drag the line right or left to show/hide parts of the new and old photos

They all are pretty good alignments, they may not be pixel perfect but that is hard to do with any two aerial photos.

Did you move the slider? At the site you have to click on the line or in the circle, then hold & drag the line right or left to show/hide parts of the new and old photos

I'm sorry but they are not the same area and nothing happens at all when I click on the line or in the circle. If that is what is supposed to happen I understand it.

I'm sorry but they are not the same area and nothing happens at all when I click on the line or in the circle. If that is what is supposed to happen I understand it.You click on the circle and hold it while dragging your mouse.

I said it before and I'll say it again, I don't mind what was destroyed other than the Criterion Theater.

You click on the circle and hold it while dragging your mouse.

I said it before and I'll say it again, I don't mind what was destroyed other than the Criterion Theater.

plupan, that doesn't work for me.

plupan, that doesn't work for me.Hmmm, I'm not a computer wiz, but I would think maybe it is powered by Java? Do you have installed or turned on?

Hmmm, I'm not a computer wiz, but I would think maybe it is powered by Java? Do you have installed or turned on?

It is not done with Java.


plupan, that doesn't work for me.

If you have a different browser loaded on your machine you might try that, but unless you are using an old version of IE I am not sure what the problem could be. I tried it on the current versions of IE, FF & Chrome on Win7 and Chrome on Mac, they all worked fine.

So basically, when you click on the white circle and drag it over, it should look like this

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7505/15875577017_9a1302b505_c.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7494/15875577027_df3c9cf1fa_c.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7484/16061346665_e94f814002_c.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7472/16059397361_0fc0fc80e9_c.jpg

It is not done with Java.



If you have a different browser loaded you might try that, but unless you are using an old version of IE I am not sure what the problem could be. I tried it on the current versions of IE, FF & Chrome on Win7 and Chrome on Mac, they all worked fine.
I don't know what it's powered by then. I'm using Chrome.

it's OK. I'm not worried about it.

it's OK. I'm not worried about it.Is Steve worried yet? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Is Steve worried yet? Sorry, I couldn't resist.
OK, but that's weak, plupan. LOL

Pete, I certainly understand and agree with the point you are making but the last photos don't cover the same area.

Which photos are you referring to?