OKC has to lose the mindset of 'everything vehicles' before we get true urbanism. It is just how it is. Babysteps.Back in 1962, I moved back to OKC after slightly more than two years in Southern California, to take a job editing three trade journals here. One of the other editors at my new job was Tom Kneitel, a long-time resident of NYC who also had just moved to OKC (the publishing company had relocated to OKC at the urging of International Crystal, their major advertiser, which operated from 18-1/2 N Lee).

Our offices were in a basement in the unit block of NW 5 as I recall. Times-Journal was just across the street; they had not yet moved to their later location at NW 6 and Robinson. Tommy and I were both in our early 30s. I was quite happy with driving to work; Tommy, however, had never owned an automobile and had never learned to drive! Living his entire life up to that point in NYC, he hadn't had any need to do so. The subways took him wherever he wanted to go. So when he moved here, he found a small house to rent on Classen Blvd, between NW 48 and 49, just off the old Classen Circle. He picked that because it had a bus stop within half a block, allowing him to ride the bus to work and back. Nothing suitable for him and his wife could be had closer to the CBD, even then.

A childhood bout with polio in the days before Salk's discovery had left Tommy needing to use leg braces to walk. Despite that, he had no problem going anywhere he wanted to, on foot. Several years later, after the publishing company had dispensed with both of us, I visited him back in NYC, and even spent a night in his apartment. He showed me much of lower Manhattan and we sampled the night life of Greenwich Village. I tired out long before he did.

That was, as I said, more than 40 years ago. We're not even up to babysteps yet. Crawling, perhaps, but I wonder if we're even that far along -- and whether we ever will become as urban as the denizens of Manhattan. I suspect we'll be more like Los Angelenos, who live in the birthplace of true sprawl. Out there, I routinely drove 30 miles each way to go home for lunch, and a friend commuted more than 60 miles from the Simi Valley to JPL in Pasadena, every morning...

It is stories like that Jim that have me wondering if I am just wasting my time here. Someday I would like to move back to OKC, my whole family lives there, but as I get older (now 45) I am pretty sure I don't want to wait another 20 years just to be able live a lifestyle I can already live in countless cities in the US and even around the world. There are just too many other options available to spend a lot more of time swimming upstream.

It is stories like that Jim that have me wondering if I am just wasting my time here. Someday I would like to move back to OKC, my whole family lives there, but as I get older (now 45) I am pretty sure I don't want to wait another 20 years just to be able live a lifestyle I can already live in countless cities in the US and even around the world. There are just too many other options available to spend a lot more of time swimming upstream.It's a matter of what is most important to you, Kerry. For some of us, being close to family and familiar memories outranks questions of city planning. For others, the deciding factor is the general culture of being friendly and outgoing as opposed to the too-frequent image of urban areas as cold and uncaring. Each of us has his (or her) own template for choosing the best place to spend our days.

I've noticed, over the years, that the general culture with regard to what's now called "sprawl" seems to change by 180 degrees when one crosses the Mississippi River (or, in some respects, the Hudson). During my brief stay in the NY area, some of my co-workers crossed three states on their daily commute. Manhattan is an island with very limited surface area. And communication difficulties in the 18th and early 19th centuries forced development of what we now call "urban" living. They had little or no choice.

But we who traveled west found wide open spaces, and were able to expand. Our neighbors, now, were a mile or two away rather than just a few feet distant. The western culture is one of much wider views. "Big Sky" country, not tightly compressed urbanism, seems to be its hallmark.

As I said, each person must make their own decisions about such matters. I, for one, don't consider either viewpoint to be "better" than the other. Both have their advantages, and their disadvantages. I do believe that TPTB in OKC have consistently, over the years, failed to appreciate possible consequences of their decisions, and as a result have destroyed many things that we now regret losing -- and I have no doubt at all that they will continue to do so. While I mourn our losses, I plan to stay right here for the rest of my days, for one simple reason. It's my home.

You're not wasting your time, but your expectations are probably too high. Murphy teaches us that if anything can go wrong, it will. And in politics, any and every decision can easily go wrong... Q.E.D.

I guess for me it goes way beyond simple 'urban planning' issues. Sprawl is only made possible by massive government debt and the free flow of oil at below market prices (which involves massive military debt to make possible). For me good urbanism is as much about good fiscal and economic policy as much as it is about good land-use practice. When the nations economy was built on 'savings' people couldn't build poor quality construction and spend large amounts of money overcoming distances. Now things are only built to last as long the loan to build them lasts and everything is built on debt with the assumption that we will all have more money later. That is not how I want to live.

There are places that exist already that can afford me the lifestyle I am looking for and I don't have to do anything to assist it along other than just show up and fill out a change of address card. And it's not just me either. There are millions and millions of much younger people than me looking for the same thing. I was under the illusion that OKC wanted to attract these people but increasingly I am finding that it was either lips service or OKC Civic leaders really do not know how to do it. I'll let them in on a little secret - surrounding downtown's premier park with office buildings is not how you do it.

OKC is also in an interesting position that it is full of right-wing tea party types (of which I count myself a member), but have no idea that their sprawling lifestyle is the reason we need the all-powerful federal government we have. One can't complain about taxes and then continue to drive on roads that cost more than we raise in gasoline taxes. One can't complain about the EPA and then drive cars that pollute and require oil drilling to even make run. One can't complain about government debt and then buy houses using an FHA backed loan and the mortgage interest deduction. Well, one can, but it makes them a first-class hypocrite.

A person needs to live where they can flourish, be it relationally, geographically, culturally, or professionally. When choosing where to live a person needs to decide what is important to them and what compromises they are willing to make. If somebody is looking for a vibrant urban utopia, OKC probably isn't the city for them. In JTF's case, if urban development is a make or break deal for him, unless he wants to come back to OKC and get his hands dirty in city politics to help make a difference, my advice would be that his life would be better spent living somewhere that offered the lifestyle he desires rather than waiting around here for things to change. Life is too short to live somewhere that makes you miserable.

Of course, if he is willing to compromise on urban vibrancy and wants to move back simply to be closer to family or for a career opportunity, by all means he should consider moving back. Once again, it's all about priorities and what compromises you are willing to make.

I guess for me it goes way beyond simple 'urban planning' issues. Sprawl is only made possible by massive government debt and the free flow of oil at below market prices (which involves massive military debt to make possible). For me good urbanism is as much about good fiscal and economic policy as much as it is about good land-use practice. When the nations economy was built on 'savings' people couldn't build poor quality construction and spend large amounts of money overcoming distances. Now things are only built to last as long the loan to build them lasts and everything is built on debt with the assumption that we will all have more money later. That is not how I want to live.

There are places that exist already that can afford me the lifestyle I am looking for and I don't have to do anything to assist it along other than just show up and fill out a change of address card. And it's not just me either. There are millions and millions of much younger people than me looking for the same thing. I was under the illusion that OKC wanted to attract these people but increasingly I am finding that it was either lips service or OKC Civic leaders really do not know how to do it. I'll let them in on a little secret - surrounding downtown's premier park with office buildings is not how you do it.

OKC is also in an interesting position that it is full of right-wing tea party types (of which I count myself a member), but have no idea that their sprawling lifestyle is the reason we need the all-powerful federal government we have. One can't complain about taxes and then continue to drive on roads that cost more than we raise in gasoline taxes. One can't complain about the EPA and then drive cars that pollute and require oil drilling to even make run. One can't complain about government debt and then buy houses using an FHA backed loan and the mortgage interest deduction. Well, one can, but it makes them a first-class hypocrite.

Lots of this is tinfoil hat stuff

A person needs to live where they can flourish, be it relationally, geographically, culturally, or professionally. When choosing where to live a person needs to decide what is important to them and what compromises they are willing to make.I couldn't agree more!

My move to California in late 1959 was prompted entirely by economics. While at the time I was pretty much on the fast track for advancement at OPubCo (among other things I had been given total responsibility for putting out the earliest edition of the Sunday paper, working overnight on Friday night to do so) they were paying me only $95/week and even 55 years ago, that didn't go far toward maintaining five people and three cats. I had to be moonlighting, writing magazine articles about ham radio, to make up the difference.

When RCA Service Company offered me $125/week plus unlimited overtime at time and a half, to join their Atlas Service Project in the San Fernando Valley, it was a no-brainer.

But when I got there, I discovered that the cost of living was so much higher than in OKC that when the promised overtime dried up with loss of the ASP contract, I had to moonlight even more intensely to keep us fed! And when that moonlighting resulted in an offer to move me back to OKC, all expenses paid, with a one-year contract at a much better rate of pay, I jumped at it.

I've been here ever since. As I said, it's my home. I stuck out two years of freelancing after the editorial job went away (it turned out to be almost a Ponzi scheme), then spent 24 years and 7 months with G-E/Homeywell/ControlData/Banctec. I did have to spend several months in New York's Westchester County at the end of the freelancing, where I developed a permanent distaste for the crowded atmosphere, but I don't mind it for those who prefer it. I chose my current location because it was way out in the boondocks; I'm more than a mile from the nearest supermarket, and couldn't survive without a vehicle, but that's just my personal preference. I do wish we had better mass transit, although I'll probably never have occasion to use it myself...

JTF, if anyone ever says that you aim too high, simply say "Thank you" and keep going.

.02

If somebody is looking for a vibrant urban utopia, OKC probably isn't the city for them.

That is an interesting phrase that gets repeated a lot. There is no such thing as utopia, at least not on Earth. Utopia means a place with near-perfect qualities. Even in an ideal urban setting there are still problems, but they aren't the same problems we are dealing with now.

I guess for me it goes way beyond simple 'urban planning' issues. Sprawl is only made possible by massive government debt and the free flow of oil at below market prices (which involves massive military debt to make possible). For me good urbanism is as much about good fiscal and economic policy as much as it is about good land-use practice. When the nations economy was built on 'savings' people couldn't build poor quality construction and spend large amounts of money overcoming distances. Now things are only built to last as long the loan to build them lasts and everything is built on debt with the assumption that we will all have more money later. That is not how I want to live.

There are places that exist already that can afford me the lifestyle I am looking for and I don't have to do anything to assist it along other than just show up and fill out a change of address card. And it's not just me either. There are millions and millions of much younger people than me looking for the same thing. I was under the illusion that OKC wanted to attract these people but increasingly I am finding that it was either lips service or OKC Civic leaders really do not know how to do it. I'll let them in on a little secret - surrounding downtown's premier park with office buildings is not how you do it.

OKC is also in an interesting position that it is full of right-wing tea party types (of which I count myself a member), but have no idea that their sprawling lifestyle is the reason we need the all-powerful federal government we have. One can't complain about taxes and then continue to drive on roads that cost more than we raise in gasoline taxes. One can't complain about the EPA and then drive cars that pollute and require oil drilling to even make run. One can't complain about government debt and then buy houses using an FHA backed loan and the mortgage interest deduction. Well, one can, but it makes them a first-class hypocrite.

Lots of this is tinfoil hat stuff

Which part?

It's quite simple. OKC is the nerdy girl who used to be unpopular and now she's kinda hot. She isn't used to any attention from guys, and so she has a hard time saying "no". Our civic movers and shakers cannot say "no" to someone who wants to drop a few hundred million dollars in this city.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTgwNDg1MjY3MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMTA1Nzg2._V1_S X640_SY720_.jpg

"You want to put your tower where? Umm, okay." It's okay to let Devon do that, because he loves us.


Hopefully, by the end of the film, we'll realize that we can still say no sometimes and we'll be treated with more respect. But we're not quite there yet. The ClayCo developments and how we treat their TIF request will give us an idea of how much our self-confidence has grown over the last few years.

Anyone else think it is kind of fitting that City building on Main St. will be completely surrounded by one residential building and 4 parking garages. That pretty much sums it up right there.

It's quite simple. OKC is the nerdy girl who used to be unpopular and now she's kinda hot. She isn't used to any attention from guys, and so she has a hard time saying "no". Our civic movers and shakers cannot say "no" to someone who wants to drop a few hundred million dollars in this city.

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTgwNDg1MjY3MF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMTA1Nzg2._V1_S X640_SY720_.jpg

"You want to put your tower where? Umm, okay." It's okay to let Devon do that, because he loves us.


Hopefully, by the end of the film, we'll realize that we can still say no sometimes and we'll be treated with more respect. But we're not quite there yet. The ClayCo developments and how we treat their TIF request will give us an idea of how much our self-confidence has grown over the last few years.

There is also a danger of civic boosters being too confident, comparing OKC only to its past or Tulsa and not its peer cities. I question whether or not this city should say no yet, specifically when it comes to the question of the TIF funds for ClayCo. The development has an intangible benefit of bringing hundreds of high-income people to live downtown. Those people will spend money downtown and want services downtown and it will be a win win for everyone, with the exception with those who demand perfect urbanism and nothing less.

Those people will spend money downtown and want services downtown and it will be a win win for everyone, with the exception with those who demand perfect urbanism and nothing less.

The only thing worse than setting the bar too high is setting it too low and clearing it every time.

There is also a danger of civic boosters being too confident, comparing OKC only to its past or Tulsa and not its peer cities. I question whether or not this city should say no yet, specifically when it comes to the question of the TIF funds for ClayCo. The development has an intangible benefit of bringing hundreds of high-income people to live downtown. Those people will spend money downtown and want services downtown and it will be a win win for everyone, with the exception with those who demand perfect urbanism and nothing less.

Read Steve's article. It describes how decisions made during the 1930s redounded to downtown's disadvantage. Choices made in the built environment have multi-decade consequences, and therefore should not be made lightly. This is especially true when asking for significant public assistance. Why should we subsidize lower, less efficient, less attractive land use to that degree? Regardless of what level of esteem anyone has of Oklahoma City, a project demanding this level of TIF funding should be scrutinized and improved.

The development has an intangible benefit of bringing hundreds of high-income people to live downtown. Those people will spend money downtown and want services downtown and it will be a win win for everyone,...

This is kind of the same logic used to promote tax cuts for businesses and the 1%ers. Just make the rich happy and the rest of us can live off the crumbs and table droppings. This just in, most of us don't shop at the same places the 1% shop at. This can't be more evident than the power brokers (LN and crowd) trying to lure Nordstrom's and white-cloth restaurants downtown when 'the people' are asking for a Target and low to moderate priced locally owned diners. It is two different worlds.

This is kind of the same logic used to promote tax cuts for businesses and the 1%ers. Just make the rich happy and the rest of us can live off the crumbs and table droppings. This just in, most of us don't shop at the same places the 1% shop at. This can't be more evident than the power brokers (LN and crowd) trying to lure Nordstrom's and white-cloth restaurants downtown when 'the people' are asking for a Target and low to moderate priced locally owned diners. It is two different worlds.

Who said anybody is trying to lure Nordstrom downtown instead of a Target? It would be great for downtown to have a quality grocer period but they won't come due to "not enough rooftops." When people are actually living downtown - which the ClayCo development will bring in by the hundreds - then the grocers will see a market there and will eventually build. Some people are so blinded by their idealism they lose sight of the way economics works.

Want a Target? Downtown OKC has to have the demographics in place to support it and right now it's not there. Developments like the Clayco development is another stepping stone towards that goal.

Who said anybody is trying to lure Nordstrom downtown instead of a Target? It would be great for downtown to have a quality grocer period but they won't come due to "not enough rooftops." When people are actually living downtown - which the ClayCo development will bring in by the hundreds - then the grocers will see a market there and will eventually build. Some people are so blinded by their idealism they lose sight of the way economics works.

Want a Target? Downtown OKC has to have the demographics in place to support it and right now it's not there. Developments like the Clayco development is another stepping stone towards that goal.+1

Who said anybody is trying to lure Nordstrom downtown instead of a Target?

Maybe you missed it but in the renderings for Core to Shore they depicted a Nordstrom's and several OKC leaders (both Civic and Elected) expressed that desire. And if I had a dollar for every time LN said he wanted a fancy restaurant downtown I would be almost as rich as him.

http://newsok.com/development-appears-aimed-at-edge-of-planned-core-to-shore-project/article/5363302

Maybe you missed it but in the renderings for Core to Shore they depicted a Nordstrom's and several OKC leaders (both Civic and Elected) expressed that desire.Those renderings are purely fictional and conceptual. Besides, would you rather have a Nordstroms come to Memorial or Penn Square or downtown in Core2Shore where it will it will attract more people.

Yes, downtown OKC needs rooftops, but we do not need to give away the farm to get there. We also might want to start to develop some standards for the built environment. Having a Nordstroms or Target downtown would be nice, but I'm not willing to give away tons of money to a developer just for getting the ball rolling. Any TIF money needs to be tied to performance and changes to the site plan that add appeal to the city (subducted parking, for example).

Those renderings are purely fictional and conceptual. Besides, would you rather have a Nordstroms come to Memorial or Penn Square or downtown in Core2Shore where it will it will attract more people.

If it involved public money I would just as soon a Nordstrom's go to Penn Sq. and save public money for an Urban Target. Here is the thing though - the renderings don't just happen by accident.

If it involved public money I would just as soon a Nordstrom's go to Penn Sq. and save public money for an Urban Target. Here is the thing though - the renderings don't just happen by accident.

I don't think OKC will have any problems attracting a downtown SuperTarget once it has enough population to fit into the formula Target uses, or at least close enough where a small incentive could convince them to pull the trigger. Regardless, I don't understand why you are so put off by the Nordstrom in the conceptual plan for Core2Shore. It's very unlikely to happen and even if it does it will be years after downtown's grocery needs are met.

If it involved public money I would just as soon a Nordstrom's go to Penn Sq. and save public money for an Urban Target. Here is the thing though - the renderings don't just happen by accident.

It's a class warfare conspiracy to keep the little people down. Power to the people!!!! (sorry, you may be too young to remember that chant) :)

Here in Denver we have about 20,000 residents downtown (and rapidly increasing) and another 35,000 or so within a mile and a half and getting a City Target here isn't a certainty. Heck the first of two grocery stores isn't opening until 2016. I guess my point is it takes a very long time for these things to happen, even if the head count seems to justify it sooner.

Here in Denver we have about 20,000 residents downtown (and rapidly increasing) and another 35,000 or so within a mile and a half and getting a City Target here isn't a certainty. Heck the first of two grocery stores isn't opening until 2016. I guess my point is it takes a very long time for these things to happen, even if the head count seems to justify it sooner.

That is kind of crazy - downtown Jax has 3 grocery stores (Publix, Fresh Market, and Winn-Dixie) plus multiple 7/11's and foodmarts - not to mention all the ethnic and health food stores.

That is kind of crazy - downtown Jax has 3 grocery stores (Publix, Fresh Market, and Winn-Dixie) plus multiple 7/11's and foodmarts - not to mention all the ethnic and health food stores.

Doing just a quick Google search I find Denver has a Safeway very close to downtown at 20th and Park Ave and a King Soupers at 13th and N Speer. While they may not have a City Target or a grocer right in their CBD, they are light years ahead of OKC in this department. Jacksonville has the advantage of being in a state with lax liquor laws and with well-established regional grocers, both things that OKC doesn't have. It takes a smaller head count to have a grocery store when you can rely on alcohol sales for profit. The Harris Teeter in downtown Charlotte has a much larger alcohol selection than your typical Harris Teeter does.

OKC needs a quality grocer in its core, period. It could be in Midtown or even Uptown and would be much welcome. Having to drive to NW Expressway or S May and SW 104th defeats the purpose of living downtown. I have made up my mind that I will not consider living downtown until there is a quality grocery store in the core.

Yes sorry I didn't mean to imply that one would have to drive 10 miles to find a grocery store in Denver. But if one lives downtown you aren't walking to any grocery store. Strangely the two being built downtown (King Soopers and Whole Foods) are going to be less than 3 blocks apart.

But I do think Denver is a good model for OKC to follow. Both lost a ton of urbanity and wonderful old building stock during not-so-distant "urban renewal"and have grown organically. Downtown Denver was a ghost town and had the highest office vacancy in America in the late 80s and has slowly transformed itself into a very vibrant place and one of the most desired living locations in the country.

Yes sorry I didn't mean to imply that one would have to drive 10 miles to find a grocery store in Denver. But if one lives downtown you aren't walking to any grocery store...
If the rumored grocery store (worst-kept secret in town) arrives where it is supposed to, nobody will be walking to it, either. Well, actually a few hundred will be able to, but many of them will still drive, as will the bulk of downtown residents. Certainly not enough people will walk to make a quality SUPERMARKET viable. The vast majority of customers will still be driving, and THEY are the ones that will make the supermarket work.

There is this sill fantasy that has existed for a while that people downtown will be able to live a Manhattan lifestyle, walking to the market, etc.. Honestly, most of them will probably always drive. People in Manhattan don't walk to supermarkets, they walk to bodegas. The disconnect with reality is sometimes extreme around here.

Right this very moment in time you can live downtown and drive to grocery stores (some are even acceptable) that are closer than what many people in Edmond or Deer Creek or Yukon or Mustang have. It is NOT a currently-unacceptable situation. Can it be greatly improved? Yes. But it shouldn't stop anyone from living downtown, and the fantasy of skipping to the Whole Foods quality supermarket across the street is NEVER going to happen, unless you live in a very specific block of downtown.

Right this very moment in time you can live downtown and drive to grocery stores (some are even acceptable) that are closer than what many people in Edmond or Deer Creek or Yukon or Mustang have. It is NOT a currently-unacceptable situation. Can it be greatly improved? Yes. But it shouldn't stop anyone from living downtown, and the fantasy of skipping to the Whole Foods quality supermarket across the street is NEVER going to happen, unless you live in a very specific block of downtown.

There is a HUGE gulf between the 18th and Classen Homeland and a Whole Foods quality supermarket. A lot of people who haven't lived in other cities don't understand how dire the grocery store situation is in OKC. It's terrible city-wide, with only a handful of stores in the entire metro that are half-way decent at all. It's especially bad in the urban core. The Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market at 23rd and Penn would probably be acceptable for most. If the 18th and Classen Homeland is unacceptable and you don't want to shop at Wal-Mart, then your closest option if you live downtown is the Buy for Less on NW Expressway. That is unacceptable.

Hopefully the proposed Uptown Grocery at MLK and 23rd happens sooner rather than later (though I think there are some complications with it). While it wouldn't be acceptable as a downtown grocer in other cities because of distance, it will be much closer and more convenient than what is currently available to downtown OKC residents.

I have Trader Joe's Metropolitan Market, Safeway, and Bartells all within a few blocks of me in Seattle.

Sometimes the disconnect is extreme. But you've got it backwards.
Hmmm, I have it backwards how exactly?

When I'm saying it "isn't unacceptable," I only mean it is a weak excuse for not living downtown; a red herring. It is no more inconvenient than a lot of other "desirable" parts of the metro. Does that mean that there is not HUGE room for improvement? Of course not.

But the idea that within any of our lifetimes downtown OKC will be replete with NYC-style bodegas every few blocks (the only way everyone living downtown will be able to walk to the grocery) is ludicrous. And the idea that a single great supermarket locating downtown (which will almost certainly happen in the next few years) will create the same walkable result as the bodega solution in Manhattan? Also ludicrous. The vast majority of a downtown supermarket's customers will still be arriving by automobile, now matter how some of us might wish it were different.

I'm mostly just saying the "I'll move downtown when I can walk to a great grocery store" position is a total cop out. If that's your position, you honestly just don't REALLY want to live downtown.

I don't disagree with that; however don't plan on a downtown supermarket in OKC being built without LOTS of parking, most likely of the surface variety.

And yeah, I DO think some on this board over the years have advanced the fantastical notion of everyone living downtown being able to walk to the grocery. If that ever happens, it will be a generation or two down the road. And "the grocery" will look a lot more like Native Roots or even Walgreens than Whole Foods or Albertson's.

I don't disagree with that; however don't plan on a downtown supermarket in OKC being built without LOTS of parking, most likely of the surface variety.

As long as it's behind the store rather than in front of it, I don't see an issue with that.

Also, nobody is expecting NYC bodega style grocery shopping here. It would be nice though to have a quality grocery store closer than a 15 minute drive from Deep Deuce or Midtown. I think lack of amenities is still a valid reason for choosing the suburbs over downtown in OKC.

All of that said, grocery stores for the most part leave a lot to be desired all over the metro thanks to the fact that OKC lacks a strong, established chain other than Wal-Mart. There are nice, upscale suburban areas here that are food deserts that would be well served if they were in any other city.

I don't disagree with that; however don't plan on a downtown supermarket in OKC being built without LOTS of parking, most likely of the surface variety.

And yeah, I DO think some on this board over the years have advanced the fantastical notion of everyone living downtown being able to walk to the grocery. If that ever happens, it will be a generation or two down the road. And "the grocery" will look a lot more like Native Roots or even Walgreens than Whole Foods or Albertson's.

Hopefully. There will be a 3 or 4 story garage just across the street from the grocery just to the east

All of that said, grocery stores for the most part leave a lot to be desired all over the metro thanks to the fact that OKC lacks a strong, established chain other than Wal-Mart. There are nice, upscale suburban areas here that are food deserts that would be well served if they were in any other city.At one time, we had a number of strong, established chains. Remember that the shopping cart itself was invented right here, by the patriarch of the Goldman clan, which operated Humpty Dumpty. That was the flagship of IGA, the Independent Grocers Association, which united literally scores of locally-owned mom-n-pop supermarkets all over the state. It was actually the marketing branch of one of the major distributors -- I can't remember whether it was Fleming or Scribner's -- but it did impose quite a few standards. When I moved to SoCal in 1959, I was amazed at how much WORSE the stores there were, compared to what I had left behind me here!

In addition to IGA, we had the RedBud stores, which as I recall was a similar organization run by the other distributor. After both distributors went under in the 1980s collapse of our entire economy, Associated Grocers moved into the vacuum and eventually set the standards now being followed by Homeland. Today's distributors seem to concentrate on simply moving product, with no effort to establish standards or chain-like reputations for their clients. Wal-Mart's position is, I believe, largely due to the fact that they are their own distributor and operate independently of their dinosaurish competitors. In days gone by, an IGA logo was pretty much a guarantee of quality...

As I recall, Crescent Market's move from Plaza Court out to Nichols Hills Plaza marked the end of "downtown" grocers. It's been a very long dry spell...

...Also, nobody is expecting NYC bodega style grocery shopping here. It would be nice though to have a quality grocery store closer than a 15 minute drive from Deep Deuce or Midtown...
No, but over the years a number of people commenting here have openly fantasized about a time when everyone living downtown could walk to the grocery store, without realizing that would require many small groceries rather than one supermarket.

Regarding your comment about the 15 minute drive to a quality grocery store from DD or midtown, that's simply not true. Whole Foods, for instance, is MAYBE 10. Homeland is obviously not optimal, but I'm there once a week or so. Other options exist within that 10 minute circle. Like I said, this is not THAT different from many other "desirable" locations in the metro.

Regarding your routine assertion that grocery shopping in general in OKC leaves much to be desired, you are of course correct, but that isn't relevant to the thread. Actually, it only supports my assertion that the grocery "penalty" associated with living downtown vs the suburbs is an overstatement.

I lived in midtown for 4 years. In that time I NEVER found it to be difficult to go pick up something. I find people who make such claims to obviously have never lived in this area, just going off their own conclusions, which are wrong btw. If you want an easy big-box oriented lifestyle you will not find that in any urban area, period. And it's already been pointed out it's not that far of a drive to any other stores outside the core. Whole Foods and Sprouts were exactly 9 and 12 minutes from my place. CVS, Homeland, and Wal Mart were within 10, really not the end of the world. For comparison's sake, its a 15 minute walk from my friends co-op in Chelsea, NYC to the crappy little Duane Reade where they do their grocery shopping.

I am not so sure that a large scale grocery store is right around the corner for this area. I look at Uptown/Downtown Dallas, which combined has something like 75K people, and they are just now getting a Whole Foods. There's been a sad little Albertsons on the north side of Uptown, it was at best a half-step up from the 18th St Homeland. Most people I know in Uptown simply drove into other nearby districts or into Highland Park. Another poster pointed out the same thing in Denver. The point being, most big box grocery stores don't have urban environments completely figured out yet.

Great post, though I do believe we will see a high-quality grocery store downtown or extremely convenient to downtown within the next 5 years or so. Lots of people working hard to make this happen.

I am not so sure that a large scale grocery store is right around the corner for this area. I look at Uptown/Downtown Dallas, which combined has something like 75K people, and they are just now getting a Whole Foods. There's been a sad little Albertsons on the north side of Uptown, it was at best a half-step up from the 18th St Homeland. Most people I know in Uptown simply drove into other nearby districts or into Highland Park. Another poster pointed out the same thing in Denver. The point being, most big box grocery stores don't have urban environments completely figured out yet.

I disagree with most of this. I'm not sure about Dallas, but Denver has a couple of quality supermarkets on the perimeter of their downtown, just none in downtown itself. The NYC example is irrelevant.

Most cities comparable to OKC may not have a supermarket right in their downtowns but they do have a supermarket similar in scale and location to the rumored Midtown grocery store that may arrive within the next 3-5 years. That grocery store will not only serve the needs of Midtown/Downtown/DD but also the greater core area of OKC.

I lived in midtown for 4 years. In that time I NEVER found it to be difficult to go pick up something. I find people who make such claims to obviously have never lived in this area, just going off their own conclusions, which are wrong btw. If you want an easy big-box oriented lifestyle you will not find that in any urban area, period. And it's already been pointed out it's not that far of a drive to any other stores outside the core. Whole Foods and Sprouts were exactly 9 and 12 minutes from my place. CVS, Homeland, and Wal Mart were within 10, really not the end of the world. For comparison's sake, its a 15 minute walk from my friends co-op in Chelsea, NYC to the crappy little Duane Reade where they do their grocery shopping.

I am not so sure that a large scale grocery store is right around the corner for this area. I look at Uptown/Downtown Dallas, which combined has something like 75K people, and they are just now getting a Whole Foods. There's been a sad little Albertsons on the north side of Uptown, it was at best a half-step up from the 18th St Homeland. Most people I know in Uptown simply drove into other nearby districts or into Highland Park. Another poster pointed out the same thing in Denver. The point being, most big box grocery stores don't have urban environments completely figured out yet.

Why would you expect a city that you criticize for being too car oriented to have grocery stores with a walkable district?

As far as re-urbanizing our downtown, we have an awful lot of work to do. The fact is, we are almost (not entirely) building a downtown from scratch. There are some old historic buildings there, but there are many more empty spaces. Half the buildings that are in use are of bad urban design. And when we started out we had virtually no one living downtown.

We aren't going to be New York City, but nevertheless, my dream would be to have a walkable, urbanized downtown that extends over a large enough area that sheer distance, not blight, makes it difficult to walk from one end to the other. Let's say it stretched from the river up to 13th, and from I-235 to Penn, with some extensions east of 235 into the HSC, and south of the river to Capitol Hill, Wheeler Park, and Stockyards City. This is obviously a 30 or 40+ year project. We'd need dozens of neighborhoods the size of Deep Deuce.

To get that type of density, we are going to have to have a lot of things in place. Each of these neighborhood areas would need a combination of housing, restaurants, entertainment, schools, jobs, transportation, etc. Each step along the way will give us a more urban downtown. I don't think we can just jump there like JTF wants. If we said "no more parking garages ever" in downtown OKC, we'd have no new skyscrapers ever. People would build elsewhere. But huge parking garages will become less important if we get more urban neighborhoods in the immediate area. People will still generally want to park, but if in 2025 I live in the Wheeler District and can take the streetcar to my job at Devon, then I really don't need a parking space downtown.

It's important to get good mass transit running throughout this city. Right now you don't have an effective option to get downtown unless you drive. As much as it irritates me to see comments on Newsok by some guy with a mullet about how he can't park within 10 feet of Zio's for free on a Friday night, it can be very crowded and I understand the frustration of people who aren't used to it. Good mass transit would let some of those people park in Moore or Midwest City, and leave their cars behind. I know a park and ride system isn't the ideal solution, but it's significantly better than what we have now.

Great post, hoya.

Good mass transit is absolutely essential. Without it, all other efforts are doomed to failure. Deterioriation of the original CBD, which in turn led to the Urban Renewal fiasco, can be traced directly to the loss of the street-car network during the late 1940s!

Today's Oklahoman has a photo that almost brought tears to my eyes, of the view looking west from Main and Broadway in December of 1937. There's no chance at all that I will live to see the like of that again, and only a slim chance that it will ever come to pass in this city -- but it shows quite clearly what we threw away in the search for a "better" bottom line...

If I may add to the already great last several posts, just the sheer lack of copious amounts of residential downtown is causing much of the re-urbanization conversation to be incorrectly framed. THE best investment downtown right now, is in my opinion, in dense residential. I can't imagine a better use of funds.

Completely agree with this, which is why I am strongly in support of the Clayco project, even if it means a hefty TIF incentive. It will be the biggest downtown residential project to date. The amenities many would like to see here will come when the rooftops are in place. Certain things such as a 24-hour diner or coffee shop that many wish OKC had cannot be supported by people driving in from the burbs. They depend on dense neighborhood population. Deep Deuce has become that kind of neighborhood and Midtown is getting there. Within a few years they should be major progress on the west side of the CBD with the Clayco, Hall, and 21c Hotel developments along with Film Row. Each development and redevelopment is another step towards a re-urbanized downtown OKC.

Here are downtown OKC's population statistics compared to peer cities and a few larger and smaller that get brought up frequently on this site. Wonder why OKC feels more or less vibrant than these places? Well these numbers are key.

Denver: 80,369
Austin: 64,843
Louisville: 59,789
Indianapolis: 50,349
Richmond: 49,702
Wichita: 39,274
Memphis: 33,418
Charlotte: 33,140
Oklahoma City: 27,868
Tulsa: 26,073
Jacksonville: 24,743
Kansas City: 22,122
Birmingham: 20,786
Little Rock: 18,392

Jane Jacobs was right | Better! Cities & Towns Online (http://bettercities.net/news-opinion/blogs/robert-steuteville/21383/jane-jacobs-was-right)

If I may add to the already great last several posts, just the sheer lack of copious amounts of residential downtown is causing much of the re-urbanization conversation to be incorrectly framed. THE best investment downtown right now, is in my opinion, in dense residential. I can't imagine a better use of funds.

We've got to be able to flip the model from focusing on bringing people to downtown to taking care of those who live, work, and recreate downtown and are also joined daily by throngs of downtown workers, tourists, and visitors.


I have been thinking the exact same thing and I think it goes back to what I am going to call the "right-wing mentality" for lack of a better term. What I mean by that is the people of OKC seem to think the way to prosperity is to incentives business. When this model is applied to downtown we see incentives for parking garages, jobs, retail, etc... but we got it backwards. The focus should be on incentivizing people, and then let businesses follow them back downtown. This is how urban sprawl works and you can only see how successful that has been. If we got 20,000 people living within 1 mile of MBG the whole downtown retail, grocery store, jobs ,etc debate would just evaporate because businesses would by falling all over each other to provide services to these people.

I'm very sympathetic to what their proposal is trying to accomplish. I do not believe however that requiring the project to be more urban-friendly is a deal breaker. I think it is simply a matter of publishing form based requirements. Something that most of those cities above us on that list have done.

At some point we will do it. But do we do it now or later? I say, do it now. The demand and desire is at the highest it's ever been.

The only way I see the Clayco project getting any better is for the residential to front the park rather than the commercial, but that's highly unlikely. Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with it from an urban perspective. The Hines project is another matter. I agree with you there needs to be higher standards in place. The ironic thing is the standards are there now but variances are granted for almost anything.

If only OKC could build a plaza like this:

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8257/15591006447_9326623a0a_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/pKHZ2Z)
pillars (https://flic.kr/p/pKHZ2Z) by matteroffact (https://www.flickr.com/people/8281403@N07/), Jeifangbei CBD Chongqing China on Flickr

Jeifangbei Skyline from lookout

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8672/15757391107_c4142aec3a_b.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/captain_young/15757391107/)

Chongqing X (https://www.flickr.com/photos/captain_young/15757391107/) by Captain Young (https://www.flickr.com/people/captain_young/), on Flickr

OKC needs to do it's riverfront like this.

http://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/hong-kong-skyline40112415938233782.jpeg

...with plenty of Plazas like this

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4drNFYlH5nQ/T6Ly4xfjT6I/AAAAAAAAAYw/3T2VtKOXHGM/s1600/800px-Arc_De_Triomphe_from_the_Grande_Arche.jpg

....and do it within 5 years!

<sarcasm>

THE best investment downtown right now, is in my opinion, in dense residential. I can't imagine a better use of funds.Based partly on a reading of history, and partly on personal experience, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this, Sid.

At the time that photo was made, more than 75 years ago, downtown was a vibrant place. It was still that way when I lived, briefly, in what's now called "Uptown" (300 block of NW 13) some nine years later. At that time, people did live downtown -- but the vast majority of those who lived within a one-mile radius of Main and Broadway were NOT people at the economic level required to support an active CBD. They were, for the most part, folk who could not afford to move out to the suburbs. That early sprawl on the part of the middle and upper class demographic began much earlier, and created what we now know as the Mesta district.

Most of the downtown residential in existence then was destroyed as "blight," and I can testify that much of it deserved that label. Significant parts of those pictured buildings' upper stories could only be compared to NYC tenements. Fully residential areas adjacent to the CBD were, almost all of them, as poorly built and maintained as were Mason's areas in the unit block NW 9, before he brought them back to life.

What kept downtown going all those years was the well-developed mass transit system. In fact, that system is what made OKC itself, not just downtown, grow. Anton Classen and John Shartel built it, starting in 1903, and Classen did so primarily to enable access to his residential developments -- now known as the entire northwest quadrant of OKC.

When their successors decided that the tracks got in the way, and replaced the trolleys and interurbans with buses that never followed reliable schedules, business moved away to get closer to the people with money. Plaza Court was the first suburban shopping center. Midtown (originally known as Uptown) around the Tower theater followed some 20 years later. And an abandoned downtown reached death's door.

Expensive downtown residential, with rents (or payments) in the four-figure range, cannot revive it. Revival needs masses of people, from all walks of life. And most of those people, now, live far from the CBD. That doesn't mean, however, that they don't or won't care for its condition, given good reasons to do so.

The genie cannot be put back in the bottle, Sid. Not everyone is enamored of what some see as the "crowded and impersonal" lifestyle of urban living, and I fear that not enough folk DO prefer it to maintain a truly urban CBD. However, provide the rest of the population a convenient way to participate, and you have some possibility of success.

Safe and reliable mass transit offers such a solution -- but not if it's restricted to a circle less than two miles in diameter. It must carry folk from NW 50 and Classen, NW 10 and MacArthur, NE 23 and MLK, SW 25 and Robinson, SE 15 and High, and all the other "outlying" areas to be successful -- and that won't happen overnight, if ever...

^^^ I think both Sid and Jim Kyle are right on this. Dense residential is needed, but it can't be all four-figure condos and apartments. The middle class needs to get a piece of the pie for it to truly be successful. Right now there simply aren't a lot of options in downtown OKC. Question is, is the demand there? Do most people in OKC prefer the quiet suburban life and if so, are there enough people who would want an urban alternative to support housing on a much larger scale than what the city is currently seeing built?

It's funny that the perception of those who have never experienced working/living downtown is that it is "crowded and impersonal". I have lived in the distant suburbs (far, far north Edmond and also Norman), in apartments in the far northwest part of OKC, in the closer-in, older suburbs near Nichols Hills, in Gatewood, and finally downtown. I have worked in northwest office buildings and elsewhere, but for most of the past 20 years have worked in some capacity downtown.

When living in the suburbs I generally knew few if any of my neighbors. Like most people I parked in the drive or pulled into a garage and then shut out the would behind me. I stayed indoors or in my back yard, and if I wanted to interact with friends I jumped into the car and drove to visit them.

The closer I moved to downtown, the more casual interactions I had, owing to the more personal (as opposed to impersonal) nature of the built environment. Porches, sidewalks, streets, storefronts, all built to facilitate rather than restrict personal interaction.

And as for work, when I worked up north I was either inside the office, or in my car. ALWAYS in my car. Driving to work. Driving home from work. Driving to meet clients. Driving to lunch.

Working downtown I walk to and from many of these places, and if can almost NEVER do so without running into at least one (or a dozen) people I know. I walk to lunch, I walk to appointments, I walk to the doctor, and nearly always I am presented with a brief opportunity or two to solidify a personal or business relationship with a few words or at the very least a smile and a wave.

Living/working downtown is the closest thing you can find to living in a small town...without actually living in a small town. People who think downtown is impersonal have no idea what they are talking about.

Living/working downtown is the closest thing you can find to living in a small town...without actually living in a small town. People who think downtown is impersonal have no idea what they are talking about.It all depends on individual personal experience. As it happens, most of my childhood was spent in a town with population of 5,666 per the 1930 census -- and it proclaimed that count proudly on its "City Limits" signs along Route 66. That qualifies pretty well as a "small town" although Elk City today is much larger than that.

While my father knew lots of folk there, my mother and I had almost no interaction at all. We never knew the names of any of our neighbors. I walked to school, about a half-mile away, starting at the age of six, and got to know a few classmates -- but not very many, because I was being pushed along, skipping a semester at a time. Not until we moved to OKC for a year and a half and I entered Linwood's grade three at the age of seven, did I begin to acquire a few friends (at least one of whom I correspond with to this day).

In contrast, once we moved to OKC for keeps in mid-1946, settling near NW 20 and May, we almost immediately fitted into a pattern of vibrant neighborhood activity. We knew all of those immediately surrounding us, visited across the lawns, and watched out for each other.

The impersonality, or lack of it, is in my opinion determined mostly by the individual and much less by the surroundings. At present, my wife and I are probably the senior members of our neighborhood (which was way out in the boonies when we moved here in 1982). We visit occasionally with our immediate neighbors and two families across the street, but we're somewhat stand-offish with everyone else on the block simply because we tend to keep to ourselves. Thirty years ago, this neighborhood had spontaneous block parties. I don't recall even one, though, in the past couple of decades. Both houses adjoining ours have had multiple owners; at least four for the one on the north, and even more for the one on the south. In times gone by, you seldom encountered that degree of transience in small towns; it's almost typical of urban areas, though.

I feel closer to more of the regulars in this forum, and several others in which I participate, than I do to the people living within a block or two of my home.

It's a hugely complicated equation, involving individual personalities, experience, and economics, on both the macro and micro scales. Reminds me of Mencken's observation that for every problem, there's a simple and obvious solution -- which is always wrong.

...I feel closer to more of the regulars in this forum, and several others in which I participate, than I do to the people living within a block or two of my home.

It's a hugely complicated equation, involving individual personalities, experience, and economics, on both the macro and micro scales. Reminds me of Mencken's observation that for every problem, there's a simple and obvious solution -- which is always wrong.
There was an interesting book published on this topic a number of years ago: http://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-Collapse-American-Community/dp/0743203046

And yet Jim, I'll bet only a very few of the people who live downtown feel way you describe feeling in the first paragraph quoted above. During the charettes for the Wheeler District, someone made an interesting comment: they stated that today's generation that is forsaking their parents' suburban leanings and who are repopulating downtown and other areas are doing so for one reason; they crave COMMUNITY. Unfortunately, the same type of experience simply isn't available in the suburbs as we currently know them. I apologize for not remembering the source of the statement, but thought it was a great observation.

I would have to agree with Urbanized on this. In 2014, suburbia is about you (and your family) living in your own bubble while downtown is more about being part of a community. The days of the suburban GI-bill subdivisions in which everyone knew their neighbors are long gone.

I would have to agree with Urbanized on this. In 2014, suburbia is about you (and your family) living in your own bubble while downtown is more about being part of a community. The days of the suburban GI-bill subdivisions in which everyone knew their neighbors are long gone.

I might add, those early days of everyone knowing each other in a subdivision was the result of those very same people moving out of urban areas where they really did know everyone because they lived/worked/shopped in close proximity to each other. When they moved to suburbia they tried to replicate that social interaction with country clubs, civic groups, bbq gatherings, the Welcome Wagon, etc... but eventually the isolating nature of suburbia won out and the first generation of cul-de-sac kids had no idea of the social interaction they missed out on so they didn't try to replicate it - and became even more isolated. This trend really continued up until Friends and Seinfeld were created, which showed that living in an urban area could actually be fun and full of community. People sometimes greatly under-estimate the power of television (for good and bad).

I think It has way, way less to do with moving from downtown together, than that.

Most of my time living with my parents, from age 8 to 18, was in a suburb of Dallas. We were the second house in the neighborhood. The first several years were very communal. I could still drive through that neighborhood, and tell you the family name of the original owner of most of the houses. We had block parties, we all spent time at the park (that everyone walked to), everyone had kids that went to the same school, etc. The neighborhood was close because the shared experience of being in a new neighborhood. As families moved on, we knew the second and third owners less and less. The block parties stopped, the kids at the park belonged to the new, younger families. We all put in a collective effort to know each other at first, and then we didn't. In dense neighborhoods, you don't have to try as hard.

It's funny that the perception of those who have never experienced working/living downtown is that it is "crowded and impersonal". I have lived in the distant suburbs (far, far north Edmond and also Norman), in apartments in the far northwest part of OKC, in the closer-in, older suburbs near Nichols Hills, in Gatewood, and finally downtown. I have worked in northwest office buildings and elsewhere, but for most of the past 20 years have worked in some capacity downtown.

When living in the suburbs I generally knew few if any of my neighbors. Like most people I parked in the drive or pulled into a garage and then shut out the would behind me. I stayed indoors or in my back yard, and if I wanted to interact with friends I jumped into the car and drove to visit them.

The closer I moved to downtown, the more casual interactions I had, owing to the more personal (as opposed to impersonal) nature of the built environment. Porches, sidewalks, streets, storefronts, all built to facilitate rather than restrict personal interaction.

And as for work, when I worked up north I was either inside the office, or in my car. ALWAYS in my car. Driving to work. Driving home from work. Driving to meet clients. Driving to lunch.

Working downtown I walk to and from many of these places, and if can almost NEVER do so without running into at least one (or a dozen) people I know. I walk to lunch, I walk to appointments, I walk to the doctor, and nearly always I am presented with a brief opportunity or two to solidify a personal or business relationship with a few words or at the very least a smile and a wave.

Living/working downtown is the closest thing you can find to living in a small town...without actually living in a small town. People who think downtown is impersonal have no idea what they are talking about.

How true is that for much larger downtowns such as NYC or San Fran?