n/m n/m

Try living there and you'll soon see that it's not the nightmare you imagined.I know people who have lived in those kind of places and are very glad they are out

I had a nightmare that I was being hunted on a rich guy's private island by his pet T-Rex. color me dumb on this one, I am getting the reference, if there is one

Plutonic Panda - make sure you look me up when you come to Jax. I think once you see high density single family homes it might surprise you.

Once again, PluPan feels the need to quote and reply to every post even when he has nothing to say. :congrats:

And yes, I realize I'm stooping to your level. But it's funny. :tongue:

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

I lived in town once, for just under 2 years. It was convenient, close to everything, never took more than a few minutes to get where I need, close to parks and plenty of sidewalks. But the amount of people, and cars and traffic had me wanting to leave. Other than that short stint I've never lived anywhere with less than an acre, and until I'm old and can't take care of it, I'm never going back.

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

I don't usually disagree with the points you make. I disagree with the rude, hostile way you present many of your points and unwillingness to hold a mature conversation with those you disagree with. It usually turns into a group of posts filled with a bunch of immature flaming (my example is pretty much this entire thread).

Once again, PluPan feels the need to quote and reply to every post even when he has nothing to say. :congrats:

And yes, I realize I'm stooping to your level. But it's funny. :tongue:And once again, another post just attacking me with no meaningful point to try and prove, just more bs. Seriously, I just spent a fair amount of time posting some very legitimate points back a few pages and no one responds to the main points, yet takes out one of my small points on makes a big deal out of it.

And yes, I realize I'm stooping to the level that you stooped to before me, but it's funny.

:duckdodge I guess an emotion is needed, so here is Daffy Duck! ;)

Plutonic Panda - make sure you look me up when you come to Jax. I think once you see high density single family homes it might surprise you.

JTF, what do you think about Mud Island in Memphis? I think its a great compromise between single-family suburban living and new urbanism. OKC would be very lucky to get such a development one day.

I don't usually disagree with the points you make. I disagree with the rude, hostile way you present many of your points and unwillingness to hold a mature conversation with those you disagree with. It usually turns into a group of posts filled with a bunch of immature flaming (my example is pretty much this entire thread).Dude, do I need to repost what I've already posted? This is actually frustrating me because I spent a fair amount of time posting some very legitimate points that no one tried to argue against for whatever reason. What really pissed me off is when Biotrich came out referred to someone saying something in this thread that only I said, and I challenged that and got exactly the response I expected of him denying that he was referring to me. This is insanity man.

I'm almost in a lost for words of the absurdity that is taking place here. Go back, and look at my post before this crap with boitrich, and please explain to me what exactly was rude and immature about those posts. It's almost to the point where I am about to requester my account be deleted and just do away this(even though I've contributed $200 for 2 Platinum memberships here) because I really have appreciation for what Pete, Steve, and nearly everyone else here does, but half of everything is the same bs by the same people complaining about sprawl and suburban development.

I am in Dallas right now and this city is literally booming with life. Car dominant city, yet a wonderful place to live with people out on every corner. The Stonbriar development in Frisco(a new urbanist nightmare) has cars driving every which way yet people are on every corner and patio with kids, laying back in their chairs, smiling, enjoying themselves, all around nice beautiful 6-8 lane roads and more than once people lay claim that this city is a sprawling suburban mess when that there is no mess at all. I have said time and time again I want OKC to have options. Do I want OKC to end up like Dallas, yes I really do. Doesn't have to be as big as Dallas, but love Dallas man, it is a great place. I want large highways, six lane roads, suburban single family housing that disappears into the skyline, but I also want a dense, lively downtown, that has a rail system that connects the city with walkable streets in every sense of the word walkable.

One thing that really angers me is I can come on here and give a review about Native Roots saying how much I think that place rocks and OKC needs more urban places like DD and how I downtown is going to be OKC's best feature or how Edmond needs to make it's downtown a new urbanist community or how I think OKC needs to get a light-rail system in place, I get tons of likes - but, whenever I say something like it is getting to the point where I-35 needs to be widened to ten lanes from downtown to Norman, it's "oh there Plupan and his wide highways again, or people like Spartan or Custromayo just making some smartass insult or remark that doesn't even try to challenge why I think there should be one, it's just the typical no new highways, no wider highways and blah blah.... I even post points and studies that don't support my views so others are able to view them and have the resource there. I try to be as fair as I can; sometimes however, I can get defensive about things and I understand that.

Anyhow,

I honestly would like to see you go back and read these posts and describe what was rude and immature about them

#80
#76
#81
#83
#85
#86
#88 (my immaturity and rudeness really must be showing on that one when I asked for those pictures to be resized smaller out of concern for slowing down peoples computers and phones, causing their data usage to go up, and overall decency understanding that those could be an inconvenience to some)
#89
#92
#93
#65(me responding to a snarky response(one that could be considered rude and immature) with a valid question of "what would you have him say" with my honest criticism of what I have witnessed).
#66
#67
#68
#70
#72
#73
(you want me to post more?????)

I mean, I am getting pissed off just sitting here listing all of these posts the you have claimed to be rude and immature.... please, explain to me what about those posts were rude and immature..... please man, do it!

When I sit there and spend time posting my honest opinion and no one responds to it, yet I get a post like this:


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

when I'm the only one that said anything remotely close to that by me saying this


Further more, sprawl to me just seems like people not wanting to live right on top of each other.

then he starts acting like I'm an idiot and wouldn't be able to understand who he was really referring to, knowing I have no way to really prove otherwise.... so excuse the hell out of me for spending nearly an entire page debating this guy about whether he was referring to me or not and getting upset in the process because of it.

Now as for my response to Spartan, he is someone I have yet to figure out. He seems like such an intelligent person who has been a very valuable and reliable source for this thread, but this guy comes in random threads and acts like the biggest troll in the world quite often. Overall, I like Spartan even if he doesn't like me, but for christs sake, even Pete, the owner of the site, had to tell him to cut it out with the trolling on another thread.

So I tell you what, Mississippi Blues, if you don't want to go back and re-read my first posts on here and want to still assume they were made to be immature flaming, rude, and hostile, let me know and I'll do you a big favor by sending Pete a message to delete my account, because if I can't even post what honestly think, what is the point of even being on here, especially having to sit here and deal with this smartass crap from Spartan mocking me when I truly and honestly didn't understand what Boitrichs point really was. I don't troll and have no desire to make any enemies or put people anyone down on here. So sorry I wasn't able to live up to your standards of posting and hopefully maybe you can see what I was really trying to say.

Plutonic Panda - make sure you look me up when you come to Jax. I think once you see high density single family homes it might surprise you.I will definitely do that man. I would honestly like to see them.

JTF, what do you think about Mud Island in Memphis? I think its a great compromise between single-family suburban living and new urbanism. OKC would be very lucky to get such a development one day.

Harbor Town (the development on Mud Island) is not a compromise - it IS new urbanism. That is what boitoirich has been trying to say.

Harbor Town | Congress for the New Urbanism (http://www.cnu.org/resources/projects/harbor-town-2007)

Dude, do I need to repost what I've already posted? This is actually frustrating me because I spent a fair amount of time posting some very legitimate points that no one tried to argue against for whatever reason. What really pissed me off is when Biotrich came out referred to someone saying something in this thread that only I said, and I challenged that and got exactly the response I expected of him denying that he was referring to me. This is insanity man.

I'm almost in a lost for words of the absurdity that is taking place here. Go back, and look at my post before this crap with boitrich, and please explain to me what exactly was rude and immature about those posts. It's almost to the point where I am about to requester my account be deleted and just do away this(even though I've contributed $200 for 2 Platinum memberships here) because I really have appreciation for what Pete, Steve, and nearly everyone else here does, but half of everything is the same bs by the same people complaining about sprawl and suburban development.

I am in Dallas right now and this city is literally booming with life. Car dominant city, yet a wonderful place to live with people out on every corner. The Stonbriar development in Frisco(a new urbanist nightmare) has cars driving every which way yet people are on every corner and patio with kids, laying back in their chairs, smiling, enjoying themselves, all around nice beautiful 6-8 lane roads and more than once people lay claim that this city is a sprawling suburban mess when that there is no mess at all. I have said time and time again I want OKC to have options. Do I want OKC to end up like Dallas, yes I really do. Doesn't have to be as big as Dallas, but love Dallas man, it is a great place. I want large highways, six lane roads, suburban single family housing that disappears into the skyline, but I also want a dense, lively downtown, that has a rail system that connects the city with walkable streets in every sense of the word walkable.

One thing that really angers me is I can come on here and give a review about Native Roots saying how much I think that place rocks and OKC needs more urban places like DD and how I downtown is going to be OKC's best feature or how Edmond needs to make it's downtown a new urbanist community or how I think OKC needs to get a light-rail system in place, I get tons of likes - but, whenever I say something like it is getting to the point where I-35 needs to be widened to ten lanes from downtown to Norman, it's "oh there Plupan and his wide highways again, or people like Spartan or Custromayo just making some smartass insult or remark that doesn't even try to challenge why I think there should be one, it's just the typical no new highways, no wider highways and blah blah.... I even post points and studies that don't support my views so others are able to view them and have the resource there. I try to be as fair as I can; sometimes however, I can get defensive about things and I understand that.

Anyhow,

I honestly would like to see you go back and read these posts and describe what was rude and immature about them

#80
#76
#81
#83
#85
#86
#88 (my immaturity and rudeness really must be showing on that one when I asked for those pictures to be resized smaller out of concern for slowing down peoples computers and phones, causing their data usage to go up, and overall decency understanding that those could be an inconvenience to some)
#89
#92
#93
#65(me responding to a snarky response(one that could be considered rude and immature) with a valid question of "what would you have him say" with my honest criticism of what I have witnessed).
#66
#67
#68
#70
#72
#73
(you want me to post more?????)

I mean, I am getting pissed off just sitting here listing all of these posts the you have claimed to be rude and immature.... please, explain to me what about those posts were rude and immature..... please man, do it!

When I sit there and spend time posting my honest opinion and no one responds to it, yet I get a post like this:



when I'm the only one that said anything remotely close to that by me saying this



then he starts acting like I'm an idiot and wouldn't be able to understand who he was really referring to, knowing I have no way to really prove otherwise.... so excuse the hell out of me for spending nearly an entire page debating this guy about whether he was referring to me or not and getting upset in the process because of it.

Now as for my response to Spartan, he is someone I have yet to figure out. He seems like such an intelligent person who has been a very valuable and reliable source for this thread, but this guy comes in random threads and acts like the biggest troll in the world quite often. Overall, I like Spartan even if he doesn't like me, but for christs sake, even Pete, the owner of the site, had to tell him to cut it out with the trolling on another thread.

So I tell you what, Mississippi Blues, if you don't want to go back and re-read my first posts on here and want to still assume they were made to be immature flaming, rude, and hostile, let me know and I'll do you a big favor by sending Pete a message to delete my account, because if I can't even post what honestly think, what is the point of even being on here, especially having to sit here and deal with this smartass crap from Spartan mocking me when I truly and honestly didn't understand what Boitrichs point really was. I don't troll and have no desire to make any enemies or put people anyone down on here. So sorry I wasn't able to live up to your standards of posting and hopefully maybe you can see what I was really trying to say.

I spent half of my childhood in Dallas, so you don't have to convince me of anything. I would like to see OKC grow like Dallas as well, just not necessarily in the exact same direction. I do also want to see OKC not strive to be like Dallas, but to be its own thing. I think we're on the same page as far as Dallas - Oklahoma City goes.

Anyway, I never claimed all of your posts were loaded, but they really shine in this thread and more specifically -- since you want specifics -- ; since boitorich ticked you off and EVEN more specifically, when Nick claimed he didn't get your point. I know you and Nick have been going back and forth forever and I can't recall a time the two of you have ever had a calm conversation. That's to be expected I guess when two people are so far from the same reality.

Your explanation of where you're coming from doesn't help your case as far as you not being a little hostile prick goes. And I really despise that because you really are trying to prove you have good intentions and I admire that, but at the same time you're shooting yourself in the foot by presenting "angry sarcasm" in the same post that you're trying to say "I'm not a rude poster". That's not to say your explanation is unwarranted, because we're all human and I think it shows that we do inflict emotions on one another even though we're all just posting on a forum.

I don't need to go back and re-read your posts because I read them to begin with and have been following this thread since it started and you haven't said or done anything that would've said you were an angry individual until the last page or so. Getting mad and pretty much flaming an entire thread isn't really the way to make a serious point. The saying I've heard implied at times is "you're so full of **** that you can't smell it". No need to say sorry either. I know that's just a "pitiful me" point and isn't a genuine apology.

I don't think you're a bad poster. This whole idea that because I had criticism of you means you need embrace the victim role is rather foolish. I have critiques of myself so it's not like it's a reserved stance for you. Chill out and take any sort of criticism and consider it; don't automatically jump to the defense. If you feel I'm wrong and you haven't been rude, then that's my problem, not yours. I'm not trying to be your psychologist, but my word.

If you want to converse any further on this, PM me because we're taking this thread way off course but I don't want you to leave thinking it's Mississippi Blues vs Plutonic Panda.

Harbor Town (the development on Mud Island) is not a compromise - it IS new urbanism. That is what boitoirich has been trying to say.

Harbor Town | Congress for the New Urbanism (http://www.cnu.org/resources/projects/harbor-town-2007)

I've been a fan of Harbor Town, as well. Would love for something like that to happen here.

The problem is we don't do the suburbs or the urban areas right. We suck at both.

A suburb should still have basic pedestrian infrastructure. It should still be able to survive as a pedestrian.

Just as in an urban environment, you still have basic auto infrastructure. Both have their places in each other (the pedestrian in the suburb, and the automobile in the urban environment). But we don't do a good job of building either environment.

I spent half of my childhood in Dallas, so you don't have to convince me of anything. I would like to see OKC grow like Dallas as well, just not necessarily in the exact same direction. I do also want to see OKC not strive to be like Dallas, but to be its own thing. I think we're on the same page as far as Dallas - Oklahoma City goes.

Anyway, I never claimed all of your posts were loaded, but they really shine in this thread and more specifically -- since you want specifics -- ; since boitorich ticked you off and EVEN more specifically, when Nick claimed he didn't get your point. I know you and Nick have been going back and forth forever and I can't recall a time the two of you have ever had a calm conversation. That's to be expected I guess when two people are so far from the same reality.

Your explanation of where you're coming from doesn't help your case as far as you not being a little hostile prick goes. And I really despise that because you really are trying to prove you have good intentions and I admire that, but at the same time you're shooting yourself in the foot by presenting "angry sarcasm" in the same post that you're trying to say "I'm not a rude poster". That's not to say your explanation is unwarranted, because we're all human and I think it shows that we do inflict emotions on one another even though we're all just posting on a forum.

I don't need to go back and re-read your posts because I read them to begin with and have been following this thread since it started and you haven't said or done anything that would've said you were an angry individual until the last page or so. Getting mad and pretty much flaming an entire thread isn't really the way to make a serious point. The saying I've heard implied at times is "you're so full of **** that you can't smell it". No need to say sorry either. I know that's just a "pitiful me" point and isn't a genuine apology.

I don't think you're a bad poster. This whole idea that because I had criticism of you means you need embrace the victim role is rather foolish. I have critiques of myself so it's not like it's a reserved stance for you. Chill out and take any sort of criticism and consider it; don't automatically jump to the defense. If you feel I'm wrong and you haven't been rude, then that's my problem, not yours. I'm not trying to be your psychologist, but my word.

If you want to converse any further on this, PM me because we're taking this thread way off course but I don't want you to leave thinking it's Mississippi Blues vs Plutonic Panda.Ok, so that pretty much sums it up. You won't go and explain exactly what was rude about my original posts. Was I rude in some of my responses later on in the thread? Perhaps. I only responded in the context that was provided to me, which equates to treat others how you want to be treated.

But again, you say this
my example is pretty much this entire thread so that pretty much says every post I've made was rude and immature. Either way, I really don't care. Also, me saying sorry was meant to be used in a sarcastic form, I wasn't trying to give you an sincere apology, and I am not sorry for anything that has been said here. I've blown up on posters here before and I am sincerely sorry for that, this is NOT one of those occasions.

Anyhow, I'm about done here. I've provided-what I consider to be-valuable input and had one person knit-pick my post and it all went downhill from there. So like I said, if you truly want to back-up your claims, go to all of these posts I provided above and please explain to me what was rude and immature about them; if not, then I don't know what to say about it. My points remain valid and anyone who has nothing other than to try and piss me off to get me to respond and make me look bad can feel good about it, because boy I sure fell for it.

You're a good man, Mr. Mississippi Blues. Have a great night bro!

The problem is we don't do the suburbs or the urban areas right. We suck at both.

A suburb should still have basic pedestrian infrastructure. It should still be able to survive as a pedestrian.

Just as in an urban environment, you still have basic auto infrastructure. Both have their places in each other (the pedestrian in the suburb, and the automobile in the urban environment). But we don't do a good job of building either environment.Catch, I would sincerely appreciate it if you could post pictures of what kind of "suburbs" you are talking about, because at the risk of making myself come off as an ass to you and Mississippi Blues, I believe I have an idea of what kind of "perfect suburbs" you are thinking of and I don't really consider those to be suburbs; but to prevent yet another meaningless argument, two or three pictures should say everything there needs to be said really.

BTW, I do agree we aren't doing a very good job at either, again, assuming you and me are thinking of the same kind of "right" suburb.

Harbor Town (the development on Mud Island) is not a compromise - it IS new urbanism. That is what boitoirich has been trying to say.

Harbor Town | Congress for the New Urbanism (http://www.cnu.org/resources/projects/harbor-town-2007)and JTF, I understand exactly what biotoirich was saying, what I don't get, is the context it was in. Whether or not he was merely stating his own opinion or challenging my(aaaaaaaand other people's) views and saying I don't understand what density really is. In other words, I'm just ignorant on this subject, which anyone who disagrees with me could claim, for any reason.

This is awesome! I would love to see something like this here in OKC. I think something like this would be sweet south of I-40 along both sides of the river.

http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/imagecache/news/Memphis_3.jpg
http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/imagecache/news/Memphis_5.jpg
http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/imagecache/news/Memphis_2.jpg

But for some, including myself, quality of life is better in an area like this

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
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t31.0-8/1939572_10202623796708633_647383305_o.jpg
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o214/bchris02/MatthewsTownshipPkwy_zps250b9ed5.jpg

Out of personal preference, I find the these to be better places to live, but that is my opinion. I want this AND new urbanism communities. I want downtown Edmond to look like Mud Island but have the rest of the city looking like the lower pictures I posted. Having large highways scaled to however wide it needs to be to handle traffic. I also want commuter and light-rail connecting us to downtown OKC and the greater OKC metro area. I want options, and I believe that is what makes a city great.

Personally I think Core2Shore is perfect for a Harbor Town-style development. It's also far more realistic for a city the size of OKC than the Manhattan-esque development commonly shown in conceptual drawings.

And yes, OKC needs more options. More options = better quality of life. OKC, for such a suburban city, doesn't do suburbs well and these pictures prove that point nicely.

Personally I think Core2Shore is perfect for a Harbor Town-style development. It's also far more realistic for a city the size of OKC than the Manhattan-esque development commonly shown in conceptual drawings.

And yes, OKC needs more options. More options = better quality of life. OKC, for such a suburban city, doesn't do suburbs well and these pictures prove that point nicely.Yeah, this is really pessimistic, but I really have my fears about the final product for Core2Shore. The only thing I am hoping for now is that I am blown out of the water and proven wrong.

color me dumb on this one, I am getting the reference, if there is one

Not a reference. I just thought we were talking about nightmares we'd had.

Mine was pretty awesome.

Not a reference. I just thought we were talking about nightmares we'd had.

Mine was pretty awesome.Oh, well that does sound pretty cool. My dreams, well..... don't really make sense and would take too long to explain ;P lol

If they put JTF in charge I would put a Harbor Town style development on Wheeler Park, complete with inlets from the river and restoration of the two creeks that flowed through this area. In Core to Shore I would implement a uniform exterior and height that all developments would have to adhere to using the City office building on Main St as the model. Then I would outlaw dead-end streets unless terrain or natural features prevented thru streets. I would also ban the private ownership of any water front, buy out existing owners, and restore the natural drainage system by day lighting all creeks. In exchange for those few restrictions I would get rid of the entire zoning code and replace it with a simple land-use smart code. Alas, I am not in charge so none of that will ever happen.

Ok, so that pretty much sums it up. You won't go and explain exactly what was rude about my original posts. Was I rude in some of my responses later on in the thread? Perhaps. I only responded in the context that was provided to me, which equates to treat others how you want to be treated.

But again, you say this so that pretty much says every post I've made was rude and immature. Either way, I really don't care. Also, me saying sorry was meant to be used in a sarcastic form, I wasn't trying to give you an sincere apology, and I am not sorry for anything that has been said here. I've blown up on posters here before and I am sincerely sorry for that, this is NOT one of those occasions.

Anyhow, I'm about done here. I've provided-what I consider to be-valuable input and had one person knit-pick my post and it all went downhill from there. So like I said, if you truly want to back-up your claims, go to all of these posts I provided above and please explain to me what was rude and immature about them; if not, then I don't know what to say about it. My points remain valid and anyone who has nothing other than to try and piss me off to get me to respond and make me look bad can feel good about it, because boy I sure fell for it.

You're a good man, Mr. Mississippi Blues. Have a great night bro!

Perhaps I shouldn't have said this entire thread; I should've said the past few posts. That way we could've avoided this confusion that I'm trying to imply every one of your posts in this thread have been rude and off base as I do not think that.

I know you're not sorry, I said I knew that. No need for an explanation, although I do appreciate it. There's nothing for you to apologize to me specifically about. You haven't offended or upset me, so I'm honestly not concerned about it.

Your points can remain valid. I want them to. They're good points. As I said, I have not been trying to discredit you, but my poor wording made it appear I am and that's not the case. My main point is what was originally stated in my first post. I generally agree with you, but sometimes you have a way of going overboard with rudeness and that's where my one and only problem comes it. Otherwise, you're an angel.

Thank you; I try to at least come across in a good way, sometimes. Since it isn't night any longer, I hope you have a great day.

Yeah, this is really pessimistic, but I really have my fears about the final product for Core2Shore. The only thing I am hoping for now is that I am blown out of the water and proven wrong.

Honestly, I think we all do, including myself. Hoping for the same thing, though.

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

Again I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make.

This is becoming a sprawling thread with low density and many dead ends.

You guys are arguing over something that you may never see eye-to-eye on. You are arguing petty points made in various post in this thread regarding ideologies that you will never agree on. Ultimately, there are people that enjoy living downtown, with lots of people, and close to lots of things. There are people that absolutely love suburbia life along with their own houses, small yards, neighbors, and within close driving distance to the city. Then there are people like me that want a 5 or more acre homestead, no view of next door neighbors (or at the very least, a neighbor way off in the distance), peace and quiet, can do/build wherever/whatever they want without pesky neighbors. The three groups of people are not likely to see eye-to-eye on the best way of living. Some people will change throughout their lifetimes from the city life to wanting something out in the country. Maybe we should focus on how best to develop the city limits such that people have the option for all of the above.

Currently, there are too many developments too far out as stated before; housing additions on 20+ acres with nothing around them. Too many farms being bought up by developers and cramming houses in on them....again too far out. I currently live in one of these. I was hoping for more of a country lifestyle, but this is nothing but suburbia. I knew this when buying my house, but I've learned this just isn't for me. OKC is doing a good job about developing housing downtown. They just need to catch up. Unfortunately, there isn't much going on between downtown and suburbia way out of city limits. Because of the sprawl, it is incredibly difficult/expensive to find acreage. You have east edmond that is being bought up by the rich folk which drives up prices beyond what I (and many who would like to be out in the country) could ever afford. The only options for country living is moving 25+ miles out, but that commute gives me diarrhea just thinking about it. Frankly, I don't understand why any of the housing additions outside of the kilpatrick loop don't have 1-5 acre lots (on all of them). Maybe that is too much to ask for, but it certainly doesn't seem like we are developing our area effectively.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said this entire thread; I should've said the past few posts. That way we could've avoided this confusion that I'm trying to imply every one of your posts in this thread have been rude and off base as I do not think that.

I know you're not sorry, I said I knew that. No need for an explanation, although I do appreciate it. There's nothing for you to apologize to me specifically about. You haven't offended or upset me, so I'm honestly not concerned about it.

Your points can remain valid. I want them to. They're good points. As I said, I have not been trying to discredit you, but my poor wording made it appear I am and that's not the case. My main point is what was originally stated in my first post. I generally agree with you, but sometimes you have a way of going overboard with rudeness and that's where my one and only problem comes it. Otherwise, you're an angel.

Thank you; I try to at least come across in a good way, sometimes. Since it isn't night any longer, I hope you have a great day.Alright, I honestly can't argue with that.

Again I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make.

This is becoming a sprawling thread with low density and many dead ends.Spartan, I don't even know what my point is anymore. I have no clue what's being discussed and I've lost track.

Glad I'm not the only one confused then.

I'm not a bad guy either, I just haven't had time to get too engrossed in these threads with work lately. I'm actually associated with the institute at University of Utah that collaborated on this report, although I've only spoken with them regarding sprawl in Legacy Cities which is pretty extensive.

There is also a difference between sprawl and suburban development. Think about that.

Truthfully I am not in love with those streetscapes that you guys keep posting. OKC could certainly use more landscaping and beautification but I don't get the attraction to those pictures at all.

We've developed our suburbs too far out. There are no reasons to invest in existing suburbs because a new one will be built, with a little bit bigger houses, in whatever the current architectural fashion happens to be, another 2 miles further out and it will be cheaper. My sister and her husband bought a house in a brand new neighborhood about 8 years ago. They bought one of the first houses completed. They have since moved out even further. A lady I work with lives in that same neighborhood and she talks about how it's going downhill and she wants to move out. You're talking about $175K homes that were built in like 2005 and people are already leaving the neighborhood.

We aren't providing a reason for people to stay in their old neighborhoods. There's no reason to invest in them.

What OKC needs to do is: 1) stop spreading out further, 2) build a good urban core, and 3) start beautifying the existing city. You're never going to make OKC a beautiful place if most tomorrow's money goes to places that are today's empty farmland. We should have Deep Deuce-level density all the way down to the river and then out to the fairgrounds. It should go all the way up Lincoln (except for existing historic neighborhoods), and all the way out to MLK down Reno. We need several decades of growing up, not out.

I think a lot of the problem with the area between downtown and the suburbs out past the kilpatrick loop is that a lot of the neighborhoods and the houses in them are not aesthetically pleasing. I think primarily of the village (and I apologize if I offend anybody that currently lives there, this is just my opinion). The affordable neighborhoods have small houses that all look the same. They are old, and many of them probably need some type of renovation. We do have some neighborhoods with charm, but the ones that come to my mind are incredibly expensive. The other main big issue is that the OKC city school district is a joke. The houses are nicer and cheap per square foot when you move out to the currently developing suburbia, infrastructure is currently be developed to be better suited for a lot of people. There is just too much incentive to move further out than move in. I don't know the best way to fix this though.

I think a lot of the problem with the area between downtown and the suburbs out past the kilpatrick loop is that a lot of the neighborhoods and the houses in them are not aesthetically pleasing. I think primarily of the village (and I apologize if I offend anybody that currently lives there, this is just my opinion). The affordable neighborhoods have small houses that all look the same. They are old, and many of them probably need some type of renovation. We do have some neighborhoods with charm, but the ones that come to my mind are incredibly expensive. The other main big issue is that the OKC city school district is a joke. The houses are nicer and cheap per square foot when you move out to the currently developing suburbia, infrastructure is currently be developed to be better suited for a lot of people. There is just too much incentive to move further out than move in. I don't know the best way to fix this though.

Agree with this. Inner-suburbia is rotting away more and more each year. While ever city has its less than desirable areas, many areas of OKC like The Village, Bethany, Warr Acres, etc should be in much better shape than they are. Nichols Hills is the one exception to this rule. It has remained desirable despite the fact its completely surrounded by decay. While the city is becoming a much better place each year, many of these problem areas today were great as recently as twenty years ago. Question is, what can be done about it? Many older, rust belt cities like St. Louis for instance have nice, rapidly gentrifying but very expensive cores surrounded by miles of blight in all directions before getting to suburbia. That appears to be the direction OKC is headed.

The only reason those neighborhoods seem unattractive is because there is so many relatively inexpensive, newer homes further out.

And because OKC has built highways and 4-lane roads in these out-lying areas, there is little advantage to living closer in.

So, people are happy to pay $50K more (or so) for something newer and nicer rather than going into the neighborhoods built in the 50's and 60's and having to update everything.

The only reason those neighborhoods seem unattractive is because there is so many relatively inexpensive, newer homes further out.

And because OKC has built highways and 4-lane roads in these out-lying areas, there is little advantage to living closer in.

So, people are happy to pay $50K more (or so) for something newer and nicer rather than going into the neighborhoods built in the 50's and 60's and having to update everything.

I disagree with this. These neighborhoods would be unattractive regardless of the homes further out. The aesthetics, planning, home style, home size, and age (think remodeling) are the reasons why people vote to move further out. If there were no other housing addtions besides the ones inside the kilpatrick and no edmond/deer creek/norman/yukon, I would have rather moved to houston than stayed here (assuming, of course, everything in the inner neighborhoods are as they are now).

I disagree with this. These neighborhoods would be unattractive regardless of the homes further out. The aesthetics, planning, home style, home size, and age (think remodeling) are the reasons why people vote to move further out. If there were no other housing addtions besides the ones inside the kilpatrick and no edmond/deer creek/norman/yukon, I would have rather moved to houston than stayed here (assuming, of course, everything in the inner neighborhoods are as they are now).

I'd disagree. I've watched a lot of House Hunters with my girlfriend and there are some truly horrid looking, yet OUTRAGEOUSLY expensive, homes that people buy on that show. The reason? Because the homes that are 20 minutes further out from the city are hardly any cheaper. The examples coming to mind are basically all the episodes I have seen that take place in Boston. Those homes are old, ugly, and EXPENSIVE. Yet people still buy them because the homes further out aren't any cheaper.

I disagree with this. These neighborhoods would be unattractive regardless of the homes further out. The aesthetics, planning, home style, home size, and age (think remodeling) are the reasons why people vote to move further out. If there were no other housing addtions besides the ones inside the kilpatrick and no edmond/deer creek/norman/yukon, I would have rather moved to houston than stayed here (assuming, of course, everything in the inner neighborhoods are as they are now).

Completely agree. These neighborhoods are almost unredeemable unfortunately. With this in mind, I wish planners would build the newer neighborhoods to standards that will keep them desirable in 20-30 years. Unfortunately, there are too many neighborhoods even north of the Kilpatrick that I suspect will look awful in a few decades. It's the same story on the south side. Much of northern Moore used to be very nice but today is some of the most visually unappealing housing stock in the metro area.

I'd disagree. I've watched a lot of House Hunters with my girlfriend and there are some truly horrid looking, yet OUTRAGEOUSLY expensive, homes that people buy on that show. The reason? Because the homes that are 20 minutes further out from the city are hardly any cheaper. The examples coming to mind are basically all the episodes I have seen that take place in Boston. Those homes are old, ugly, and EXPENSIVE. Yet people still buy them because the homes further out aren't any cheaper.

I am not sure its necessarily about price. I would have to really evaluate whether or not I was willing to live in an ugly, horrid looking neighborhood in exchange for a shorter commute time. I imagine the situation is different in Boston considering how much larger it is, but in OKC you can still live on the fringes and have a relatively short commute time compared to major cities so that means there is even less reason to choose marginal, inner suburban neighborhoods.

I disagree with this. These neighborhoods would be unattractive regardless of the homes further out. The aesthetics, planning, home style, home size, and age (think remodeling) are the reasons why people vote to move further out. If there were no other housing addtions besides the ones inside the kilpatrick and no edmond/deer creek/norman/yukon, I would have rather moved to houston than stayed here (assuming, of course, everything in the inner neighborhoods are as they are now).

I couldn't disagree more.

Plenty of people like older neighborhoods with the mature landscaping, bigger lots, much closer to the city, etc.

In cities where there are issues with commutes from further out and there is a big discrepancy in cost between older and new, the older homes are in very high demand. And I'm talking about the 50's/60's homes, not just the historical ones.


This is not a matter of having nice outlying areas versus revitalized neighborhoods closer in, it's about having both. OKC is absurd in the way that huge areas of the NW part of town --just a generation ago considered the best -- have now gone downhill. This is 100% due to unbridled and completely unnecessary sprawl.

I guess OKC is going to simply have to grow to the point that commuting from Covell or Norman becomes more of a headache. Then revitalizing inner-suburbia will make more economic sense.

The reason commuting from very far distances isn't a problem is because we keep building highways and 4-lane roads.

The Kilpatrick Turnpike should never have been built, let alone in the 80's when there was virtually nothing out that far.

And we are still 4-laning streets out in the middle of cow pastures, while at the same time we can't even maintain the roads we have. The whole situation is absurd.

I couldn't disagree more.

Plenty of people like older neighborhoods with the mature landscaping, bigger lots, much closer to the city, etc.

In cities where there are issues with commutes from further out and there is a big discrepancy in cost between older and new, the older homes are in very high demand. And I'm talking about the 50's/60's homes, not just the historical ones.


This is not a matter of having nice outlying areas versus revitalized neighborhoods closer in, it's about having both. OKC is absurd in the way that huge areas of the NW part of town --just a generation ago considered the best -- have now gone downhill. This is 100% due to unbridled and completely unnecessary sprawl.


I think we are disagreeing about our own personal preferances in what we look for in a neighborhood. We probably won't see eye-to-eye on it no matter. I personally love mature neighborhoods with huge trees and mature landscaping, but unfortunately, the housing and schools where you get this are sub-par, imo.

We do agree, however, on the fact that the city is too sprawled out, they have made it too easy to live out there, and they have basically abandoned the inner neighborhoods. I think, to get a nice balance of what people want, they need to build more vertical housing downtown, spend some time/effort on revitalizing the inner neighborhoods (somehow), make it more expensive/less convenient to build outside of the kilpatrick loop. Maybe create less housing additions with 400 houses/per 180-320 acres, and create more neighborhoods with 100 houses per the same area.

^

The reason the schools are lousy is directly due to sprawl. PC Schools were best in the state just a generation ago.

And the housing is fine, it just needs updating. If a new 1,800 square foot house cost $300K, then updating a similar one built mid-century to your exact taste would make loads of sense, as you can buy them all day long -- in nice, well-kept neighborhoods -- for near $100K.

Or, if your commute was an hour versus 15 minutes, all the sudden those older homes are much more desirable.

Both those scenarios I described are what is common almost everywhere but OKC and a few other great plains sprawl cities.

I think we are disagreeing about our own personal preferances in what we look for in a neighborhood. We probably won't see eye-to-eye on it no matter. I personally love mature neighborhoods with huge trees and mature landscaping, but unfortunately, the housing and schools where you get this are sub-par, imo.

I'm not sure when the last time you looked at OKC schools, but two inner-city northside elementary schools are among the best in the Metro (Cleveland and Wilson). The downtown schoool is convenient for many people in the inner ring, and all signs are that it too will be high quality.


I think, to get a nice balance of what people want, they need to... spend some time/effort on revitalizing the inner neighborhoods (somehow)

Again I am not sure the last time you were in the inner ring, but things are revitalizing all the time. Property values in the Paseo are up to over $100/sf, homes in Gatewood are being rehabbed at an impressive clip, Blighted areas like SOSA, CTP, etc. are gaining in housing stock and amenities.

For sure we are losing the Village, Bethany, Warr Acres, and maybe those are the areas you are referring to.

Otherwise I agree with a lot of what you say, especially w/r/t discouraging sprawl, but other things you are writing leave me with the feeling that you haven't taken a serious look at inner OKC since the late 90's.

I am not sure its necessarily about price. I would have to really evaluate whether or not I was willing to live in an ugly, horrid looking neighborhood in exchange for a shorter commute time. I imagine the situation is different in Boston considering how much larger it is, but in OKC you can still live on the fringes and have a relatively short commute time compared to major cities so that means there is even less reason to choose marginal, inner suburban neighborhoods.

Exactly. There is no reason to settle for older homes when newer/cheaper ones can be found further out while still keeping a reasonable commute. People in Boston buy older less aesthetically pleasing homes because moving further out isn't any cheaper unless they want to have a 90 minute commute each way.

You've been arguing for the exact opposite above. You and C_M said the sole reason people move further out is because of home style and aesthetics, not because of the availability of newer/cheaper homes further out.

Exactly. There is no reason to settle for older homes when newer/cheaper ones can be found further out while still keeping a reasonable commute. People in Boston buy older less aesthetically pleasing homes because moving further out isn't any cheaper unless they want to have a 90 minute commute each way.

You've been arguing for the exact opposite above. You and C_M said the sole reason people move further out is because of home style and aesthetics, not because of the availability of newer/cheaper homes further out.

Wouldn't you prefer a much nicer home in a much nicer neighborhood in OKC being that the commute is only 5-10 minutes longer at the most? Home style and aesthetics certainly is a factor here.

Wouldn't you prefer a much nicer home in a much nicer neighborhood in OKC being that the commute is only 5-10 minutes longer at the most? Home style and aesthetics certainly is a factor here.

Now you're completely changing your tune. You can't play both sides of the field. In your earlier posts the homes further out had nothing to do with your opinion of the homes closer in. My entire point was that the homes further out have EVERYTHING to do with the desirability of the homes closer in.

Most new homes are cookie-cutter, on small lots with no mature trees.

The older neighborhoods are actually way more appealing aesthetically, it's just that most the homes need updating and better upkeep.

But why go through that trouble when you get just buy new for a little more and not have much of a sacrifice in driving time?

Now you're completely changing your tune. You can't play both sides of the field. In your earlier posts the homes further out had nothing to do with your opinion of the homes closer in. My entire point was that the homes further out have EVERYTHING to do with the desirability of the homes closer in.

Thing is both sides have a valid argument. We have a catch-22 situation. Until something changes to prevent people from moving farther out or at least make it less economical, we won't see a major effort to revitalize many of the inner-suburban neighborhoods that are currently in rapid decay.

The reason commuting from very far distances isn't a problem is because we keep building highways and 4-lane roads.

The Kilpatrick Turnpike should never have been built, let alone in the 80's when there was virtually nothing out that far.

And we are still 4-laning streets out in the middle of cow pastures, while at the same time we can't even maintain the roads we have. The whole situation is absurd.

I do agree with this 100%. I live out there, and I find that changing everything to 4-lane is overkill. I know they are planning for the future, but it is not needed. I grew up on dirt roads, so I would be perfectly fine if they milled up all paved roads north of danforth :)

I'm not sure when the last time you looked at OKC schools, but two inner-city northside elementary schools are among the best in the Metro (Cleveland and Wilson). The downtown schoool is convenient for many people in the inner ring, and all signs are that it too will be high quality.

I notice you only refer to elementary which is fine. I don't know if I would want my kids to be going to middle/high school in OKC districts, however.


Again I am not sure the last time you were in the inner ring, but things are revitalizing all the time. Property values in the Paseo are up to over $100/sf, homes in Gatewood are being rehabbed at an impressive clip, Blighted areas like SOSA, CTP, etc. are gaining in housing stock and amenities.

For sure we are losing the Village, Bethany, Warr Acres, and maybe those are the areas you are referring to.

Otherwise I agree with a lot of what you say, especially w/r/t discouraging sprawl, but other things you are writing leave me with the feeling that you haven't taken a serious look at inner OKC since the late 90's.

I am referring mainly to the Village, Bethany, and Warr Acres as that is where we drive through from time to time. We looked at a few houses over there, and we just were not impressed. I'm sure the other neighborhoods you mentioned are doing well w hich is great! We need more of that. We didn't look at those when we built, but, at the same time, our preferences led us a little further away from downtown and will ultimately lead us to the country as that is where we both grew up. That is why I don't like the suburbs being so far out! It makes it impossible to find land close by :P

You've been arguing for the exact opposite above. You and C_M said the sole reason people move further out is because of home style and aesthetics, not because of the availability of newer/cheaper homes further out.

To be fair, I never said that was the sole reason why people move out there. I was referring more toward my own experiences in what drove my decisions.

^
And the housing is fine, it just needs updating. If a new 1,800 square foot house cost $300K, then updating a similar one built mid-century to your exact taste would make loads of sense, as you can buy them all day long -- in nice, well-kept neighborhoods -- for near $100K.




Yet, there are those of us (especially me because I was a first time homebuyer) that want to buy a house that is ready to move in. Some people don't want to have to remodel.

What bothers me is that we may be at a point of no return. I was driving the country-side yesterday, and there are random chunks of farmland mixed in with developments. The people who have the money (developers) have bought enough land out there that it makes it impossible to want to continue to farm teh land that is currently still out there. I mean, who wants to have a farm completely surrounded by housing additions? You can't do much with that land other than farm it. People will complain about cattle, they'll complain about the noises of tractors, and that farmer won't be able to kill any creatures messing with their cattle because they can't shoot their weapons out there. They'll eventually sell, then that entire area from deer creek to edmond will be completely developed. It is pretty sad to see.

Most new homes are cookie-cutter, on small lots with no mature trees.

The older neighborhoods are actually way more appealing aesthetically, it's just that most the homes need updating and better upkeep.

But why go through that trouble when you get just buy new for a little more and not have much of a sacrifice in driving time?

I've never understood why the city didn't encourage sprawl to the northeast rather than the northwest (or why it didn't happen organically) -- Northeast OKC is so much more scenic than Northwest OKC. I would hate living so far out northwest not necessarily because of the drive time, but because of the landscape. Jones and Deer Creek are the same distance away from downtown. One is in the middle of farmland and one has great trees/hills/etc.

The only reason those neighborhoods seem unattractive is because there is so many relatively inexpensive, newer homes further out.

And because OKC has built highways and 4-lane roads in these out-lying areas, there is little advantage to living closer in.

So, people are happy to pay $50K more (or so) for something newer and nicer rather than going into the neighborhoods built in the 50's and 60's and having to update everything.This area is building up regardless. The traffic issue is getting and if it wasn't for the city building out there, you would just have a bunch of two lane roads service way more people than it can handle. I honestly don't see the problem with the city building 4 lane roads out in NW OKC and think this will benefit the city in the short run and the long run. This needs to be it though. There is a ton of land we can develop in and around the core and the older suburbs really need to be showed some love.

It would really be nice to see MWC, Bethany, Warr Acres and The Village put together a MAPS style package to revitalize themselves. I think Nichols Hills will have a stronger tax base to work with once the Chesapeake situation becomes stable and that land is developed to higher use. A large dense condo high-rise surrounded by an urban shopping center would do wonders for the city.

This area is building up regardless. The traffic issue is getting and if it wasn't for the city building out there, you would just have a bunch of two lane roads service way more people than it can handle.

But that's the deal. Why make it easier for people to stress the support required by the city (and incur greater maintenance costs) when you don't need to. Let those people (and me) move out there and put up with the infrastructure that existed when they chose to move out there. Or at least stop following the "if you build it (a better road) they will come (and build more houses)" ... in places it's not prudent for the city to foster growth!??!?!?!!
I say LET the area build up. I fully would encourage my kids to take on responsibilities of their own, but when they get pets they really don't plan on taking care of or sign a purchase agreement on a car they can't afford or engage in business that will involve greater responsibilities to me and my household, it's insanity to encourage it just so I can take on a greater responsibility further down the road.

The reason commuting from very far distances isn't a problem is because we keep building highways and 4-lane roads.

The Kilpatrick Turnpike should never have been built, let alone in the 80's when there was virtually nothing out that far.

And we are still 4-laning streets out in the middle of cow pastures, while at the same time we can't even maintain the roads we have. The whole situation is absurd.Well, we just completely disagree there.

I've never understood why the city didn't encourage sprawl to the northeast rather than the northwest (or why it didn't happen organically) -- Northeast OKC is so much more scenic than Northwest OKC. I would hate living so far out northwest not necessarily because of the drive time, but because of the landscape. Jones and Deer Creek are the same distance away from downtown. One is in the middle of farmland and one has great trees/hills/etc.

Technically they are. It is being developed for people who can afford $1MM or more for a house. It is prime real estate and is being developed in that manner. Unfortunately, they left the crappy land for the middle class.

Completely agree. These neighborhoods are almost unredeemable unfortunately. With this in mind, I wish planners would build the newer neighborhoods to standards that will keep them desirable in 20-30 years. Unfortunately, there are too many neighborhoods even north of the Kilpatrick that I suspect will look awful in a few decades. It's the same story on the south side. Much of northern Moore used to be very nice but today is some of the most visually unappealing housing stock in the metro area.Couldn't agree more on this.