http://newsok.com/lawyer-sues-oklahoma-city-developer-over-plans-for-triangle-development/article/5468391

I really hope they aren't successful at killing this development.

Apparently this development is going to put us in the league of New York City.


OKLAHOMA - It’s a hot spot that’s now the center of a big fight.

The city has approved a plan for hundreds of apartments along with shops and restaurants in the area across from Chesapeake at N.W. 63rd and Western.

Now, a lawsuit may put a stop to it.

Some stores and restaurants are new this holiday season in the Classen Curve area after developer WP Glimcher bought the property from Chesapeake.

The $52 million sale included Nichols Hills Plaza, Classen Curve and Triangle at Classen Curve shopping centers.

Now, the developer wants to build 500 apartments on the 12 acres of land at 63rd and Western.

Not everyone is on board.

“I think it’s just a matter of common sense,” said attorney Robyn Assaf.

Assaf has lived in the Glenbrook neighborhood for nearly 20 years.

She filed a lawsuit against the developer and Oklahoma City, after she said the city council ignored her concerns and approved rezoning the area to include residential development.

“You can estimate, if you have 500 two and three bedroom apartments, you’re going to have a minimum of 500 new cars and somewhere up to 1,000 cars, and that’s without the commercial customers,” Assaf said.

In her lawsuit, Assaf claims the city needs to do more studies on how traffic would be affected and if there will be enough parking.

“There has to be a balance in where do we stop?" Assaf said. "We’re not New York City. We don’t have a lot of high rises and need for that yet. And, will we ever be with the extensive outlay? We have an extensive land mass just in our county that’s not developed yet."

- http://kfor.com/2015/12/24/were-not-new-york-city-lawsuit-filed-opposing-big-apartment-complex-near-classen-curve/

I love NIMBYS.

I do NOT think these people have any chance at succeeding in killing this development. If anything, 63 west of Grand needs to be widened to six lanes. Grand should be narrowed to one lane each way, protected bike lanes, and Western kept at 4 lanes with parallel parking and a street car going down Western.

I wonder if Glimcher has a plan-B to build the retail without the residential component?

It's disappointing and angering that this development, which is so far above anything else proposed in OKC, is in danger because people resistant to change are worried about traffic and noise.

I wonder if Glimcher has a plan-B to build the retail without the residential component?

It's disappointing and angering that this development, which is so far above anything else proposed in OKC, is in danger because people resistant to change are worried about traffic and noise.

I don't think I would go so far as to say this is in danger. In fact I wouldn't sweat it at all.

I'm thinking the same exact thing. There are nimbys like this in every city. Like I said, since I've moved to L.A. I have kept up with development more closely and found the nimbys in Beverly Hills are about as bad as they come.

My thinking is this person is trying to get a traffic study done. So what? They do a traffic study and nothing happens or it goes back before the city council and gets approved again and it's just delayed. Is that line of thinking correct?

I wonder if Glimcher has a plan-B to build the retail without the residential component?

It's disappointing and angering that this development, which is so far above anything else proposed in OKC, is in danger because people resistant to change are worried about traffic and noise.

No they have a Plan B to walk away and go back to working in normal cities... that don't conflate four stories of multifamily with NYC.

No they have a Plan B to walk away and go back to working in normal cities... that don't conflate four stories of multifamily with NYC.

Yeah it's almost embarrassing that they consider four story residential with retail to be "like NYC." That is part of a small town mentality that is on its way out but still exists in OKC. If I'm not mistaking the Edge in Midtown saw similar pushback and it wasn't as ambitious as this. Some people here are having trouble adjusting to infill and denser development. Places like Omaha and Little Rock have developments like what Glimcher has proposed. They are a dime-a-dozen in Dallas suburbs. No need to go to NYC, just any sizable city in a state that isn't Oklahoma.

Hopefully they don't walk away. This is the kind of development this town needs more of.

I wonder if Glimcher has a plan-B to build the retail without the residential component?

It's disappointing and angering that this development, which is so far above anything else proposed in OKC, is in danger because people resistant to change are worried about traffic and noise.

You worry way too much...one mostly baseless NIMBY lawsuit will not kill this development. I can't think of a situation in OKC in which a NIMBY uprising actually killed a well planned development.

Or a badly planned development.

Why do you think it's badly planned?

^Think he might be saying NIMBY's haven't had luck preventing any types of development, good or bad in general.

This happened a few years back with a totally different type of project - the apartment development at NW 122nd just west of Rockwell. There were a lot of protests and fussing over that and it resulted in a small delay but didn't prevent the project from proceeding. Think the same will happen here.

Ohhhh okay cool.

You worry way too much...one mostly baseless NIMBY lawsuit will not kill this development. I can't think of a situation in OKC in which a NIMBY uprising actually killed a well planned development.

36th and Broadway Extension. It was a Humphrys development, I believe.

There was also some lifestyle center around Spring Creek in Edmond..

Or a badly planned development.

Springhill Suites in Deep Deuce

There was also some lifestyle center around Spring Creek in Edmond..

True but that is Edmond, not OKC.

Trust me, the huge majority of NH residents are thrilled with Glimcher. They've filled up NH Plaza since acquiring it from CHK and once Trader Joe's gets open. they will see a big windfall of sales tax revenue.

After CHK chased out Crescent and the drug store, their city revenues took a huge hit, to the point residents had to be separately assessed for some municipal services.

The new construction south of 63rd with be in OKC rather than NH, but I'm sure most are thrilled with all the improvements and look forward to many more nice restaurants and a bunch of great retailers right on their doorstep.

Maybe so, but I can attest I've heard first hand from a bunch of tenants who are not happy with Glimcher.

Wow! Arhaus is a big deal! My beautiful wife loves that store and has made several purchases online. They don't seem to be in "odd" markets. Almost all of the locations are in major cities. Between Arhaus, RH, and West Elm, this area will have a large amount of mid-high end furniture for sale. You'd imagine they'd feed off of each other in a good way. Great news! Crate and Barrel? If they were to ever enter the market... I wonder if they'd lean toward this cluster or prefer Chsmcrk? Not to mention locally owned Winter House Interiors over in Classen Curve with mid to high end furniture.

36th and Broadway Extension. It was a Humphrys development, I believe.

Do you remember what was proposed there?

Do you remember what was proposed there?

Lifestyle center where the church is south of 36th.

Maybe so, but I can attest I've heard first hand from a bunch of tenants who are not happy with Glimcher.
If they were ones subsidized by Aubrie or Chesapeake I could understand where they might not want to deal with Glimcher.

Lifestyle center where the church is south of 36th.

So in Edgemere Park? If so, NIMBY opposition to that is a lot more understandable. Glimcher is being proposed on a completely empty lot, surrounded by roads, that has nothing but ugly surface parking for a building that is no longer there. Glimcher will bring nothing but improvements to that area. That's a little different than proposing something in the middle of Edgemere Park, which is a one of a kind neighborhood in OKC and should be preserved as is.

NORTH of 36th. On raw land owned by the church.

NORTH of 36th. On raw land owned by the church.

Do you remember what the grounds were for the city caving to NIMBY opposition?

Do you think that will repeat itself with Glimcher?

Here is some contemporary news coverage of the story: http://newsok.com/article/3268138

And no, I don't think the Gilmcher development is seriously at-risk at this point. One critical difference is that the Gilmcher property is already owned by the developer, whereas the other involved a PROPOSED sale by a neighborhood church. Another important difference is that Humphreys' proposal would have required extensive re-zoning. Gilmcher will not require the same level of intervention.

Here is some contemporary news coverage of the story: Housing- business plan has some neighbors wary<br/><span class='hl2'>Mixed response </span> | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/3268138)

And no, I don't think the Gilmcher development is seriously at-risk at this point. One critical difference is that the Gilmcher property is already owned by the developer, whereas the other involved a PROPOSED sale by a neighborhood church. Another important difference is that Humphreys' proposal would have required extensive re-zoning. Gilmcher will not require the same level of intervention.

That development would have been great for the urban core. Its too bad NIMBYs killed it.

Sometimes it seems like NIMBYs have a habit of killing awesome development that would do nothing but improve the neighborhood and raise property values. Some developments are worth fighting, but its mindblowing there is so much opposition to these dense, mixed use retail developments that will bring nothing but improvement to an area, and its usually all because people don't want to have the inconvenience of a few more cars on the road.

They'll figure it out eventually and things will change, but for now, it will continue to be back and forth

So in Edgemere Park? If so, NIMBY opposition to that is a lot more understandable. Glimcher is being proposed on a completely empty lot, surrounded by roads, that has nothing but ugly surface parking for a building that is no longer there. Glimcher will bring nothing but improvements to that area. That's a little different than proposing something in the middle of Edgemere Park, which is a one of a kind neighborhood in OKC and should be preserved as is.

Are you the arbitor of what neighborhood is allowed to have NIMBY's or not? I think those in NH and Glenbrook would argue that they think their neighborhoods are special too. You may or may not like the income of the people, or the style of the home, but their rights are equal.

I live in Glenbrook and can tell you that the neighborhood welcomes responsible, good, urban development. And until mass trans comes to 63rd and Western, of course traffic will be an issue of concern if it is greatly increased. As long as it is thought-out there should be no problems and the neighbors have no issue. This lawsuit is not brought by the neighborhood, but by an individual. Know the difference.

That development would have been great for the urban core. Its too bad NIMBYs killed it.

Sometimes it seems like NIMBYs have a habit of killing awesome development that would do nothing but improve the neighborhood and raise property values. Some developments are worth fighting, but its mindblowing there is so much opposition to these dense, mixed use retail developments that will bring nothing but improvement to an area, and its usually all because people don't want to have the inconvenience of a few more cars on the road.

There are often serious considerations too. You trivialize all concerns. People move to certain areas largely for certain traits and amenities. When those are threatened, they are often fought. If there is no basis for fear, usually progress happens.

If a smelly factory is requesting to locate in mid-town, my guess is that the NIMBY's there would object and someone would try to block the re-zoning and location. Every sect has their NIMBY's.

Realistically, the Humphreys project in Crown Heights will probably resurface someday soon. It makes a lot of sense. The Humphreys' also are from the Crown Heights area, and could have easily worked through the NIMBY issues. You'll notice it was 2008, which probably had more to do with the proposals' shelving, as well as the Humphreys' doubling-down on Carlton Landing at Lake Eufala. They will move on from Carlton Landing to Wheeler in short order - I suspect after Wheeler is complete, they'll look at this site again, if someone else doesn't gobble it up.


Maybe so, but I can attest I've heard first hand from a bunch of tenants who are not happy with Glimcher.

Name names, because that's absurd. Glimcher is a first-rate developer, the likes of which OKC is lucky to be drawing interest. Glimcher primarily focuses in high-end markets like Scottsdale, Ann Arbor, Malibu, etc. That said, their recent merger gave them a bunch of Quail Springs-esque properties, not their pride but cash cows nonetheless. Just as they're going through transition right now, they probably regard the entire Classen/Nichols Hills portfolio as a transitional play right now.

It wouldn't surprise me. A lot of projects were cancelled/delayed in 2008 due to the national economy, including Tuscana in far north OKC. It wouldn't surprise me if the Humphreys simply decided that the economic conditions of the time didn't warrant fighting the NIMBY opposition in order to make it happen. I could be wrong though. Did the city ultimately kill the development, or did the Humphreys simply decide to pull out?

And I agree that Glimcher is a great developer and OKC is lucky to have them interested in this market.

I don't remember the exact pulling of the plug, but this came at a time where the Humphreys pumped the breaks on a lot of development, including more Triangle stuff. That was also in part because they were still selling condos at Block 42 in 2008.

I too would like to know why other besides the typical traffic issue someone would be opposed to Glimcher. More shopping choices. Increased property values. More jobs. etc....

Some people in OKC can't have nice things.

PluPan, the resistance mostly revolves around the proposed multi-family development as opposed to the retail.

Resistance to apartment development is not uncommon when it closely adjoins affluent single-family housing. In addition to traffic concerns the unspoken (and sometimes even spoken) concern is that an influx of renters renters will drive down neighborhood property values. In this case I think that assertion will be easy enough to counter.

Some people in OKC can't have nice things.

Because NIMBYism doesn't happen in other cities?

PluPan, the resistance mostly revolves around the proposed multi-family development as opposed to the retail.

Resistance to apartment development is not uncommon when it closely adjoins affluent single-family housing. In addition to traffic concerns the unspoken (and sometimes even spoken) concern is that an influx of renters renters will drive down neighborhood property values. In this case I think that assertion will be easy enough to counter.

That makes sense, but I wouldn't think these apartments would be that cheap. I wonder what pricing is going to be.

Because NIMBYism doesn't happen in other cities?

It does for awful developments. There is a cultural element in OKC that wishes to retain parking lots and wide open vistas.

That makes sense, but I wouldn't think these apartments would be that cheap. I wonder what pricing is going to be.

That's why I say it will be easy to counter. These apartments will likely be at the upper end of the spectrum for rentals.

Some people in OKC can't have nice things.

What is this supposed to even mean?

It does for awful developments. There is a cultural element in OKC that wishes to retain parking lots and wide open vistas.

This is a rediculous remark and insulting. This stuff happens in every city and you know it..or should know it. These kind of insults totally lack context.

No they don't. Every city has its struggle, and this is an absolute red herring as we all know, but your neighbor has still concocted a masterpiece for the ages. What we have is someone who is college educated (presumably) and cultured, wasting their time and money on torts that claim 4 stories of multifamily is like NYC. The only word for that is breathtaking.

By the way this is a neighbor that you're borderline defending so far... since you have an apartment in Chelsea, you should bring them some neighborly cookies and explain to them what NYC is really like and conversely what every other Midwestern city is like.

All of the non-oil cities in the Midwest are building up right now. This is a fact.

In no way am I defending or supporting this INDIVIDUAL. BTW, being college educated does not equal being cultured, or even being wise...and sometimes just means you have test skills, not judgement. This INDIVIDUAL does not represent a neighborhood, a group or anyone but themselves and perhaps a radical sliver.

I also disagree that these kinds of lawsuits don't happen elsewhere. They do.

Judgement without considering context or facts is wrong regardless of from which viewpoint it comes.

My argument isn't about lawsuits but the specialness of this one. We'll see if it's thrown out or not. That will test its legitimacy as a harbinger of locality.

There are NIMBY lawsuits in every city. In fact, many of people complaining about NIMBY in this thread have been the NIMBY people in other threads/topics. Just when it is something you don't like it is common sense, but when it is something someone else doesn't like, it is NIMBY.

NIMBY lawsuits can also force concessions that improve the development, so they can serve a purpose.

There are NIMBY lawsuits in every city. In fact, many of people complaining about NIMBY in this thread have been the NIMBY people in other threads/topics. Just when it is something you don't like it is common sense, but when it is something someone else doesn't like, it is NIMBY.

NIMBY lawsuits can also force concessions that improve the development, so they can serve a purpose.

NIMBY isn't only about opposing development, it is about opposing ALL development.

OKCTalk is not guilty of that in any case I can think of. In fact, this site is quite supportive of all development. Even suburban developments aren't completely opposed here. Many projects receive constructive criticism, even if it is unsolicited. Of course, individual members may not like a certain development, but I don't think any here have filed lawsuits against, or threatened anything against.

The Friends for a Better Boulevard movement didn't even threaten to kill the Boulevard, but simply pushed and lobbied to make sure it was a "better" boulevard. That movement was almost unanimously supported by OKCTalk members, but I don't think it would even classify as NIMBY even under the most liberal interpretation.

Of course, individual members may not like a certain development, but I don't think any here have filed lawsuits against, or threatened anything against.

Actually I believe that has happened before but it was a number of years ago and is certainly rare. I'm thinking specifically about Tom Elmore and the I40 relocation.

NIMBY isn't only about opposing development, it is about opposing ALL development.

OKCTalk is not guilty of that in any case I can think of. In fact, this site is quite supportive of all development. Even suburban developments aren't completely opposed here. Many projects receive constructive criticism, even if it is unsolicited. Of course, individual members may not like a certain development, but I don't think any here have filed lawsuits against, or threatened anything against.

The Friends for a Better Boulevard movement didn't even threaten to kill the Boulevard, but simply pushed and lobbied to make sure it was a "better" boulevard. That movement was almost unanimously supported by OKCTalk members, but I don't think it would even classify as NIMBY even under the most liberal interpretation.

Yeah, if you define NIMBY as being against all development, I'd agree there is basically no one on this forum on that side of the issue. But many people on here are against the "wrong" development in the "wrong" locations, which I think is completely fine, until you insult other people because they have different definitions of wrong development and location.

I think reasons for opposing a development need to be taken into account. People opposed things like 499 Sheridan because it involved the demolition of an entire block of historic structures. Various projects in the urban core get opposed because they work against what is the vision for downtown.

Glimcher on the other hand, is a quality development that is being opposed simply because the nearby neighborhood doesn't want change. It's nothing more than that. The development is going to go on top of a grassy lot and surface parking for a building that was demolished long ago, NOT a historic landmark like the Bus Station or Hotel Black. On top of this, OKC really needs a Glimcher-like development. Most other cities have had these types of developments for 10-15 years (which is what makes me laugh at so many comparing it to NYC). For a city as suburban-oriented as OKC, this city still doesn't offer "modern" suburban shopping and living and if Glimcher is built, it will be a huge step in the right direction.

I have heard a rumor that they are re-evaluating whether or not to proceed with this development because of the cost of the lawsuit and even if they do win, the reputation they will have in the neighborhood due to the NIMBY opposition. I want to repeat this is just a RUMOR that may not have any substance behind it. Can anybody confirm or deny this?

Cost of a silly, frivolous lawsuit for a project that will be in the tens of millions?

Doesn't even make sense and I've heard they are still signing leases and have made good progress.

The neighborhood is Glenbrook. It holds nowhere near the power, purchasing or otherwise, of Nichols Hills. Everyone I know who lives in Nichols Hills wants to see the area developed. They all think it will only increase property values, and they need the Plaza sales tax revenues.

Pete, when is work actually supposed to commence on the new portion of this project?

I don't think they are far off from starting.

I have heard a rumor that they are re-evaluating whether or not to proceed with this development because of the cost of the lawsuit and even if they do win, the reputation they will have in the neighborhood due to the NIMBY opposition. I want to repeat this is just a RUMOR that may not have any substance behind it. Can anybody confirm or deny this?

My immediate thought: sounds like a rumor started by the people behind the lawsuit as an attempt to build the momentum of their cause.

I don't think they are far off from starting.

Do you think the lawsuit will delay the start?

No.

The lawsuit only pertains to the proposed apartments.

No.

The lawsuit only pertains to the proposed apartments.

The apartments in the Triangle or the townhouse/brownstone looking apartments that were closer to the cemetery?

The 500 apartments proposed just east of the shopping center.

The property on the west side of Grand -- the former Kensington Apartments -- will be high-end condos and already has sufficient zoning, so they can be built any time.

I have heard a rumor that they are re-evaluating whether or not to proceed with this development because of the cost of the lawsuit and even if they do win, the reputation they will have in the neighborhood due to the NIMBY opposition. I want to repeat this is just a RUMOR that may not have any substance behind it. Can anybody confirm or deny this?
You try to make it sound as if all of Glenbrook is against it. You throw out "NIMBY" to characterize the whole area rather than a very limited opposition. And, you must greatly overestimate the cost of the legal action. I guess if someone says something, whether true or not, it is now "rumored".