1. We're not forcing it, we're subsidizing it.

2. It's not a great mass transit system because you cannot have a great mass transit system in a sprawled city. It's functional and does well for what it is, but the system doesn't have hundreds of thousands of riders per day because it doesn't service hundreds of thousands of riders. Why does it not service hundreds of thousands of riders in a metro of more than 6 million? Because you can't service low density development with public transit. See the OKC bus system.Well, first off even mass transit is subsidized. We used federal funds for the street car, did we not?

Also, I was speaking giving the core mass transit and the suburbs wide highway and roads. The suburbs can also be served by light-rail and a bus or two to the downtown areas, but the core will get well served bus service, street car, light-rail, subways, bike lanes, etc.

Yeah, and it's the infrastructure where the new-urbanist try to prohibit suburban growth.

People will go will cheap land is, but there's more to it than that for a lot of people.

The question is why are the new-urbanists the only one's trying to prohibit this growth. If I live in suburbia in Lansbrook at MacArthur and Britton Road, why do I want to encourage people to sprawl just to lessen the value of not just my property, but the entire community I'm involved with? Why do I want to pay the high taxes I already pay to subsidize even more sprawl? Where is the end? The connecting of Tulsa and OKC via Suburban Sprawl? How do you all think Warr Acres is feeling about right now? Bethany?

Again, the point is that the people using the services are not the one's paying for it. This is not cheap land. This is subsidized land.

Why do you still not understand that Cities can not afford to keep building the way we have for decades? Everyone understands that you love this stuff but cities can't afford it. It is time for cities to become more responsible in the way the plan and develop, and if that leads to a more urban setting than what you like, I'm sorry. But you can't always get what you want. It's silly that people are still having to be convinced of facts.

The question is why are the new-urbanists the only one's trying to prohibit this growth. If I live in suburbia in Lansbrook at MacArthur and Britton Road, why do I want to encourage people to sprawl just to lessen the value of not just my property, but the entire community I'm involved with? Why do I want to pay the high taxes I already pay to subsidize even more sprawl? Where is the end? The connecting of Tulsa and OKC via Suburban Sprawl? How do you all think Warr Acres is feeling about right now? Bethany?

Again, the point is that the people using the services are not the one's paying for it. This is not cheap land. This is subsidized land.I understand what you're saying.

I wasn't saying it was strictly new-urbanist, but a large majority of them are.

Why do you still not understand that Cities can not afford to keep building the way we have for decades? Everyone understands that you love this stuff but cities can't afford it. It is time for cities to become more responsible in the way the plan and develop, and if that leads to a more urban setting than what you like, I'm sorry. But you can't always get what you want. It's silly that people are still having to be convinced of facts.So as cars get more fuel efficient, new materials come out for road surfaces that are cheaper and last longer, what's to say it can't be done?

So as cars get more fuel efficient, new materials come out for road surfaces that are cheaper and last longer, what's to say it can't be done?

Where are these resources you keep dreaming about? We needed them a long time ago.

So as cars get more fuel efficient, new materials come out for road surfaces that are cheaper and last longer, what's to say it can't be done?

Tell you what, when it is done, I'll be fine with it. In the meantime, let's charge the impact fees necessary. So when houses on NW 150th and Council sell for $425k instead of $350k, then we'll all be happy because free-market capitalism is finally working.

Tell you what, when it is done, I'll be fine with it. In the meantime, let's charge the impact fees necessary. So when houses on NW 150th and Council sell for $425k instead of $350k, then we'll all be happy because free-market capitalism is finally working.
if that's what they're worth than why aren't they selling for that much? Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, I really don't know.

Where are these resources you keep dreaming about? We needed them a long time ago.Well, the cars, as you know, are becoming more fuel efficient and more eco friendly as we introduce new fuel types to help off-set pollution. Look at hydrogen fuel cell, it releases water vapor.

HowStuffWorks "How Fuel Cells Work" (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/fuel-cell.htm)

As for the road and highway surfacing, there are new composite materials being tested.

I'll search for the article about the composite cement. I saw it on Popular Science a few years back.

If I had my choice, I would live in a huge castle in an enchanted forest with my pet dragon.

Now I seriously cannot afford that, but if the government wanted to subsidize that way of life (and they would have to subsidize it a lot), then I might be able to afford it. They could build a castle for me, plant a forest around it, build some huts and move renaissance fair-loving midgets in there, and buy me a trained Komodo dragon. Unfortunately, the government seems to think that would be a waste of money. Thanks, Obama!

If we spend billions in public money on building bigger highways to connect places that are currently empty fields with our downtowns, then of course people are going to move out there. You're giving them access to incredibly cheap land, and giving them a state-funded connection to their front door. If you stop doing that, then they will stop moving out there. It's wasteful and inefficient.

For a city with our population, there's no reason we should have people building homes on NW 206th and Rockwell, and yet we do.

If the government was giving free land downtown to any developer who wanted to build a 30 story condo tower, gave them massive tax credits, and had been doing so for the past 60 years, is there any question that our downtown would have a lot more towers?

if that's what they're worth than why aren't they selling for that much? Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, I really don't know.

Because they're not worth that much, but that's what they should actually cost.

Developers know that people aren't going to pay 20% more for those homes in this market.

Protesting any new highway proposal, road widenings, and criticizing any suburban development is something a lot of urbanist are notorious for and in a way, that is attempting to force people to live in an urban area closer to the core.

Then I'm all for it!

:)

But seriously, I was advocating for more affordable alternatives in the inner core, and then I was quickly corrected by people suggesting we have a horde of available housing in the inner city. Wut?

If we spend billions in public money on building bigger highways to connect places that are currently empty fields with our downtowns, then of course people are going to move out there. You're giving them access to incredibly cheap land, and giving them a state-funded connection to their front door. If you stop doing that, then they will stop moving out there. It's wasteful and inefficient.



I think you are putting the cart before the horse. People aren't following the highways, the highways are following the people. This public money you mention is just that, money taken from the public in the form of taxes and fees and it's spent on what the public wants......access to a nice house and yard in the suburbs. Your scenario is uncomfortably close to the "elites" deciding how to plan a community which then "forces" the people to live in a certain place. Sort of like I mentioned in my previous post.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. People aren't following the highways, the highways are following the people. This public money you mention is just that, money taken from the public in the form of taxes and fees and it's spent on what the public wants......access to a nice house and yard in the suburbs. Your scenario is uncomfortably close to the "elites" deciding how to plan a community which then "forces" the people to live in a certain place. Sort of like I mentioned in my previous post.

You need to read some history on the development of the highway system and how it affected American life. Of course once suburbs were built, houses were made bigger, two car garages became the norm, that appealed to people in the post-World War II era. Right or wrong, this lifestyle was subsidized and continues to be subsidized. This isn't an "elitist" statement.

It has not been all bad for America. It has also not been all good. Allowing our cities to rot from the center, decentralizing and spreading out services to far-flung areas, and spreading blight to larger areas of our cities have not been good.

This isn't an "urban versus suburbs" discussion. The discussion is on how to improve our inner city, how to expand that improvement to yesterday's forgotten suburbs, and how to provide choice to people in how they live, regardless of lifestyle choice. Also, please be careful when you start discussing "forcing" people how and where to live. As you'll note from reading this board (if you read it as closely as you say), there are people clamoring to have an alternative to the suburban lifestyle that are struggling to find options. In many ways, they have been "forced" to accept the lifestyle your prefer.

And as to taxation, those of us who are living in the city have been "forced" to subsidize inefficient distribution of city services to areas such as 178th and May. This has caused us to have stretched city budgets, which often means dismal city services like our poor transit system.

This isn't an "urban versus suburbs" discussion. The discussion is on how to improve our inner city, how to expand that improvement to yesterday's forgotten suburbs, and how to provide choice to people in how they live, regardless of lifestyle choice. Also, please be careful when you start discussing "forcing" people how and where to live. As you'll note from reading this board (if you read it as closely as you say), there are people clamoring to have an alternative to the suburban lifestyle that are struggling to find options. In many ways, they have been "forced" to accept the lifestyle your prefer.


Well to be fair, comparing OKC with its peers, the lack of living options in the core today can be tied to developers being afraid to bet on downtown OKC during the 2000s. That is all changing in a huge way but its going to take some time to catch up. The city widening Penn from two to four lanes between 150th and 178th has little to do with the lack of housing options in the urban core.

Well to be fair, comparing OKC with its peers, the lack of living options in the core today can be tied to developers being afraid to bet on downtown OKC during the 2000s. That is all changing in a huge way but its going to take some time to catch up. The city widening Penn from two to four lanes between 150th and 178th has little to do with the lack of housing options in the urban core.

It has to do with continuing to prioritize and subsidize the suburbs over the core.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. People aren't following the highways, the highways are following the people. This public money you mention is just that, money taken from the public in the form of taxes and fees and it's spent on what the public wants......access to a nice house and yard in the suburbs. Your scenario is uncomfortably close to the "elites" deciding how to plan a community which then "forces" the people to live in a certain place. Sort of like I mentioned in my previous post.

http://www.google.com/maps/@35.6611216,-97.602889,3a,75y,36.01h,69.17t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEjwKroouYEaOi2lnGfGCaQ!2e0

. . .This is at 18000 - 19000 N Meridian. . .Let's pretend that street cost roughly 10% as much to build as 4000-5000 Western Avenue and costs 10% the amount of upkeep that Western Ave. Would you like to guess which one pays for itself quicker?

Now, I'm not saying that we can't have that road there, but that road likely serves less than 0.1% of the metro area. Why are people at SW 29th/Robinson, NE 50th/Lincoln, SE 59th/Shields, and Hefner/Britton paying their taxes to build and maintain that infrastructure and those services.

There are two lots that face that road. They collected a grand total of $2,015 in taxes last year.

Let's be conservative and say that between 4000-5000 N Western, 100 lots are served, and tax collections are a total of $85,000.

Let's say that to build Western over that distance, it cost $1,000,000 and Meridian $100,000.

That means that in tax revenue, that stretch of Western is paid for in 11 years. The Meridian parcel? 49 years.

Why did we build that road? What was the purpose? How does it serve the 600,000 people of OKC? By making life easier for, at most, 20 people (something like .003% of the population)?

Now if those particular people paid for that all by themselves, good on 'em. But this is what I mean when I say this is SUBSIDIZED living. It's called Oklahoma *CITY*…Urban development ought to be the expectation not the exception. If people want to live in a town, Kingfisher is right down the road.

It has to do with continuing to prioritize and subsidize the suburbs over the core.

How has the widening of roads in west Edmond stifled growth downtown? What housing developments downtown have been killed thanks to suburban infrastructure investment?

It has to do with continuing to prioritize and subsidize the suburbs over the core.continuing? Who is continuing to do it? Again, even Dallas is starting to pump huge amounts of money into its core and yet you still have a small minority of people with loud voices bitching up a storm about sprawl, highways, and road widenings.

http://www.google.com/maps/@35.6611216,-97.602889,3a,75y,36.01h,69.17t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEjwKroouYEaOi2lnGfGCaQ!2e0

. . .This is at 18000 - 19000 N Meridian. . .Let's pretend that street cost roughly 10% as much to build as 4000-5000 Western Avenue and costs 10% the amount of upkeep that Western Ave. Would you like to guess which one pays for itself quicker?

Now, I'm not saying that we can't have that road there, but that road likely serves less than 0.1% of the metro area. Why are people at SW 29th/Robinson, NE 50th/Lincoln, SE 59th/Shields, and Hefner/Britton paying their taxes to build and maintain that infrastructure and those services.

There are two lots that face that road. They collected a grand total of $2,015 in taxes last year.

Let's be conservative and say that between 4000-5000 N Western, 100 lots are served, and tax collections are a total of $85,000.

Let's say that to build Western over that distance, it cost $1,000,000 and Meridian $100,000.

That means that in tax revenue, that stretch of Western is paid for in 11 years. The Meridian parcel? 49 years.

Why did we build that road? What was the purpose? How does it serve the 600,000 people of OKC? By making life easier for, at most, 20 people (something like .003% of the population)?

Now if those particular people paid for that all by themselves, good on 'em. But this is what I mean when I say this is SUBSIDIZED living. It's called Oklahoma *CITY*…Urban development ought to be the expectation not the exception. If people want to live in a town, Kingfisher is right down the road.You know what, you can make that same case for saying the entire city should be living in 3-5 city blocks downtown in huge skyscrapers, but who the hell wants to do that.

The denser the better, eh? No. That's a ridiculous argument. There is ton of new development happening downtown, we're getting a street car, the bus system is receiving more funding, possible commuter rail is trying to get established, but booooooy I bet when they announce an new highway loop or expansion in OKC, which they will just sit and watch, it will be very predictable to see which ones bitch and moan about how we're supporting sprawl, lowering property values... blah blah blah...

In OKC in the year 2014 the suburbs are subsidizing the core. Let the city de-annex everything north of NW 63rd, south if SW 59th, west of I-44 and east of I-35 and watch what happens to tax revenues. MAPS3 could not be funded. The city would not have enough revenue to provide incentives for businesses to relocate here. The current urban renaissance would cease. OKC needs the suburbs and the core to be successful. This isn't Chicago where the urban core is self sustaining and could exist entirely independent of the suburbs. In OKC, urban dwellers still have to rely on the suburbs for basic amenities such as retail. I am a heavy supporter of urban development, MAPS, the streetcar, and all the exciting things going on downtown. I am also a realist.

This urban vs. suburban rivalry is ridiculous in a city of 600,000 that is 73rd in the nation in the number of people living downtown. (Source: America's Downtowns Ranked by Number of Residents | Metro Jacksonville (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-nov-americas-downtowns-ranked-by-number-of-residents/page/2#.VCsVryldXUM) )

I'm 34, and personally I like a lot of the north side suburban developments that are being built. Especially between May and Western, and north of NW 122nd street and around. Not everyone wants to live in the core. I know I wouldn't. If I did, I would want to live in the Deep Deuce district. But that's not version of the American Dream. My American Dream is having a couple acres of land so I have enough room for my pool and detached garage for my business. The suburbs couldn't survive without the core and the core especially can't survive without the suburbs. I like OKC the way it is. I don't want it to be a small New York City where everyone is living in apartment buildings. Apartments are fine, but it's not for everyone.

http://www.google.com/maps/@35.6611216,-97.602889,3a,75y,36.01h,69.17t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEjwKroouYEaOi2lnGfGCaQ!2e0

. . .This is at 18000 - 19000 N Meridian. . .Let's pretend that street cost roughly 10% as much to build as 4000-5000 Western Avenue and costs 10% the amount of upkeep that Western Ave. Would you like to guess which one pays for itself quicker?

Now, I'm not saying that we can't have that road there, but that road likely serves less than 0.1% of the metro area. Why are people at SW 29th/Robinson, NE 50th/Lincoln, SE 59th/Shields, and Hefner/Britton paying their taxes to build and maintain that infrastructure and those services.

There are two lots that face that road. They collected a grand total of $2,015 in taxes last year.

Let's be conservative and say that between 4000-5000 N Western, 100 lots are served, and tax collections are a total of $85,000.

Let's say that to build Western over that distance, it cost $1,000,000 and Meridian $100,000.

That means that in tax revenue, that stretch of Western is paid for in 11 years. The Meridian parcel? 49 years.

Why did we build that road? What was the purpose? How does it serve the 600,000 people of OKC? By making life easier for, at most, 20 people (something like .003% of the population)?

Now if those particular people paid for that all by themselves, good on 'em. But this is what I mean when I say this is SUBSIDIZED living. It's called Oklahoma *CITY*…Urban development ought to be the expectation not the exception. If people want to live in a town, Kingfisher is right down the road.

Teo my man, let me drop some knowledge on you. First all new residential developments in the City require the developer to bring the water lines and sewer lines to the property. The City's Trust does not extend the public mains for private residential developments. These costs get rolled into the cost of the lots. Second, the City (Public Works) uses Bond money to pay for roadway widening projects. There is a proposal in front of the City Planning commission to enact an impact fee to recover part of the cost of these roadway widening projects. So if you are in favor of the far suburban developments paying more to widen the section lines then please let the planning commission know your wishes. Lastly this does not address the long term problem any City faces when tax revenue is not high enough to maintain the infrastructure.

There is no damn rivalry. You are proving the point everyone is making. "a city of 600,000 that is 73rd in the nation in the number of people living downtown" The issue is, for decades OKC subsidized living in the suburbs. Even if people wanted to live downtown, they couldn't. There is no way that people could have even known if they wanted anything other than the suburbs because the only option is the suburbs. Why is this so hard to understand. Expanding the suburbs is dumb. If you can't find what you need, in the vast expanse that is the OKC suburbs, and need to continue to move further out, you might have a problem.

I'm 34, and personally I like a lot of the north side suburban developments that are being built. Especially between May and Western, and north of NW 122nd street and around. Not everyone wants to live in the core. I know I wouldn't. If I did, I would want to live in the Deep Deuce district. But that's not version of the American Dream. My American Dream is having a couple acres of land so I have enough room for my pool and detached garage for my business. The suburbs couldn't survive without the core and the core especially can't survive without the suburbs. I like OKC the way it is. I don't want it to be a small New York City where everyone is living in apartment buildings. Apartments are fine, but it's not for everyone.

I don't think you understand what the pro-urban people on this site are asking for. OKC would have to completely stop all suburban development and build up its urban neighborhoods for a century or more before we looked anything like New York City. You don't have to worry.

Right now this city is about 99.9% suburban. Deep Deuce could expand to 50 times its current size and we'd still have more suburban and exurban areas than we'd know what to do with.

There is no damn rivalry. You are proving the point everyone is making. "a city of 600,000 that is 73rd in the nation in the number of people living downtown" The issue is, for decades OKC subsidized living in the suburbs. Even if people wanted to live downtown, they couldn't. There is no way that people could have even known if they wanted anything other than the suburbs because the only option is the suburbs. Why is this so hard to understand. Expanding the suburbs is dumb. If you can't find what you need, in the vast expanse that is the OKC suburbs, and need to continue to move further out, you might have a problem.

The free market is starting to respond to the desire of some OKC residents to live downtown. A decade ago you would never have developments like the Metropolitan and the Steelyard. Huge public investments will be coming online in the coming decade such as the streetcar, central park, and new convention center, all of which should spur a wave of private investment. This is all great stuff. The core is coming back and its just getting started.

However, if a homebuilder wants to build a subdivision at 178th and Western, why should they be prohibited from doing so? OKC needs to be thankful that it has so much affluent suburban real estate within its city limits and therefore can collect the tax revenue from it.

You know what, you can make that same case for saying the entire city should be living in 3-5 city blocks downtown in huge skyscrapers, but who the hell wants to do that.

The denser the better, eh? No. That's a ridiculous argument. There is ton of new development happening downtown, we're getting a street car, the bus system is receiving more funding, possible commuter rail is trying to get established, but booooooy I bet when they announce an new highway loop or expansion in OKC, which they will just sit and watch, it will be very predictable to see which ones bitch and moan about how we're supporting sprawl, lowering property values... blah blah blah...

This coming from the guy who is not okay with the government paying for its citizens Healthcare…

The argument is not "the denser the better"

The argument is ROI.

How is building a road that nobody uses and will take a century to pay itself off acceptable?

Not a single person here has said that suburban development is the devil. But it is not getting more efficient as time goes on…it's getting worse. We're wasting resources at an incredible rate an stretching our wealth super thin. Why are you okay with this?

You want to know why it takes forever to fix the interchanges and highways in this damn state? Because we have tons and tons and tons of concrete that are wasting away unused, all so two families who lives 3 miles away from the edge of the city can drive on paved roads, and so that just in case a developer wants to buy land and build a subdivision, he doesn't have to worry about how his potential clientele will access his development.

Because Portland, duh! (in response to bchris02...Teo snuck one in there before me)

The driving factor is schools, period. You want to curb rampant growth of the fringe, do all you can to help fix OKCPS. I'm not gonna lie, after looking in the core (and experiencing what soonerguru already has laid out about lack of reasonable housing...sorry Classen Ten-Pen isn't really up my alley so don't throw that at me), we're building within OKC city limits but one mile north of Kilpatrick. We love the core and spend a large amount of our free time down there, but in the end, with two cars (could MAYBE shed one if we moved downtown), a large dog and kid, a 1000 sq ft condo/townhome or century old house that requires more maintenance than these two working parents are willing to deal with. Was a tough decision and one that honestly we may have days we regret, but we're comfortable with it.

There is no damn rivalry. You are proving the point everyone is making. "a city of 600,000 that is 73rd in the nation in the number of people living downtown" The issue is, for decades OKC subsidized living in the suburbs. Even if people wanted to live downtown, they couldn't. There is no way that people could have even known if they wanted anything other than the suburbs because the only option is the suburbs. Why is this so hard to understand. Expanding the suburbs is dumb. If you can't find what you need, in the vast expanse that is the OKC suburbs, and need to continue to move further out, you might have a problem.
no. OKC is providing the infrastructure out to where people want to live. You can call it whatever you want, but the fact is, people want to live out there and the city is building the roads to support the will of the people.

This coming from the guy who is not okay with the government paying for its citizens Healthcare…

The argument is not "the denser the better"

The argument is ROI.

How is building a road that nobody uses and will take a century to pay itself off acceptable?

Not a single person here has said that suburban development is the devil. But it is not getting more efficient as time goes on…it's getting worse. We're wasting resources at an incredible rate an stretching our wealth super thin. Why are you okay with this?

You want to know why it takes forever to fix the interchanges and highways in this damn state? Because we have tons and tons and tons of concrete that are wasting away unused, all so two families who lives 3 miles away from the edge of the city can drive on paved roads, and so that just in case a developer wants to buy land and build a subdivision, he doesn't have to worry about how his potential clientele will access his development.Correct. I do not approve of the government paying for people's healthcare. I do approve of the government paying to build highways, roads, utility lines to support suburbia. Problem?

Now, if you're seriously suggesting nobody uses Meridian, you are living under a rock. I was stuck in rush hour traffic on that road the other dropping a customer off and it packed.

I don't think you understand what the pro-urban people on this site are asking for. OKC would have to completely stop all suburban development and build up its urban neighborhoods for a century or more before we looked anything like New York City. You don't have to worry.

Right now this city is about 99.9% suburban. Deep Deuce could expand to 50 times its current size and we'd still have more suburban and exurban areas than we'd know what to do with.Is there any facts to support that we could keep building at this rate and not be filled for a century? Even if so, how the hell is that relevant?

Have you seen the proposed and speculated developments? Both Pete and Steve have hinted at major new developments coming in the future. Infill is happening all over the place and will only increase. We are booming and showing no signs of slowing down or stopping. Yes, there are huge amounts of undeveloped land in the core, but don't keep telling yourself that over and over like some security blanket or something because before you know it, that won't be true anymore.

Couple of other things here



Not a single person here has said that suburban development is the devil. But it is not getting more efficient as time goes on…it's getting worse. We're wasting resources at an incredible rate an stretching our wealth super thin. Why are you okay with this? I disagree with you in saying it is not getting more efficient. With mixed-use developments like Chisholm Creek, where there are pockets of dense urban developments that are basically miniature cities, they add more tax dollars and are buried within the wide roads, highways, and suburbia in general. So with those, I am also noticing developments in the suburbs becoming denser and being built with better quality materials.


You want to know why it takes forever to fix the interchanges and highways in this damn state? Because we have tons and tons and tons of concrete that are wasting away unused, all so two families who lives 3 miles away from the edge of the city can drive on paved roads, and so that just in case a developer wants to buy land and build a subdivision, he doesn't have to worry about how his potential clientele will access his development.Why does it take so long to build and fix interchanges and highways, because ODOT can't take out loans and has to spread the project out over 10 years. They can't focus on any one project because it would be unfair to other parts of the state.

Because Portland, duh! (in response to bchris02...Teo snuck one in there before me)

The driving factor is schools, period. You want to curb rampant growth of the fringe, do all you can to help fix OKCPS. I'm not gonna lie, after looking in the core (and experiencing what soonerguru already has laid out about lack of reasonable housing...sorry Classen Ten-Pen isn't really up my alley so don't throw that at me), we're building within OKC city limits but one mile north of Kilpatrick.

You bring up a good point about the schools. I don't think anyone would disagree that OKCPS needs some work, as with any urban school district.

At the same time, I look at cities that are outstripping their suburban areas in terms of growth (Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis, New Orleans, DC, among others) and none of them strike me as having vastly superior school systems to OKC. What's their "special sauce" that allows them to step around this issue?

Teo my man, let me drop some knowledge on you. First all new residential developments in the City require the developer to bring the water lines and sewer lines to the property. The City's Trust does not extend the public mains for private residential developments. These costs get rolled into the cost of the lots. Second, the City (Public Works) uses Bond money to pay for roadway widening projects. There is a proposal in front of the City Planning commission to enact an impact fee to recover part of the cost of these roadway widening projects. So if you are in favor of the far suburban developments paying more to widen the section lines then please let the planning commission know your wishes. Lastly this does not address the long term problem any City faces when tax revenue is not high enough to maintain the infrastructure.

I'm not going to pretend to know anything and everything about who pays for what exactly. That's not so much my point.

Business can occur anywhere, and I strongly support investment of public resources anywhere where the commercial market can provide sustenance for the general immediate community. I may not like Memorial, but I want it to do well. OKC's major economic corridors are fine, but we have plenty of them, and the problem is that our penchant for sprawl leads to neglect and diminished effectiveness of these corridors. It's not about suburban vs. urban for me. This is about approaching development from a conservative perspective. Our resources need to be invested in sustaining and bettering what already exists.

What are we doing to keep 39th in good shape? In an area that is growing increasingly poorer, are we buffing up the police staff to help prevent crime, or are we sending that position to the North because hundreds of homes are being built up that direction?

What big name businesses have come to NW Expressway in the last 20 years? How has NW Expressway done since Kirkpatrick opened?

------------------------------------------

There are forces driving this engine that need to be checked. This is ultimately a societal issue and has very little to do with development theory/practice. Development is simply a symptom to a much larger issue.

I'm not going to pretend to know anything and everything about who pays for what exactly. That's not so much my point.

Business can occur anywhere, and I strongly support investment of public resources anywhere where the commercial market can provide sustenance for the general immediate community. I may not like Memorial, but I want it to do well. OKC's major economic corridors are fine, but we have plenty of them, and the problem is that our penchant for sprawl leads to neglect and diminished effectiveness of these corridors. It's not about suburban vs. urban for me. This is about approaching development from a conservative perspective. Our resources need to be invested in sustaining and bettering what already exists.

What are we doing to keep 39th in good shape? In an area that is growing increasingly poorer, are we buffing up the police staff to help prevent crime, or are we sending that position to the North because hundreds of homes are being built up that direction?

What big name businesses have come to NW Expressway in the last 20 years? How has NW Expressway done since Kirkpatrick opened?

------------------------------------------

There are forces driving this engine that need to be checked. This is ultimately a societal issue and has very little to do with development theory/practice. Development is simply a symptom to a much larger issue.Well, in respect to NW Expressway, we are starting to see some smaller developments. Multiple shopping centers renovated, couple of new Oncue's, Golds GYM, new Fuze Restaurant, Tiffany Apartments renovation, D&B, New 7-11 concept. . . nothing big, but some nice small developments.

I suspect it's only a matter of time before we start seeing a couple large office complexes announced along that corridor. OKC hasn't been exploding with growth that long and we're pretty much just getting started so give it some time.

Oh, and to the question of how NW Expressway has been doing since Kirkpatrick; I'd say it's doing fine. A lot of traffic every time I'm on it, so that indicates something.

Oh, and as for 39th, this isn't going to earn me an medals with you, but I'd turn that into a freeway with interstate standards continuing I-44 and connecting it with Kirkpatrick. I assumed that was the plan anyways due to the extremely large setbacks.

At the same time, I look at cities that are outstripping their suburban areas in terms of growth (Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis, New Orleans, DC, among others) and none of them strike me as having vastly superior school systems to OKC. What's their "special sauce" that allows them to step around this issue?

The "special sauce" is time. Those cities are all way ahead of OKC in terms of urban revitalization and development and have been at it for much longer. OKC has only really been in the game for about a half of a decade. What has been revitalized in such a short amount of time is very impressive but the fact is the city has a lot of catching up to do. Recent developments show that it can and will happen as long as the economy holds up. As OKC's core gets built up and as it begins to offer amenities that today only exist in the suburbs, population growth will accelerate.

No matter how revitalized the inner city becomes however, there will still be growth in the suburbs because many simply prefer that lifestyle.

Correct. I do not approve of the government paying for people's healthcare. I do approve of the government paying to build highways, roads, utility lines to support suburbia. Problem?

Now, if you're seriously suggesting nobody uses Meridian, you are living under a rock. I was stuck in rush hour traffic on that road the other dropping a customer off and it packed.

PluPan, man, do you even read what people write? I was very explicitly talking about 18k to 19k Meridian…North of 178th.


I disagree with you in saying it is not getting more efficient. With mixed-use developments like Chisholm Creek, where there are pockets of dense urban developments that are basically miniature cities, they add more tax dollars and are buried within the wide roads, highways, and suburbia in general. So with those, I am also noticing developments in the suburbs becoming denser and being built with better quality materials.

I'll give that to you, but I didn't clearly articulate earlier: I'm not talking about efficiency of new development. I'm talking about the efficiency of the economic centers that are part of our suburban fabric as a whole. Sure Memorial is doing great, but there are many other centers that have suffered because of Memorial's success.

Oh, and as for 39th, this isn't going to earn me an medals with you, but I'd turn that into a freeway with interstate standards continuing I-44 and connecting it with Kirkpatrick. I assumed that was the plan anyways due to the extremely large setbacks.

You think that was the plan when the setbacks have been like that since the 60s…since before Putnam City North was a thing?

You think that was the plan when the setbacks have been like that since the 60s…since before Putnam City North was a thing?

Isn't is a part of historical route 66?

Isn't is a part of historical route 66?

It is. 66 Bowl, etc.

I love that we just completely ignore that. It's a grand part of American history draping right through the middle of our city and we….ignore it?

I've met Europeans who specifically came over to travel Route 66 …

Even the portions that are interstate stands I44 are Route 66. Turning it into a 6 lane freeway doesn't ignore that.

Dude, no one travels Route 66 to feel like they are traveling on a freeway. Even driving through the old route in Tucumcari (one of that last great remaining stretches of the original road since it was only bypassed in the early 80s) is a great step back into time. The original route was already bypassed, leave what is there be for what it was.

Dude, no one travels Route 66 to feel like they are traveling on a freeway. Even driving through the old route in Tucumcari (one of that last great remaining stretches of the original road since it was only bypassed in the early 80s) is a great step back into time. The original route was already bypassed, leave what is there be for what it was.

I agree with this. I-40 runs parallel to old Route 66 going out west but if you want to do a real Route 66 tour, you take the old road, not the freeway. I wish OKC would capitalize on that more and spruce up 39th St.

Well to be fair, comparing OKC with its peers, the lack of living options in the core today can be tied to developers being afraid to bet on downtown OKC during the 2000s. That is all changing in a huge way but its going to take some time to catch up. The city widening Penn from two to four lanes between 150th and 178th has little to do with the lack of housing options in the urban core.

I agree. And that would be a preposterous statement to make, but it's quite similar to the statement made by corwin when he suggested "social engineers" were trying to take away his God-given right to live in the suburbs. And there are many more reasons that have led us to where we are. But it is very true that spending money in less dense areas to support that lifestyle has consequences: budgets are finite. We have had poor roads throughout our city. We have a substandard public transportation system. We have challenges hiring and paying enough police and fire personnel. OKC has done well with what it has to work with overall but there are choices that have to be made, and there are still far too many populous areas in the city core that lack quality bus service or sidewalks.

The free market is starting to respond to the desire of some OKC residents to live downtown. A decade ago you would never have developments like the Metropolitan and the Steelyard. Huge public investments will be coming online in the coming decade such as the streetcar, central park, and new convention center, all of which should spur a wave of private investment. This is all great stuff. The core is coming back and its just getting started.

However, if a homebuilder wants to build a subdivision at 178th and Western, why should they be prohibited from doing so? OKC needs to be thankful that it has so much affluent suburban real estate within its city limits and therefore can collect the tax revenue from it.

Do you have reading comprehension problems? No one has suggested people be "prohibited" from building. They've said we should stop subsidizing it.

I agree with this. I-40 runs parallel to old Route 66 going out west but if you want to do a real Route 66 tour, you take the old road, not the freeway. I wish OKC would capitalize on that more and spruce up 39th St.

Talk to Bethany and Warr Acres about "sprucing up 39th." Most of the ratty areas are in their purview.

Some people need to call a doctor, because their hard-ons for the interstate have lasted way longer than they should.

I agree. And that would be a preposterous statement to make, but it's quite similar to the statement made by corwin when he suggested "social engineers" were trying to take away his God-given right to live in the suburbs. And there are many more reasons that have led us to where we are. But it is very true that spending money in less dense areas to support that lifestyle have consequences: budgets are finite. We have had poor roads throughout our city. We have a substandard public transportation system. We have challenges hiring and paying enough police and fire personnel. OKC has done well with what it has to work with overall but there are choices that have to be made, and there are still far too many populous areas in the city core that lack quality bus service or sidewalks.

I agree with the last sentence especially. Certain neighborhoods in OKC lack sidewalks but given their age they should have them. I can definitely understand subdivisions built during the golden age of the suburb lacking sidewalks, but areas like Classen Ten Penn and Uptown should logically have them yet some streets do not.

Dude, no one travels Route 66 to feel like they are traveling on a freeway. Even driving through the old route in Tucumcari (one of that last great remaining stretches of the original road since it was only bypassed in the early 80s) is a great step back into time. The original route was already bypassed, leave what is there be for what it was.That's fine. Half of Route 66 is already gone anyways. There's still plenty to travel on.

Sorry but I don't think much of it. If it were me, I'd then 39th Expressway into a highway with interstate standards. But I'm not in control of that and end of story.

Do you have reading comprehension problems? No one has suggested people be "prohibited" from building. They've said we should stop subsidizing it.subsidize, subsidize, subsidize!!!!!! What a word. How is mass transit paid for! Oh, and by subsidize you mean pay for, which is why we have a government, to build our roads and pay for them. Let's call it subsidizing!!!

Talk to Bethany and Warr Acres about "sprucing up 39th." Most of the ratty areas are in their purview.
Or we can talk to ODOT about turning it into a freeway. Sure is funny how many different excuses few will come up with to protest a highway.

Some people need to call a doctor, because their hard-ons for the interstate have lasted way longer than they should.
The same could be said for the pro mass transit crowd as well.

You bring up a good point about the schools. I don't think anyone would disagree that OKCPS needs some work, as with any urban school district.

At the same time, I look at cities that are outstripping their suburban areas in terms of growth (Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis, New Orleans, DC, among others) and none of them strike me as having vastly superior school systems to OKC. What's their "special sauce" that allows them to step around this issue?

Those cities have large amounts of growth in residents that are not families or are upper crust to not 'depend' upon the inner city public schools. Seattle has a very large population of young people residing in the inner core - these people are unmarried and/or childless for the most part. They are students or professionals just starting out. They're not dependent upon the schools system, as Seattle's School District is just about the same population size as Oklahoma City's (both city districts are the largest in their state) despite Seattle having far more residents in the Seattle district vs. OKC.

If OKC wants to model this, then the city should focus on attracting young urban professionals to the core (who clearly want to live in the core and typically wait on having family) in addition to the current focus on empty nesters. What does this mean?

Downtown OKC needs = Large supply of High Quality Rental properties! High Quality/Paying Office Jobs! Service Industry (ie retail) commensurate to the Office/Commercial Core! A high degree of entertainment options (including dance clubs. lol).

By the way, this is what Downtown Seattle offers (Live, Work, Play) despite having not so great schools nearby.

Any rate I'm going to chime on out of this thread. I want both the core and suburbs to do well and I want options for all.

This doesn't have to be an either or scenario.

I will say the core of the city is the brain and heart. Whenever I have visitors, we take them downtown. As it stands, downtown is going to change so much in the future and it's for the better!

I'm out before people start to think I'm trolling because I've made my point on my view of highways and such.

subsidize, subsidize, subsidize!!!!!! What a word. How is mass transit paid for! Oh, and by subsidize you mean pay for, which is why we have a government, to build our roads and pay for them. Let's call it subsidizing!!!

Hey, we don't disagree here. I want more services subsidized for the more urbanized part of the city, because simple economics makes this a better investment. People should feel free to move half way to Kingfisher if they want. They should be able to build the most spectacular faux-Tuscany manor they want. But at some point, it doesn't make sense for most of us to be paying for it. Urban growth boundaries are a good idea.

Any rate I'm going to chime on out of this thread. I want both the core and suburbs to do well and I want options for all.

This doesn't have to be an either or scenario.

I will say the core of the city is the brain and heart. Whenever I have visitors, we take them downtown. As it stands, downtown is going to change so much in the future and it's for the better!

I'm out before people start to think I'm trolling because I've made my point on my view of highways and such.

If your point is that you like highways and suburban development, you've definitely made a point. If your point is that you hold a particular belief, you've definitely made your point.

If your point is that we are making a good investment as a community, you have unequivocally failed. Next time the subject comes up, maybe you'll find a way to do such thing. You've failed to produce a rebuttal to the claim that our mode of developing the suburbs hurts not the core, but the existing suburbs the most. This, in essence, makes you anti-suburb and pro waste.

Because Portland, duh! (in response to bchris02...Teo snuck one in there before me)

The driving factor is schools, period. You want to curb rampant growth of the fringe, do all you can to help fix OKCPS. I'm not gonna lie, after looking in the core (and experiencing what soonerguru already has laid out about lack of reasonable housing...sorry Classen Ten-Pen isn't really up my alley so don't throw that at me), we're building within OKC city limits but one mile north of Kilpatrick. We love the core and spend a large amount of our free time down there, but in the end, with two cars (could MAYBE shed one if we moved downtown), a large dog and kid, a 1000 sq ft condo/townhome or century old house that requires more maintenance than these two working parents are willing to deal with. Was a tough decision and one that honestly we may have days we regret, but we're comfortable with it.

I agree about "fixing" the schools. Huge factor. That takes money too, though. Dammit.

What I was speaking to is the rapid increase in land / real estate values in the core. How would you feel about, say, a 1,300 sq foot condo that is affordable in the inner city? Maybe even with a tiny yard for the grill? Or at least a balcony? And something you could buy for about $200k? It would be tempting, no?

But the real estate speculation is so great that there's not really an organic rise in values. It's almost like OKC is already Portland, with a dense urban core, and not the city we see with vast empty lots. The prices are rising very fast and there's little variety to the inner-city housing stock. I'm excited about the big rental megaplexes but that's all we're getting right now. Does every developer have to clear millions to make a project work?

At 200k hell yeah. At the 300k plus we were finding? Not so much

Oh, and as for 39th, this isn't going to earn me an medals with you, but I'd turn that into a freeway with interstate standards continuing I-44 and connecting it with Kirkpatrick. I assumed that was the plan anyways due to the extremely large setbacks.

That would be so pretty...plowing right through downtown Bethany.