Sorry if this has already been mentioned. I just haven't read through everything yet. I've always wanted to get outside city limits because I really enjoy target practice. That being said, the wife and I have been paying attention to where city limits actually occurs, and I was amazed the the NE city limits extends almost out to Welston. Why oh why does OKC need that much land area? It makes no sense!

I had a friend tell me that OKC is one of the largest cities in the US as far as land area is concerned. Does anybody know if that is true?

I believe OKC is the 4th largest in the lower 48 states in land area. There are several reasons why this happened and support for doing it came from a broad range of ideologies and interest. Some wanted to protect watersheds, for some it was an ego thing, others want the land for development, and the list goes on and on.

I had a friend tell me that OKC is one of the largest cities in the US as far as land area is concerned. Does anybody know if that is true?

It used to be third largest, behind Jacksonville and Anchorage.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2000 data, OKC is 3rd (1st: Anchorage, 2nd: Jax, 4th: Houston) (Pop greater than 100,000)
-- Tulsa: 29th
According to Wikipedia's list, OKC is 8th (no pop restriction) (Sitka AK, Juneau AK, Wrangell AK, Anchorage AK, Jax, Anaconda MT, Butte MT, OKC, Houston, Phoenix)
-- Tulsa: 41st
-- Norman: 47th
-- Edmond: 113th
-- El Reno: 121st
-- Lawton: 139th
-- Enid: 144th
Even throwing away the unincorporated land in Oklahoma, we suck (or soar -- depending on viewpoint) for population density!
Numbers:
OKC: 607 sq mi (no water incl)
Tulsa: 196.8 sq mi
Norman: 178.8 sq mi
Edmond: 85.1 sq mi
El Reno: 80 sq mi
Lawton: 75.1 sq mi
Enid: 74 sq mi
Just counting those cities: almost 1300 sq mi total
Wikipedia says the total sq miles in the OKC metro area (incl Shawnee, Guthrie, El Reno, Yukon, Slaughterville, Noble, etc.) is 6,359 sq mi.

I grew up in suburbia also and just like you I rode my bike every where. The only time I watched TV was Saturday morning. But that suburbia and today's suburbia are two different things. For one, we didn't have near the traffic back then because while I lived in suburbia, most people still lived in traditional neighborhoods which didn't require as much driving. Today, the vast majority live in suburbia which requires driving to everything. Also gone are the neighborhood parks which gave way to large regional parks (just look at OKC). Due to poor planning most of what I explored as a kid has turned into people backyards because we allowed private ownership of creek/river banks and other natural features. You can't get to the cool stuff today without going through someone's backyard.

We have a park in our subdivision but my kids rarely use it. Why, first off it is 1.5 miles round trip thanks to the curvilinear roads. Second, due to the low density nature of our subdivision there is a good chance that once they got there, there wouldn't be any other kids to play with. If they wanted to play by themselves they could do that in the backyard. The next park is 3 miles away but the only way there is down a major arterial road with cars that routinely go +55 mph and no sidewalk. My oldest son is 15 and loves basketball, but he can count on his fingers the number of times he has played a pickup game of basketball with more than 2 people on a team - and that makes me sad because those are some of my best childhood memories.
That isn't the case here in our neighborhood in the hinterlands off the toll road between Aurora and Centennial that was built in the late 90's but then there seems to be parks everywhere in the Denver metro area from small pocket parks to large regional ones with many facilities, it just seems to have always been a priority here. We have a small park a block away, an elementary school/park which ties to a walking trail two blocks away. Driving north out the neighborhood we pass three other parks and a high school in which the track, football field and tennis court get used like park facilities. All seem to get pretty good foot traffic, we see kids walking by all the time in front of our house to/from the closest park.

That being said we are at the point of wanting 5-10 acres outside of town, we have no desire to live in congregate housing anymore with no room for my hobbies and the storage that requires. When it comes time to start my own practice I am not locating downtown, I have been looking in an area along I-25 near a light rail station like in Lone Tree.

^ Really, Rover? That's the best you got?What else would you have him say? He is pretty much spot on... For some, it seems like there is only one useful mode of development and anything outside of that spells sprawl.

Sadly yes it is. I believe he is of the mindset that every facet of life happens in its own vacuum with nothing having an impact on any other part of it. I happen to believe that all activities of life are connected.

ME: Kids who can't take themselves to a park won't go to the park, which will result in a sedimentary lifestyle, which in turn can lead to obesity, which in turn can lead to diabetes.
Rover: There is no connection between being able to walk to a park and diabetes.

I'm not saying it happens to every child but Rover is saying it doesn't happen to any child.Bro, I lived in the suburbia nightmare you see as Dallas - I lived in this area.

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t31.0-8/10005922_10202623299296198_2066724017_o.jpg
https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t31.0-8/1956804_10202623299176195_600493047_o.jpg

I loved this area. This is great development and I see the majority of Oklahoma city suburbs being developed like this. This is why I love Dallas. The wide highways and six lane arterials enticed developers to build along them knowing there was a large traffic count but didn't have to worry about extreme traffic back-ups round-the-hour. Had parks, stores, and other areas we'd explore and I loved it. Everything I really needed was less than 2 miles away and I didn't mind walking one bit.

You are generalizing things and there is not one area in the city Edmond(not talking about Waterloo) that I know of that you can't walk to a park in less than 15 minutes. Nearly every single neighborhood in Edmond and Dallas --I've seen-- has parks as well as public swimming pools. I knew tons of people that lived in these horrid cul-de-sacs you speak of and they turned out to be just fine. Those studies you posted are a load of crap. There are tons of people in urban environments that live in extreme poverty and do drugs, get pregnant, commit an array of other crimes, it has nothing to do with living in suburbs, which are NOT isolated environments.

Further more, sprawl to me just seems like people not wanting to live right on top of each other. All of these rundown areas in OKC are due to property owners not keeping up their properties. There are tons of old suburbs in Dallas that are very nice and appealing. McKinney which was once touted by these anti-suburb/car nuts as a great example of what happens as a result of sprawl is now seeing nearly a billion dollars in new development and is being revived. There are tons of urban places that have deteriorated due to lack of community pride, just look at downtown OKC, is was a disaster. Sprawl didn't cause that; if it did, it would still be a sh*thole.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned. I just haven't read through everything yet. I've always wanted to get outside city limits because I really enjoy target practice. That being said, the wife and I have been paying attention to where city limits actually occurs, and I was amazed the the NE city limits extends almost out to Welston. Why oh why does OKC need that much land area? It makes no sense!

I had a friend tell me that OKC is one of the largest cities in the US as far as land area is concerned. Does anybody know if that is true?I think all that land will benefit OKC in the long run. If we can prevent our city becoming more sprawled out and try and encourage infill, eventually we will grow into to that land and it will help us by increasing the city populations status.

We have the potential to build smart and have a wide variety of options for people to live.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2000 data, OKC is 3rd (1st: Anchorage, 2nd: Jax, 4th: Houston) (Pop greater than 100,000)
-- Tulsa: 29th
According to Wikipedia's list, OKC is 8th (no pop restriction) (Sitka AK, Juneau AK, Wrangell AK, Anchorage AK, Jax, Anaconda MT, Butte MT, OKC, Houston, Phoenix)
-- Tulsa: 41st
-- Norman: 47th
-- Edmond: 113th
-- El Reno: 121st
-- Lawton: 139th
-- Enid: 144th
Even throwing away the unincorporated land in Oklahoma, we suck (or soar -- depending on viewpoint) for population density!
Numbers:
OKC: 607 sq mi (no water incl)
Tulsa: 196.8 sq mi
Norman: 178.8 sq mi
Edmond: 85.1 sq mi
El Reno: 80 sq mi
Lawton: 75.1 sq mi
Enid: 74 sq mi
Just counting those cities: almost 1300 sq mi total
Wikipedia says the total sq miles in the OKC metro area (incl Shawnee, Guthrie, El Reno, Yukon, Slaughterville, Noble, etc.) is 6,359 sq mi.Wow, we could support an extremely large population, that's interesting to see.

Bro, I lived in the suburbia nightmare you see as Dallas and I lived in this area.

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t31.0-8/10005922_10202623299296198_2066724017_o.jpg
https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t31.0-8/1956804_10202623299176195_600493047_o.jpg

I loved this area. This is great development and I see the majority of Oklahoma city suburbs being developed like this. This is why I love Dallas. The wide highways and six lane arterials enticed developers to build along them knowing there was a large traffic count but didn't have to worry about extreme traffic back-ups round-the-hour. Had parks, stores, and other areas we'd explore and I loved it. Everything I really needed was less than 2 miles away and I didn't mind walking one bit.


The one thing that stands out to me about that streetview is how much better designed the roads are than a majority of the roads in suburban OKC. That road as a median with streetlights, double turn lanes to prevent traffic backups, and sidewalks. That really reminds me of where I lived in Charlotte. I could and did walk to shopping centers that were a half mile away in each direction even though it was a suburban area. Why can't major arteries in suburban OKC be designed like that?

The one thing that stands out to me about that streetview is how much better designed the roads are than a majority of the roads in suburban OKC. That road as a median with streetlights, double turn lanes to prevent traffic backups, and sidewalks. That really reminds me of where I lived in Charlotte. I could and did walk to shopping centers that were a half mile away in each direction even though it was a suburban area. Why can't major arteries in suburban OKC be designed like that?Agreed. It really nice to see. Almost all of the arterials are six lane divided with landscaping, left turn lanes at each intersection, dual left turn and right turn at major intersections, sidewalks on each side... just beautiful....

Campbell Rd. in Dallas
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t31.0-8/1939572_10202623796708633_647383305_o.jpg

33rd St./Meridian in OKC
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t31.0-8/615101_10202623782988290_409122086_o.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t31.0-8/10003569_10202623782908288_1902845220_o.jpg


It sucks. However, I suppose Dallas has a much larger population, but Reno, May, Penn, Memorial, 33rd, 2nd(Edmond), Bryant, 15th, Meridian, and McArthur would be a start to being engineering work to plan to have these widened to six lanes, sidewalks, landscaped medians, etc. Not all have to be done at the same time, but start on a few of them and that would be a huge improvement for the city. Tons of new investments would be made as a direct result of this.

Dallas being a large city doesn't really have anything to do with it. Edmond and Norman have better arteries than OKC does and they are much smaller. Charlotte's major thoroughfares look similar to Campbell Rd in Dallas. When their major arteries look like the typical OKC artery, you know you are in the ghetto. Sad thing is that OKC is STILL building roads this way.

Dallas being a large city doesn't really have anything to do with it. Edmond and Norman have better arteries than OKC does and they are much smaller. Charlotte's major thoroughfares look similar to Campbell Rd in Dallas. When their major arteries look like the typical OKC artery, you know you are in the ghetto. Sad thing is that OKC is STILL building roads this way.I couldn't agree more. It would be really nice to see some initiative for OKC to start doing their roads like Campbell Rd or the other roads in Charlotte(I've never been there so I'm taking your word). Norman is doing great work. The new development by the airport right off of I-35 is super awesome.

Agreed. It really nice to see. Almost all of the arterials are six lane divided with landscaping, left turn lanes at each intersection, dual left turn and right turn at major intersections, sidewalks on each side... just beautiful....

Campbell Rd. in Dallas
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t31.0-8/1939572_10202623796708633_647383305_o.jpg

33rd St./Meridian in OKC
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t31.0-8/615101_10202623782988290_409122086_o.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t31.0-8/10003569_10202623782908288_1902845220_o.jpg


It sucks. However, I suppose Dallas has a much larger population, but Reno, May, Penn, Memorial, 33rd, 2nd(Edmond), Bryant, 15th, Meridian, and McArthur would be a start to being engineering work to plan to have these widened to six lanes, sidewalks, landscaped medians, etc. Not all have to be done at the same time, but start on a few of them and that would be a huge improvement for the city. Tons of new investments would be made as a direct result of this.Oh, and one other thing I think would go a long way if OKC just did this.... THE UTILITY LINES ARE BURIED!!!!!! God I hate those things. It looks so much better without em'. Please oh please bury them. I am sure what I want more, the roads widened with new highway interchanges or to see the utility lines buried first.

All of the urbanists articulating why one of these sprawl aerials are worse than the grid aerial are missing the point. The visual clicks for me because I also espouse the argument behind it, but for others an indicative photo depiction doesn't seem to be the right message.

People want nice things. They want social justice and sustainability for other communities because the concept is great, and they can recognize which photo shows that. But they want the most luxurious for themselves. The argument needs to be how Mesta Park is simply more luxurious than Kelley Pointe or Morning Woods subdivisions in Edmond. It's not even close. MidtownR properties and Deep Deuce apartments are more opulent than MacArthur Park Apartments.

You can have your cake and eat it too. It's not enough to point out what is sprawl. Get people to actually want the alternative and not just feel bad about the standard behavior.

You can have your cake and eat it too. This is a great message because (1) it's true and (2) so much of the angst about urbanism stems from misunderstanding what it is. Someone here mentioned that he did not want to live packed on top others, which is what people think when they hear density (and that is unfortunate). Yet single family detached residential is an essential part of urbanism. Built properly, SFDR neighborhoods can achieve aesthetic loveliness, connectivity, and high densities. There are some prominent examples are new urban neighborhoods in Atlanta and Calgary. There is even a suburb of Tokyo called Seijo that is predominantly SFDR, with a density approaching 40,000 people per square mile.

I think the takeaways are you can live within a range of home styles in a correctly built urban environment, and densities can be scaled to suit local needs.

Here is my street in Charlotte. Median, streetlights, sidewalks, landscaping, and buried utility poles. This is virtually non-existent in OKC.

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o214/bchris02/MatthewsTownshipPkwy_zps250b9ed5.jpg

That is awesome.

You can have your cake and eat it too. This is a great message because (1) it's true and (2) so much of the angst about urbanism stems from misunderstanding what it is. Someone here mentioned that he did not want to live packed on top others, which is what people think when they hear density (and that is unfortunate). Yet single family detached residential is an essential part of urbanism. Built properly, SFDR neighborhoods can achieve aesthetic loveliness, connectivity, and high densities. There are some prominent examples are new urban neighborhoods in Atlanta and Calgary. There is even a suburb of Tokyo called Seijo that is predominantly SFDR, with a density approaching 40,000 people per square mile.

I think the takeaways are you can live within a range of home styles in a correctly built urban environment, and densities can be scaled to suit local needs.

This is the part the frustrates me the most. New Urbanism run the entire range of environments from national parks to Manhattan, but for some reason most people think it is only Manhattan. Are the people in Heritage Hills living on top of each other? Answer, nope but it is a T3 Suburban Residential category and it is in such demand that most people can't even afford to live there.

It would be interesting know how much the City of Charlotte spends on electricity for the street lights.

It would be interesting know how much the City of Charlotte spends on electricity for the street lights.

I'd prefer bio-luminescent trees or sidewalks painted with glow in the dark paint. I'll see if I can't dig up the project I saw reported on that showed these.

You can have your cake and eat it too. This is a great message because (1) it's true and (2) so much of the angst about urbanism stems from misunderstanding what it is. Someone here mentioned that he did not want to live packed on top others, which is what people think when they hear density (and that is unfortunate). Yet single family detached residential is an essential part of urbanism. Built properly, SFDR neighborhoods can achieve aesthetic loveliness, connectivity, and high densities. There are some prominent examples are new urban neighborhoods in Atlanta and Calgary. There is even a suburb of Tokyo called Seijo that is predominantly SFDR, with a density approaching 40,000 people per square mile.

I think the takeaways are you can live within a range of home styles in a correctly built urban environment, and densities can be scaled to suit local needs.So let me guess....

you're talking about this:

http://anomadslife.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clarendon-residential-neighborhood-2.jpg
http://www.adsinusa.com/p/3922/3922n01161b.jpg
http://www.atlantarealestateforum.com/wp-content/photos/2012/11/B36-101.jpg

in an area such as this:

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/p720x720/1397634_10202624013394050_561171403_o.jpg

I like those pictures and want that here in OKC for people to be able to live there if desired.

I however, would not want to live in that kind of environment and prefer this:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t31.0-8/1522722_10202624027834411_1011703495_o.jpg
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/t31.0-8/10010280_10202624026754384_890230521_o.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t31.0-8/1511761_10202624027474402_1627373345_o.jpg

In these environments

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t31.0-8/894457_10202624060955239_562169306_o.jpg

I like the Dallas layout better though

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t31.0-8/p600x600/1965677_10202624013274047_493483418_o.jpg

It would be interesting know how much the City of Charlotte spends on electricity for the street lights.Why? Would you be asking that same question if that street was in your beloved new urbanism environment?

I'd prefer bio-luminescent trees or sidewalks painted with glow in the dark paint. I'll see if I can't dig up the project I saw reported on that showed these.

Like this?

Glowing trees could light up city streets - environment - 25 November 2010 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827885.000-glowing-trees-could-light-up-city-streets.html#.Uz8gdbVOUfI)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/mg20827885.000/mg20827885.000-1_300.jpg

I'd prefer bio-luminescent trees or sidewalks painted with glow in the dark paint. I'll see if I can't dig up the project I saw reported on that showed these.Those are cool, but LED's cost almost nothing to run and last for years and years. So, for a realistic option, LED's would work great. That is where Edmond screwed up big time on Covell, and putting in way more street lights than needed.

Also, have there been any long term test to show what the effects might be on the trees?

It would be interesting know how much the City of Charlotte spends on electricity for the street lights.Why? Would you be asking that same question if that street was in your beloved new urbanism environment?

The cost is WHY I became a New Urbanist. I am not opposed to street lights. In fact, they are key ingredient in making neighborhoods walkable. The question comes down to how many streetlight do you need to power. The lower the density the more you need. The more you need the more it cost. The more it cost the more taxes it requires. The more taxes it requires the less there is to spend on other things.

Also, the pictures you posted. I'll bet the smallest urban house you posted cost 3X the most expensive suburban home you posted. Do you ever wonder why that is?

The cost is WHY I became a New Urbanist. I am not opposed to street lights. In fact, they are key ingredient in making neighborhoods walkable. The question comes down to how many streetlight do you need to power. The lower the density the more you need. The more you need the more it cost. The more it cost the more taxes it requires. The more taxes it requires the less there is to spend on other things.I understand that, but with new LED technology, that argument is becoming invalid because the operating costs are extremely low.

Also, the pictures you posted. I'll bet the smallest urban house you posted cost 3X the most expensive suburban home you posted. Do you ever wonder why that is?That has to do with the market. I'll bet the most expensive house in downtown OKC isn't much more(if it even is more) than the average suburban home is most California cities. So it all depends. The more dense the city, the more the houses become. Those smaller houses I posted were likely located in dense areas which increases the land value; for some, the land value isn't what drives them, it is about being in an open environment having privacy, more square footage, and the overall suburban experience(can't wait to hear the puns on that one ;)). It's what you make of it.

I understand that, but with new LED technology, that argument is becoming invalid because the operating costs are extremely low.

Agree. The streetlights, at least on Matthews-Township Pkwy in Charlotte (the picture I posted) are LED powered.

Also, the pictures you posted. I'll bet the smallest urban house you posted cost 3X the most expensive suburban home you posted. Do you ever wonder why that is?interesting

Edmond/OKC suburban
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t31.0-8/1909325_10202624171878012_1336990676_o.jpg
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1078815_10202624171918013_1435049317_o.jpg

OKC Urban

https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t31.0-8/1493360_10202624171958014_1160903086_o.jpg

Now, having showed that, I fully expect and hope those urban land values to increase dramatically over the next 5-10 years.

EDIT: Pete or MMM, can you make those pictures smaller? Flickr is acting up and I can't resize the pictures there or get the image address, so all I'm working with is Facebook. Sorry about that large pictures

Agree. The streetlights, at least on Matthews-Township Pkwy in Charlotte (the picture I posted) are LED powered.That is such a beautiful street, better than Campbell Rd actually. Charlotte must have a ton of trees.

JTF's statement would be correct somewhere like Portland, Seattle, or any other established urban city where it's possible to live completely without a car. OKC isn't quite there yet.

That is such a beautiful street, better than Campbell Rd actually. Charlotte must have a ton of trees.

Yeah. Most of suburban Charlotte looks similar to that. One of the most difficult thing to adjust to about OKC is how barren and ugly everything is. However, this city could be more attractive than it is with some beautification and better planning. While climate differences prevent OKC from ever being able to look like Charlotte, roads here could totally look like Campbell Rd and it would be much nicer.

JTF's statement would be correct somewhere like Portland, Seattle, or any other established urban city where it's possible to live completely without a car. OKC isn't quite there yet.I am well aware. I even stated as such that it depends on the situation. Small houses near downtown Austin are going for stupid prices and you could get a house 4x the size of one near the core for half of the price. I would choose larger house outside of the core in the suburbs; that's just me though.

Yeah. Most of suburban Charlotte looks similar to that. One of the most difficult thing to adjust to about OKC is how barren and ugly everything is. However, this city could be more attractive than it is with some beautification and better planning. While climate differences prevent OKC from ever being able to look like Charlotte, roads here could totally look like Campbell Rd and it would be much nicer.Yeah, even if you took Scottsdale, AZ and removed the mountains, it would still look nice because of how they landscape the city. It is beautiful and there is no reason OKC can't do the same.

Here is my street in Charlotte. Median, streetlights, sidewalks, landscaping, and buried utility poles. This is virtually non-existent in OKC.

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o214/bchris02/MatthewsTownshipPkwy_zps250b9ed5.jpg

Looks a lot like 10th Street through Classen-Ten-Penn.

Looks a lot like 10th Street through Classen-Ten-Penn.

I disagree. That area is one of the nicer landscaped areas in OKC proper, well above the typical standard here, but its no Campbell Rd or Matthews Township Pkwy. For one, it only is like that for one mile and directly to the west is one of the ugliest areas in the metro. I am not downplaying it though. I like Classen Ten-Penn and think its a charming neighborhood. We are comparing apples and oranges though.

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o214/bchris02/ClassenTenPenn_zps938c0a10.jpg

This is the part the frustrates me the most. New Urbanism run the entire range of environments from national parks to Manhattan, but for some reason most people think it is only Manhattan. Are the people in Heritage Hills living on top of each other? Answer, nope but it is a T3 Suburban Residential category and it is in such demand that most people can't even afford to live there.
Because that is what is mostly touted as the desired density. Condos are what is being built in Downtown Denver, LoDo and Capitol Hill, the single family small lot homes are existing stock in the Capitol Hill area. I work in LoDo and my wife works in Capitol Hill managing an apartment complex. The streets are packed with cars because there is very little parking off the alleys or at the smaller apartment buildings. While some of the amenities are nice (neighborhood restaurants, stores, etc.) in those areas it just isn't where we want to live anymore. Like I stated earlier, "urban living" isn't compatible with my hobbies such as cars/motorcycles and woodworking, even the suburban area we live in isn't all that conducive to the car hobby but it was a temporary place until we find some land and build something. I do think that the closer you get to downtown the denser it needs to be, what I want now really shouldn't be close in to downtown.

I heard an ice cream truck today and I wondered to myself how they stay in business when the kids are inside on their xboxes rather than playing outside.

I can tell you that an ice cream truck showed up on my block this week and kids were lined up ten deep.

Did plutonic panda just making the following argument:

Oak Tree has higher home values than inner NE OKC, therefor suburban properties are more valuable.

I'm confused as to what is actually happening here. Of course bchris is going on about Charlotte's amazing wide roads and low density...

Like I stated earlier, "urban living" isn't compatible with my hobbies such as cars/motorcycles and woodworking, even the suburban area we live in isn't all that conducive to the car hobby but it was a temporary place until we find some land and build something.

Urban living might not be compatible with your hobby, but new urbanism living is. At its base function all new urbanism is, is a guide to ensure building materials, site planning, street geometry, scale, and lot size fit the T zone the building is in. There is nothing worse than driving out to the country and seeing 100 townhomes stuck on 2 acres when there is nothing else around them for a 1/2 mile, or a rural 5 acre estate with a brick and wrought iron fence. Every item has it's place on the transect. For the record, a T2 5-acre estate should have a wooden fence (if it has one at all).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Westtown.jpg

Did plutonic panda just making the following argument:

Oak Tree has higher home values than inner NE OKC, therefor suburban properties are more valuable.

I'm confused as to what is actually happening here. Of course bchris is going on about Charlotte's amazing wide roads and low density...oh boy... Was wondering when you'd chime in with your typical "I know it all" post.

Oak Tree wasn't even in the picture amigo, I'm referring to the new suburban development. Those house pictures I showed, JTF clearly said take the smallest urban house and it would be more expensive than the biggest suburban house and showed him that wasn't the case. Biotrich also made claim I didn't understand what type of housing I was talking about and I made that post showing him I did.

Now we have you trying to make twist my post to make it seem I am taking the richest urban areas and comparing it to the poorest urban area and that is bs dude. Stop trolling and get a life. That crap gets annoying.

As for Bchris rambling about wider roads in Charlotte?????? Are you for real? That road was no wider than the roads we have here yet looks like a comparison of Beverly Hills and Compton, want to guess which one OKC is? If anything, it would've made more sense to say I am the one ranting about not having wider roads seeing as the road I posted was six lanes.... Do you think before you post?

Urban living might not be compatible with your hobby, but new urbanism living is. At its base function all new urbanism is, is a guide to ensure building materials, site planning, street geometry, scale, and lot size fit the T zone the building is in. There is nothing worse than driving out to the country and seeing 100 townhomes stuck on 2 acres when there is nothing else around them for a 1/2 mile, or a rural 5 acre estate with a brick and wrought iron fence. Every item has it's place on the transect. For the record, a T2 5-acre estate should have a wooden fence (if it has one at all).
I know what it is, I have sat through some DPZ seminars and it was the main planning principle used in the military family housing privatization projects that I worked on. It has some good elements but it is not the ultimate solution. One thing that I mainly want is no home owners association, I just want a plot of land.

Urban living might not be compatible with your hobby, but new urbanism living is. At its base function all new urbanism is, is a guide to ensure building materials, site planning, street geometry, scale, and lot size fit the T zone the building is in. There is nothing worse than driving out to the country and seeing 100 townhomes stuck on 2 acres when there is nothing else around them for a 1/2 mile, or a rural 5 acre estate with a brick and wrought iron fence. Every item has it's place on the transect. For the record, a T2 5-acre estate should have a wooden fence (if it has one at all).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Westtown.jpgDamn dude, so in order to conform to your rules the fence has to be wooden? Not trying to be hard on you, really asking..... The picture you posted was beautiful, but how do you know that isn't the product of sprawl as we can't much other development around it

oh boy... Was wondering when you'd chime in with your typical "I know it all" post.

Oak Tree wasn't even in the picture amigo, I'm referring to the new suburban development. Those house pictures I showed, JTF clearly said take the smallest urban house and it would be more expensive than the biggest suburban house and showed him that wasn't the case. Biotrich also made claim I didn't understand what type of housing I was talking about and I made that post showing him I did.

Now we have you trying to make twist my post to make it seem I am taking the richest urban areas and comparing it to the poorest urban area and that is bs dude. Stop trolling and get a life. That crap gets annoying.

As for Bchris rambling about wider roads in Charlotte?????? Are you for real? That road was no wider than the roads we have here yet looks like a comparison of Beverly Hills and Compton, want to guess which one OKC is? If anything, it would've made more sense to say I am the one ranting about not having wider roads seeing as the road I posted was six lanes.... Do you think before you post?

I did? O.o

Pretty sure I did nothing of the sort. But whatever helps you make bad arguments...

I did? O.o

Pretty sure I did nothing of the sort. But whatever helps you make bad points...

You playing dumb now? Come on dude, I wasn't born yesterday my friend.....


You can have your cake and eat it too. This is a great message because (1) it's true and (2) so much of the angst about urbanism stems from misunderstanding what it is. Someone here mentioned that he did not want to live packed on top others, which is what people think when they hear density (and that is unfortunate). Yet single family detached residential is an essential part of urbanism. Built properly, SFDR neighborhoods can achieve aesthetic loveliness, connectivity, and high densities. There are some prominent examples are new urban neighborhoods in Atlanta and Calgary. There is even a suburb of Tokyo called Seijo that is predominantly SFDR, with a density approaching 40,000 people per square mile.

I think the takeaways are you can live within a range of home styles in a correctly built urban environment, and densities can be scaled to suit local needs.


omeone here mentioned that he did not want to live packed on top others

I mentioned it, no one else here did.... so who else would you be referring to? Then you say:


which is what people think when they hear density (and that is unfortunate).

So really, who else would you be referring to then? My post was directly in response to that line. Even if you weren't referring to me, my point still remains valid. You claim I am making bad points, yet not you nor anyone else has challenged them with anything legit, so come on man, I'm waiting.

Oh, and as for Seijo, what in the world are you taking about? That is about as urban as it gets.

http://en.t-guesthouse.jp/uploads/house/20130504164001_NcwJ_1_1.JPG
http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.608019295924915021&pid=1.7
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/5029297970_cdf873f6ed.jpg
United cubes???? Are you seriously trying to sell off cities that have people living in residential units like these??????
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2012/042212_files/seijo1.jpg
http://www.tokyo-hitorigurashi.com/image/search/university/seijo/seijo/01.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VDrXRUqB7bo/TfemFuRxnjI/AAAAAAAAAJc/YJGVz6GTW_w/s1600/seijo5.jpg

Pretty city, but I honestly don't know what point you were trying to make with that... that is people living right on top of each other. I don't ever see a true suburban environment having 40,000 people per square mile, that is insanity. But hey, whatever helps you make bad points I guess :)

Wow.

Shouldn't have to do this, but OK... Let's take everything point by point. First, you don't want to live on top of others (no problem there). I brought up that good density comes in different forms than just vertical density -- including single family detached, your preference. I then cited examples, which you apparently ignored.

Second, "which is what people think when they hear density (and that is unfortunate)" is pretty clearly a general statement not directed at anymore. It laments that urbanists, in my opinion, haven't done a good enough job of showing people that density does not need to look radically different than they are used to, but the benefits are compelling.

Who said anything about you not knowing what type of house you were talking about? No one.

As for those pictures of Seijo, horror of horrors, those single family detached homes and townhomes have a density that allows-- gasp -- convenience stores and libraries within a walking distance of home. Shut that down before a grocery store thinks about setting up shop.

You are correct though -- it is as urban as it gets for a SFDR neighborhood

That was kind of my point.

... Let's take everything point by point.Alright, we'll do it...


First, you don't want to live on top of others.Ultimately, no, I don't. Would I like to try it someday, maybe, I don't know where life will take me, we'll see.


I brought up that good density comes in different forms than just vertical density -- including single family detached, your preferenceThat's fine, no disagreement here, what was the problem?


I then cited examples, which you apparently ignored.I most certainly did not ignore them.... again, please explain where you disagree with because I having a very hard time figuring it out.


Second, "which is what people think when they hear density (and that is unfortunate)" is pretty clearly a general statement not directed at anymore.Ok, fine, whatever, I know you referring to me because you brought that point up with the opening statement of
Someone here mentioned that he did not want to live packed on top others. So tell me: who else "HERE" were you talking about then?


It laments that urbanists, in my opinion, haven't done a good enough job of showing people that density does not need to look radically different than they are used to, but the benefits are compelling.ok


Who said anything about you [I]not knowing what type of house you were talking about?[I] No one.No one, huh? You were talking about no one? But you clearly said "someone here stated something--I and only I--said", so who the hell else were you talking about man?

As for those pictures of Seijo, horror of horrors, those single family detached homes and townhomes have a density that allows-- gasp -- convenience stores and libraries within a walking distance of home. Shut that down before a grocery store thinks about setting up shop.

You are correct though -- it is as urban as it gets for a SFDR neighborhood

That was kind of my point.What!? Dude, stop with this crap man. I said it looks like a beautiful city.... where did I insinuate any kind of horrors about the city's environment??????????

I am not arguing this is a bad place to live, just arguing that is exactly what people have in mind when they say people living on top of each other which is not extreme density. Edmond is dense in certain areas, but doesn't equate to people living on top of each other. There are different levels of density, and even if a city hits critical mass, it could still be less dense than another city that has hit critical mass.

I'm starting to think New Urbanism is all about the numbers and figures of a city that has hit critical mass and wants to dictate nearly every feature and design of a city that has done so. They should nearly all be the same, at least in scale. That sucks if the case.

Each rooftop in the aerial you have shown is a detached single family home or a towhnouse. In one square mile, there are about 40,000 people living in that place -- in SFDR and townhouses. I used that as an example to say you can have your detached home and density. I also said density can be scaled to local needs, so it would not have to be 40,000 here. And for the last time, I was not calling you out -- I was making a general statement. Seems pretty clear.

Each rooftop in the aerial you have shown is a detached single family home or a towhnouse. In one square mile, there are about 40,000 people living in that place -- in SFDR and townhouses. I used that as an example to say you can have your detached home and density. I also said density can be scaled to local needs, so it would not have to be 40,000 here.ok... I understand that and I really don't disagree with that to an extent.


And for the last time, I was not calling you out -- I was making a general statement. Seems pretty clear.Ok, my mistake. I don't who you were referring to though when you said
someone here mentioned that he did not want to live packed on top others, seeing as I'm the only one that mentioned it and I'm a guy(and you know that as I told my name in pm), but that's okay. I only point that out as your recent post phrasing me pointing you out and you denying my claim, but that's fine.

Either we don't disagree much or we in two separate ball parks, either way, I still stick by my points and these last few posts have been pretty pointless.

That many people in one area is my nightmare.

That many people in one area is my nightmare.

I had a nightmare that I was being hunted on a rich guy's private island by his pet T-Rex.

That many people in one area is my nightmare.

Try living there and you'll soon see that it's not the nightmare you imagined.

I had a nightmare that I was being hunted on a rich guy's private island by his pet T-Rex.

I had an incredibly similar dream....

oh boy... Was wondering when you'd chime in with your typical "I know it all" post.

Oak Tree wasn't even in the picture amigo, I'm referring to the new suburban development. Those house pictures I showed, JTF clearly said take the smallest urban house and it would be more expensive than the biggest suburban house and showed him that wasn't the case. Biotrich also made claim I didn't understand what type of housing I was talking about and I made that post showing him I did.

Now we have you trying to make twist my post to make it seem I am taking the richest urban areas and comparing it to the poorest urban area and that is bs dude. Stop trolling and get a life. That crap gets annoying.

As for Bchris rambling about wider roads in Charlotte?????? Are you for real? That road was no wider than the roads we have here yet looks like a comparison of Beverly Hills and Compton, want to guess which one OKC is? If anything, it would've made more sense to say I am the one ranting about not having wider roads seeing as the road I posted was six lanes.... Do you think before you post?

Still confused as to what point you're trying to make.

^ it's usually a moving target.

n/m

Still confused as to what point you're trying to make.that's because you don't think before you post dude :)

And yes... I get the smart-ass remark that has absolutely no meaning to it and is liked by the very people who disagree with meh.... I understand, Spartan, that is apparently all you have and no one would blame you

^ it's usually a moving target.oh yeah man, you got it