Saw a pretty cool housing development going up in the suburbs. Bunch of row homes being built at Portland and NW164th St.

Really cool OKC is starting to get these kinds of things.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/628/22545284632_cae11bf45c_c.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/740/21937671213_079835e141_c.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5705/22370909900_b9db429366_c.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/691/22532867336_d177727359_c.jpg

Really cool OKC is starting to get these kinds of things.


Interesting take for sure. I don't agree, nor do I disagree with your "Really Cool" statement...as they obviously haven't started building yet. But I can tell you, that this development has been a topic of discussion for quite some time, amongst the neighborhood associations of some of the neighborhoods just the west of there. (Gaillardia, Lone Oak, Deer Creek Village) And to say that it isn't favorable, would be an understatement. Nothing earth shattering, or too hateful by any means, but I have attended a few of the meetings myself.....and the general consensus is that even though the design is obviously, of a "row home" design it is still viewed by many as "high density" housing. (Apartments)

Once again, I am not stating this opinion as my own....just sharing. But, I do think it would be cool, if they could replicate a "brownstone" type façade, and maybe throw a restaurant or convenience store within the community, t make it more of a "mixed use" neighborhood idea, that everyone drools over.

Pick it up and drop it somewhere on the west side of Central / Union Park and you would have something.

Interesting take for sure. I don't agree, nor do I disagree with your "Really Cool" statement...as they obviously haven't started building yet. But I can tell you, that this development has been a topic of discussion for quite some time, amongst the neighborhood associations of some of the neighborhoods just the west of there. (Gaillardia, Lone Oak, Deer Creek Village) And to say that it isn't favorable, would be an understatement. Nothing earth shattering, or too hateful by any means, but I have attended a few of the meetings myself.....and the general consensus is that even though the design is obviously, of a "row home" design it is still viewed by many as "high density" housing. (Apartments)

Once again, I am not stating this opinion as my own....just sharing.Yeah. I figured there would be opposition. Traffic shouldn't be much of an issue since it'll be right by a new highway.

How much opposition is there? Are they really pushing against it?

Pick it up and drop it somewhere on the west side of Central / Union Park and you would have something.I would like to see these kinds of homes in C2S.

Kinda inappropriate for the area. In the price point (300k-400k) they could definitely make that work downtown somewhere.

They look great, and people who think they are apartments clearly are too provincial to have visited NYC, Boston and Chicago, where row house neighborhoods have some of the priciest real estate.

Yeah. I figured there would be opposition. Traffic shouldn't be much of an issue since it'll be right by a new highway.

How much opposition is there? Are they really pushing against it?

It wasn't significant push back, as in nobody laywered up, or made any "under the table" donations to any lobbyists or anything...it was more or less a continued voice of concern in regards to the typical increased traffic, and the issue of the heavy inflow of students within the Deer Creek district that is already busting at the seams. This was back in 2012/2013. The district line, changes right there at that intersection, and as I understand it....the developer was pushing for the district to make an exception there at that specific intersection to be included in Deer Creek schools. As the Southwest corner, North West corner, and the Rose Creek neighborhood in the North East corner are all Deer Creek Schools. And god knows the last thing Deer Creek parents want, is their children going to school with apartment kids. (<---Zing) You know how it goes with someone starting a rumor that doesn't have any validity. You get entire neighborhoods of stay at home soccer moms, posting about it all day on Facebook. But alas....this development in question will be Edmond Schools. So, it has definitely cooled down as of late.

Kinda inappropriate for the area. In the price point (300k-400k) they could definitely make that work downtown somewhere.

In regards to the design aspect, or price point?

Design aspect. Why would you build a walkable style development, like row houses, with a traditional suburban neighborhood layout, that has nothing to walk to. It doesn't make any sense. It's another case of the sububrs trying to mimic authentic designs elsewhere, like French countryside and that type of thing. I think we should really focus these type of developments in the core first.

Design aspect. Why would you build a walkable style development, like row houses, with a traditional suburban neighborhood layout, that has nothing to walk to. It doesn't make any sense. It's another case of the sububrs trying to mimic authentic designs elsewhere, like French countryside and that type of thing. I think we should really focus these type of developments in the core first.I agree we need to see these designs in the core, but I also like to see them in the suburbs as well. If anything, it gives more tax dollars per square mile than the typical subdivisions that have spread across NW and SW OKC, so that's always a plus.

It's a free market though. A friend of mine pointed out the other day the schools are a huge draw and I think he right. Filthy also confirmed this as the developer specifically tried to get into Deer Creek schools.

It wasn't significant push back, as in nobody laywered up, or made any "under the table" donations to any lobbyists or anything...it was more or less a continued voice of concern in regards to the typical increased traffic, and the issue of the heavy inflow of students within the Deer Creek district that is already busting at the seams. This was back in 2012/2013. The district line, changes right there at that intersection, and as I understand it....the developer was pushing for the district to make an exception there at that specific intersection to be included in Deer Creek schools. As the Southwest corner, North West corner, and the Rose Creek neighborhood in the North East corner are all Deer Creek Schools. And god knows the last thing Deer Creek parents want, is their children going to school with apartment kids. (<---Zing) You know how it goes with someone starting a rumor that doesn't have any validity. You get entire neighborhoods of stay at home soccer moms, posting about it all day on Facebook. But alas....this development in question will be Edmond Schools. So, it has definitely cooled down as of late.Yeah. As for the traffic thing though, it'll be right on a service road but the intersection will still be at grade so there is that issue I can understand.

The good thing is, they extended the highway right up the development.

Hard pass. It's the worst of both worlds: living within close proximity to your neighbors without any of the benefits of a walkable neighborhood.

These kinds of neighborhoods work well in Dallas. Of course Dallas is much larger, but I'm sure these will sell well.

In Dallas, they are built relatively close to amenities, not at a remote exurban intersection of two section roads.

In Dallas, they are built relatively close to amenities, not at a remote exurban intersection of two section roads.
Correct, but this whole area is exploding with growth. So who knows what we'll see here. Maybe it might be a little premature, I guess time will tell.

Maybe i missed it in the discussion but who is the developer / group involved with this?

If someone is planning anything remotely similar to what makes a row home attractive at Portland and NW 164th(!!!), I'll be shocked.

It looks like a nice development, it's just about 15 miles too far north.

remote exurban intersection of two section roads.

It's 2 miles away from the densest collection of cookie cutter/chain restaurants, shopping opportunities, and entertainment in the entire State.

If someone is planning anything remotely similar to what makes a row home attractive at Portland and NW 164th(!!!), I'll be shocked.

It looks like a nice development, it's just about 15 miles too far north.
I hear you. What I meant when I said that is something probably suburban. I do understand what you're getting at.

Maybe i missed it in the discussion but who is the developer / group involved with this?
This is copied from the application

Developer:
Portland Pointe, LLC
613 S.W. 24th Ave., Suite 100
Norman, OK 73069
Prepared By:
Huitt-Zollars, Inc.
2832 W. Wilshire Blvd., Suite 202
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116
(405) 842-0363 phone
(405) 842-0364 fax

http://www.okc.gov/AgendaPub/cache/2/g3iricu0c3qri345os1erw2g/29581951029201510460586.PDF

Foster Signature Homes

Do they not have a garage, or did I miss it?

I agree with those who say this is really cool, but way too far outside of the actual city. This really shouldn't be any further north than 150th, and really, would be much more appropriate closer to the core. Unless they do a great job at placemaking and turning this into an all-inclusive environment, I don't see the point of the arrangement.

You can have dense, walkable developments in the suburbs. The problem is that an area doesn't rise to the definition of "walkable" based only on density and sidewalks. Walkability also requires someplace to walk TO. If there were plans for adjacent walkable commercial development and you could enjoy some of the benefits of an urban environment beyond the APPEARANCE of one, there is no reason they couldn't exist in an area like this, which already has lots of surrounding development and no longer qualifies as rural. If it were also transit-oriented development and connected to a commuter rail station - as is emerging in lots of other cities - even better.

That said, since it has none of the above, as planned it is basically faux urbanism. It will look good in photos, and people might wave hi to each other as they walk down the sidewalk for exercise. But true street life and the type of interaction it encourages won't happen. People will still use these like an apartment complex or surburban neighborhood subdivision. That is, they will drive into their garages at the end of the day, shut the door behind them, and have little if any true interaction with their neighbors or their neighborhood.

That is, they will drive into their garages at the end of the day, shut the door behind them, and have little if any true interaction with their neighbors or their neighborhood.

Oh this again. Yes, my suburban hood doesn't have a market in the center of it, but this notion that everyone in the burbs heads home shuts the door and lives their life and that's it is stupid. Just like with anywhere else, it's about the people. I am actually a little bummed about the weather tonight because Friday night is usually when we post up in the driveway with families from the street, have a few drinks and watch the kids race bikes up and down the street. Hardly a non-interactive neighborhood. We don't have mixed use within the hood, but we create the atmosphere ourselves. It's sometimes the people, not just the place, that make a vibrant neighborhood.

Oh this again. Yes, my suburban hood doesn't have a market in the center of it, but this notion that everyone in the burbs heads home shuts the door and lives their life and that's it is stupid. Just like with anywhere else, it's about the people. I am actually a little bummed about the weather tonight because Friday night is usually when we post up in the driveway with families from the street, have a few drinks and watch the kids race bikes up and down the street. Hardly a non-interactive neighborhood. We don't have mixed use within the hood, but we create the atmosphere ourselves. It's sometimes the people, not just the place, that make a vibrant neighborhood.Yeah. Same thing in my neighborhood(Asheforde Oaks) and my grandmothers neighborhood.

Every usually goes out, drives to downtown, walks around the neighborhood, my neighbor usually grills once a week if the weather is nice and invites people over. I mean that stereotype that people shut off in suburban communities and neighborhoods(or what some like to refer to as subdivisions) is simply not true.

Mmmhmmm...and where exactly are the back yards in this neighborhood for your neighbors to invite you into? In an urban area the private places you give up are replaced by public ones; sidewalk dining, shopping areas, coffee shops, parks. In this development you give up the best part of suburban living - the back yard - and replace it with..?

You act like people like myself have never lived in the suburbs. I grew up there. I lived most of my life there. Many of my friends still do. All good neighborhoods, most with great neighbors. I've been to those barbecues, I've ridden my bike on those streets as a kid. There is simply no comparison between those places and an urban place when it comes to opportunities for social interaction. The happy accidental type. The "so glad to meet you!" type. The oh, you must know so-and-so type.

In this place sure, you can walk past you neighbor's place, and if he happens to be standing on the front porch you can wave, but unless he feels like inviting you inside his house that's where it's likely to end.

nm

Urbanized you know I have no beef with you, but we aren't going to agree here. Yes, we don't have sidewalk cafes but you don't get to say because of that we don't have interaction with neighbors.

We decided on this house over a condo in Maywood. I can't imagine having the same interactions down there without having to drag my five year old to a kid friend bar and grill or spending money eating out every night on top of paying a huge premium to live downtown. I am 100 percent certain it could be had though. My exception with what you said was that we don't have quality interactions with neighbors and that is simply not true.

Well, I technically said little, if any. That leaves room for at least one July 4th cookout... ;)

By the way, don't forget that in my original post you were quoting, I was actually defending the idea that a development like this COULD be OK (actually good) in the 'burbs...if there were also destinations worth walking to.

My point was that if you were giving up the BENEFITS of sprawl (generous yard, big garage, driveway, privacy, ease of access), you should in return be given the actual benefits of urbanism (walkability, close-by services, much better built-in opportunity for social interaction). This place doesn't currently have these things.

Honestly, if I'm in the 'burbs, instead of living in this place I'll take the yard, thanks.

I get that and agree.

I like the row home idea, but this is the wrong location for it. I've said to my friends for years and also at least once on this board that downtown really needs a row home development. It would open up the possibility of living downtown to a lot of new faces... Particularly the ones who want a condo-like living environment but can't quite bring themselves to give up a backyard.

Hopefully this will pass. Said no protesters showed up to last meeting and it looks like a go, so this will be a very cool development.

This is going up before the planning commission this coming Thursday. I hope it will pass but do understand why some don't want it. I personally believe this would be very successful if built. There are people that want some of the urban lifestyle within a car dominant area and this is the perfect hybrid.

So do the people who live in these row homes not own cars? The drawings don't really indicate if there are parking spaces, street parking, or garages.

Suburban Atlanta is dotted with these types of developments and they don't usually fare well. After about 5 years they become much less than desirable. Last year I looked at moving to one of these developments in Jax (within walking distance of St. Johns Town Center) and it was already in decline after being open just 2 years.

Suburban Atlanta is dotted with these types of developments and they don't usually fare well. After about 5 years they become much less than desirable. Last year I looked at moving to one of these developments in Jax (within walking distance of St. Johns Town Center) and it was already in decline after being open just 2 years.

Charlotte as well. A ton of people I knew lived in them. I looked into moving into one before I decided to move back home.

Most of them were new when I lived out there as they were built primarily during the late 2000s. I would be interested to see how they are faring today.

Suburban Atlanta is dotted with these types of developments and they don't usually fare well. After about 5 years they become much less than desirable. Last year I looked at moving to one of these developments in Jax (within walking distance of St. Johns Town Center) and it was already in decline after being open just 2 years.Can't speak for Atlanta, but they are very successful in Dallas. Just went to one to deliver a puppy about 3 weeks ago to one that was built a little over 10 years ago and it still looks great.

I stand by my statement this will be successful and depending on how it is built will last for a long time.

So do the people who live in these row homes not own cars? The drawings don't really indicate if there are parking spaces, street parking, or garages.
Yes, there is parking.

Did this make it through the planning commission on the 11th? I am unable to view the video on the city's website for some reason.

Can anyone confirm whether or not this has gone anywhere? I haven't heard anything about it so I'm guessing it died?

Mmmhmmm...and where exactly are the back yards in this neighborhood for your neighbors to invite you into? In an urban area the private places you give up are replaced by public ones; sidewalk dining, shopping areas, coffee shops, parks. In this development you give up the best part of suburban living - the back yard - and replace it with..?

You act like people like myself have never lived in the suburbs. I grew up there. I lived most of my life there. Many of my friends still do. All good neighborhoods, most with great neighbors. I've been to those barbecues, I've ridden my bike on those streets as a kid. There is simply no comparison between those places and an urban place when it comes to opportunities for social interaction. The happy accidental type. The "so glad to meet you!" type. The oh, you must know so-and-so type.

In this place sure, you can walk past you neighbor's place, and if he happens to be standing on the front porch you can wave, but unless he feels like inviting you inside his house that's where it's likely to end.
I'm usually right with you, but you totally oversimplify and dumb down the description of social life in both places. I know incredibly isolated people in NYC because they don't have the money to participate. And I know lots of very social people in the burbs. Because someone socializes at schools and churches rather than bars and coffee houses does not diminish the socialization. Why does everyone on this board tend to make this a binary right or wrong issue. Walking by strangers on the sidewalk doesn't equal socialization. There can be lots of socialization everywhere if you want or you can be lonely anywhere.

^^^^^^^^^^
Rover, I'm making no binary good/bad lifestyle judgement. If you'll go back and read my posts you'll see that what I am talking about is development appropriate for the area. This forced urbanization in a disconnected area takes away most of the advantages of suburban living and gives you none of the advantages. It's as inappropriate in this location as it would be to plop a single family dwelling surrounded by a grass lawn in the middle of the CBD.

None of which is to say that an urbanist development can't exist in the suburbs; they absolutely can. But if done, they should provide at least SOME of the advantages of an urban environment; walkability to some services, common spaces for interaction with neighbors, etc.

Again, my point is that this development takes away those things, but provides no suburban benefits in return, other than highway access. It only LOOKS urban. It doesn't function that way. Just a bit more planning and effort - and connections and nearby walkable commercial options or other amenities - and it could be cool. Unfortunately, it's half-baked.

One other thing: your post only reinforces my point. The type of social interaction you describe - church, schools, etc. - is great. And it is valid. So is driving over to your friend's place for a barbecue. And, by the way, urban living excludes NONE of these, either. But every one of those are PLANNED. You got in the car and drove to those places, anticipating societal interaction, and this interaction tends to be a very select group of people.

The type that I was referring to was the happy UNPLANNED interaction that occurs in an urban area simply walking down the street, going to lunch, or yes, going to bars or whatever. This type of interaction is where urban living distinguishes itself, just as the 'burbs distinguish themselves by offering privacy, space, and the ability to - in effect - turn the outside world "on" and ""off at your own discretion.

Can anyone confirm whether or not this has gone anywhere? I haven't heard anything about it so I'm guessing it died?


As I understand it, this project is still a go. The management group is dead set on creating a "genuine" urban feel within this community. There is a true emphasis on urban living from every aspect of the project. So much so, that the lead project manager Brian Sorginson no longer owns a car, and is walking back and forth from Norman, to this location at Portland/NW164th on a weekly basis. All for the sake of keeping it genuinely "walkable." Obviously, this has slowed down the progress of said project, as the commute takes him on average 7 hours per day, to make the trip each way. Add to the fact, that while walking from Norman to NWOKC...that there have been so many UNPLANNED interactions along the way, that he now has scores of new friends and acquaintances, so there simply isn't enough time in the day to still do his job. If I find anything else out, I will be sure to update.

As I understand it, this project is still a go. The management group is dead set on creating a "genuine" urban feel within this community. There is a true emphasis on urban living from every aspect of the project. So much so, that the lead project manager Brian Sorginson no longer owns a car, and is walking back and forth from Norman, to this location at Portland/NW164th on a weekly basis. All for the sake of keeping it genuinely "walkable." Obviously, this has slowed down the progress of said project, as the commute takes him on average 7 hours per day, to make the trip each way. Add to the fact, that while walking from Norman to NWOKC...that there have been so many UNPLANNED interactions along the way, that he now has scores of new friends and acquaintances, so there simply isn't enough time in the day to still do his job. If I find anything else out, I will be sure to update.

Wait... walking from Norman to NW164th/Portland? Daily? Am I misunderstanding something?

Wait... walking from Norman to NW164th/Portland? Daily? Am I misunderstanding something?

Yes, sarcasm.

Yes, sarcasm.

Doh. It's been a long morning facing Norman construction/move-in day traffic. Forgive me. :Smiley145