He has hated Edmond for as long as I can remember because they allow businesses with parking lots and don't adhere strictly to urbanist, walkable design. I remember when the new Walmart was announced for Harrah and he was going on and on about how horrible the decision was because of the non-urbanist design and the sea of parking. Lol. He hates anything that isn't urban and because he's too young he's apparently incapable of actually appreciating anything except what he likes.

The fact is, a lot of people don't like people that live on a country club or a golf course because they think, "well they are rich so who cares." What they don't stop to think about is that many of those homeowners are likely older folks that have worked hard their entire life to build equity in their homes, make some sacrifices and tough decisions over the years, and finally get their chance to own their forever retirement home on a golf course. It's the dream of a lot of people that are in retirement age right now, and it doesn't make them rich or able to just write a check and buy a golf course. I'm many cases this home and it's equity is not only their comfortable place to retire, but also the inheritance they are leaving their children. And, what has happened here is 100% legal, but it's a horrible thing that happened to those homeowners that this home means so much to. The whole world doesn't have the millennial attitude of, well it's been 2 years so it's time to move and get a different job and get all new stuff. Golf course is gone so just move.... That's not how this works.

But yeah, screw them and their problems because they are "rich" and live in Edmond.
I think you have me confused with another poster. I can’t even begin to name the amount of arguments I’ve gotten into with other posters here before because I primarily support sprawl and automobile based infrastructure OVER walkable/urban design.

Please, stop repeating statements about me that aren’t true. Show me where I said I hate Edmond because it isn’t walkable. I’ll wait. . .

WOW. What a classic bad comparison. Zero logic and zero empathy for buyers of property.
Hand holding? LOL. May as well say that if you are capable of getting the better of a buyer and it technically isn’t illegal, go for it. Great business ethics. Winning is everything, right? Profit over ethics is strong. Ethics is weakness. Is that correct? Make developers great again.
So rover, instead of playing devils advocate here what is your suggestion for this property. See, unlike you, Mr. Edmond Lover, I just hate Edmond so much I actually spend time thinking of ways for this situation to be resolved as I mentioned in previous posts. What’s your idea? I guess a great developer should come in and restore the golf course and lose money, huh?

I think you have me confused with another poster. I can’t even begin to name the amount of arguments I’ve gotten into with other posters here before because I primarily support sprawl and automobile based infrastructure OVER walkable/urban design.

Please, stop repeating statements about me that aren’t true. Show me where I said I hate Edmond because it isn’t walkable. I’ll wait. . .

My apologies... I did confuse you for someone else. I do know that you are hard on Edmond, but after hearing your reasons behind it, I can appreciate your perspective.

As for Coffee Creek, it's done. There is no way that golf course is being turned into a golf course again because like you said, the market sucks for golf courses. So, their options are some strange attempt at a mixed use development that would only bring added traffic (at best) or leave a horrible ghost town development to rot in their back yards. The other option is more houses. Neither option is a good one for the people that bought for a specific reason and have lost that specific reason. The best option was to sell to the residents at the low-ball offer they sold it for at that time, which I believe never would have happened anyway because I think it was done on purpose. There's no good answer because these folks were straight up victimized. Now, we'll see what happens to home values. That could end up being the ultimate and final kick in the junk.

No worries.

I hear you, I would be pretty pissed off I were a home owner there and I feel for the residents. As I said, I don’t know the specifics of the original offer and if it was low balled then that is pretty shady and should be looked into.

I understand that stating the residents should buy it isn’t necessary realistic as money is limited. It would take a lot of people pooling money together and to be honest I’m not even sure how that would work.

I think at the end of the day a developer comes in and builds something nice the neighborhood should work with it and not oppose everything. A compromise should be met. Perhaps work with the city to have the city buy parts of it and build a trail connection with a greenway.

The walkable urban development at coffee and Kelly was cool as it would enable residents to simply walk to the development while others can drive from away. Either way what is in demand will be built and if it’s in the form of a strip mall inevitably we’ll still see the traffic anyways as it will require more people to drive. I guess the point I’m trying to make is traffic is going to worse no matter what and we should be wise to pick developments that work well and retrofit the surrounding infrastructure as best as possible. I do hope the city has kept enough ROW to widen the streets to six lanes down the road.

So rover, instead of playing devils advocate here what is your suggestion for this property. See, unlike you, Mr. Edmond Lover, I just hate Edmond so much I actually spend time thinking of ways for this situation to be resolved as I mentioned in previous posts. What’s your idea? I guess a great developer should come in and restore the golf course and lose money, huh?

You screw up an argument in so many ways. LOL.

First, because I don't wish to make a stereotype out of Edmond, something people lazily and ignorantly do. Like they stereotype all young people as hipsters or all old people as decrepit. Just like , Austin, Portland and virtually every other city in the nation, there are pockets of every type of development, people, etc. in the OKC area. Edmond happens to be a small town that has grown to be a big suburb. It has a nice urban walkable center that is conveniently close to a university, groceries, parks, restaurants, locally owned retail, and all types of housing. If anyone bothers to go there they would see that. Edmond has cookie cutter neighborhoods, run down old neighborhoods, nice wooded and hilly neighborhoods, and some of the highest price and nicest houses in the metro. It has suburban shopping malls and more stylish shopping centers. Plenty of strip malls too. So, you obviously aren't familiar with Edmond and only want to spew hate on a stereotype you want to promote.

I don't hate Edmond, but I don't choose to live there either. I live relatively close to downtown in a pretty dense and aesthetically pleasing area where I have lots of amenities I love. I just don't care to bash others for pursuing their most desired lifestyle that they can afford whether it's in Edmond, Bricktown, the Plaza or in one of the many cookie cutter neighborhoods in OKC.

I’m not bashing others Rover and you’re just repeating your same non sense about Edmond which is a community you don’t seem to know much about. It’s “nice walkable urban center” represents less than one percent of the city and your definition of walkable and urban are very questionable. It’s a small town Main Street and it is nice but it could be a way better. Thankfully the council is working on that, but again, you’re using what we have currently to defend against criticism on the entire community which makes zero sense. It’s not my argument that is screwed up— it’s yours.

So rover, instead of playing devils advocate here what is your suggestion for this property. See, unlike you, Mr. Edmond Lover, I just hate Edmond so much I actually spend time thinking of ways for this situation to be resolved as I mentioned in previous posts. What’s your idea? I guess a great developer should come in and restore the golf course and lose money, huh?
So, to answer your question:
I would suggest that prospective buyers be fully appraised of the risk of the golf course's future, just like other things are required to be disclosed. If developers are going to use the amenity of the golf course to ask a higher price and promote sales, they should also disclose that they may at their choosing alone decide to close the course and build at their back yards.

Secondly, maybe the neighborhood association should have the first right of refusal to acquire the land in the event the owner makes the decision to close it and before they can re-develop it.

Third, perhaps the developer is just required to maintain the land as a park area with appropriate mowing, tree upkeep, etc. Presumably they made extra money originally based on having it there.

I am sure there are lots of other creative ways more intelligent people than I can think of that would be fair to those who trusted the developer and still not overly penalize the investors if they were acting in good faith.

Here is my 2 cents. There are areas of that property that are not buildable due to flood plain and creeks. That area could be turned into walking trails for joint use with the Coffee Creek development. I would suggest a developer work out a deal that they would develop land farthest from the current development into a high intensity housing tract such as a low rise condos with some retail. (Corner of Coffee Creek and Kelly area) Other areas into single family while leaving some areas closest to the current development as stated above as a joint use walking trail/nature area. No way that everyone will be happy over what ever goes in. Just saying a more intense area as trade off of having a buffered joint use might be an idea. Sorry but no way a golf course is going to work in today's world.

I’m not bashing others Rover and you’re just repeating your same non sense about Edmond which is a community you don’t seem to know much about. It’s “nice walkable urban center” represents less than one percent of the city and your definition of walkable and urban are very questionable. It’s a small town Main Street and it is nice but it could be a way better. Thankfully the council is working on that, but again, you’re using what we have currently to defend against criticism on the entire community which makes zero sense. It’s not my argument that is screwed up— it’s yours.
You need to get out more. There are lots of great areas in Edmond that you apparently know nothing about. Keep repeating your mantra. Fortunately, other people know the truth.

I suppose you don't like the Plaza area because almost all of the area for miles around it are single family neighborhoods that don't have urban amenities. LOL. You craft your data points to fit your narrow argument. You may not like certain neighborhoods, as I don't, but you are set to trash the entire city. You can't possibly give any credit where due because you are blinded by your self admitted hate for Edmond. I am sure they won't miss you not living there or frequenting it.

Rover, you’re just making sh!t up and repeating the same nonsense you’ve spouted to other posters. Your “ideas” are ones that will in no way shape or form be implemented.

You need to get out more. There are lots of great areas in Edmond that you apparently know nothing about. Keep repeating your mantra. Fortunately, other people know the truth.

I suppose you don't like the Plaza area because almost all of the area for miles around it are single family neighborhoods that don't have urban amenities. LOL. You craft your data points to fit your narrow argument. You may not like certain neighborhoods, as I don't, but you are set to trash the entire city. You can't possibly give any credit where due because you are blinded by your self admitted hate for Edmond. I am sure they won't miss you not living there or frequenting it.

A little off topic, but the neighborhoods surrounding the plaza are not single family neighborhoods and the plaza is within 2 miles of every urban district in OKC. Not sure why you are trying to equate it to being a small strip in the middle of a bunch of suburban sprawl or something.

A little off topic, but the neighborhoods surrounding the plaza are not single family neighborhoods and the plaza is within 2 miles of every urban district in OKC. Not sure why you are trying to equate it to being a small strip in the middle of a bunch of suburban sprawl or something.

Sorry, but what do you call all those houses with yards that house single families? You see what you want to see and couch things in the most skewed and favorable image for your argument. I love the Plaza area and I also appreciate downtown Edmond. You guys act like they are mutually exclusive and have to hate one if you like the other. Ridiculous. This whole ridiculous sub-thread started with someone making a blanket statement about all of Edmond being cookie cutter tract housing. And I commented that it was a characterization that doesn't fit all the city. But some on here make it a career to bash wherever isn't popular with them.

Lol comparing plaza to coffee creek

The majority of Edmond is cookie cutter housing, strip malls, the and tract housing. There is no disputing that but have trying fanboy.

Sorry, but what do you call all those houses with yards that house single families? You see what you want to see and couch things in the most skewed and favorable image for your argument. I love the Plaza area and I also appreciate downtown Edmond. You guys act like they are mutually exclusive and have to hate one if you like the other. Ridiculous. This whole ridiculous sub-thread started with someone making a blanket statement about all of Edmond being cookie cutter tract housing. And I commented that it was a characterization that doesn't fit all the city. But some on here make it a career to bash wherever isn't popular with them.

I mean I’m sitting on my porch in Gatewood right now and I can count 12 multi family buildings without standing up. Most every surrounding neighborhood is somewhat similar with housing. And all of those neighborhoods have the best (read only) urban amenities in the city. I’m not saying anything about downtown edmond (I think it’s got a lot of potential) or this golf course development. I’m just responding to your plaza remark. To say it’s a small spot on an otherwise endless sea of suburbia is disingenuous.

I mean I’m sitting on my porch in Gatewood right now and I can count 12 multi family buildings without standing up. Most every surrounding neighborhood is somewhat similar with housing. And all of those neighborhoods have the best (read only) urban amenities in the city. I’m not saying anything about downtown edmond (I think it’s got a lot of potential) or this golf course development. I’m just responding to your plaza remark. To say it’s a small spot on an otherwise endless sea of suburbia is disingenuous.
From the plaza to 23rd is all single family. West of Plaza is all single family. South of Plaza is all single family.

BTW, I can stand on my front porch and count dozens of multi family. I am within walking of two of the best grocery stores in OKC. There are banks, restaurants and virtually every other service I need within easy walking and biking distance. There are big office buildings and small ones. There are walking trails. There is a great hotel a block away, And yet if I gave you the location, you would call it suburban single family housing neighborhood. I've got 5 multi family residences on my cul de sac. It doesn't make it urban. So, I'm happy for your 12 multi-families, but it doesn't mean the Plaza isn't surrounded by single family neighborhoods.

From the plaza to 23rd is all single family. West of Plaza is all single family. South of Plaza is all single family.

BTW, I can stand on my front porch and count dozens of multi family. I am within walking of two of the best grocery stores in OKC. There are banks, restaurants and virtually every other service I need within easy walking and biking distance. There are big office buildings and small ones. There are walking trails. There is a great hotel a block away, And yet if I gave you the location, you would call it suburban single family housing neighborhood. I've got 5 multi family residences on my cul de sac. It doesn't make it urban. So, I'm happy for your 12 multi-families, but it doesn't mean the Plaza isn't surrounded by single family neighborhoods.

Well I would call it suburban because you mentioned a cul-de-sac.

Well I would call it suburban because you mentioned a cul-de-sac.

Yes, that's the defining criteria of urban vs. suburban. :p Because in urban areas they are called dead ends. LOL. My 1/2 block street is smaller than many large urban area drop offs at large hotels. Simplistic labeling is much easier than actually knowing what the situation is.

BTW, I would argue that my area is suburban, but still has more urban features than what alot of people like to call urban.

Yes, that's the defining criteria of urban vs. suburban. :p Because in urban areas they are called dead ends. LOL. My 1/2 block street is smaller than many large urban area drop offs at large hotels. Simplistic labeling is much easier than actually knowing what the situation is.

BTW, I would argue that my area is suburban, but still has more urban features than what alot of people like to call urban.

In urban areas they are called intact grids. I don't know what you are trying to prove. You are wrong about the area that surround the Plaza. Your area is suburban because it is a single entrance/exit to a cul-de-sac housing addition. This destroys any notion of walkability. 63rd doesn't even have sidewalks so absolutely nothing is within easy walking distance. It isn't a bad thing but comparing the two is just silly.

Yes, that's the defining criteria of urban vs. suburban. :p Because in urban areas they are called dead ends. LOL. My 1/2 block street is smaller than many large urban area drop offs at large hotels. Simplistic labeling is much easier than actually knowing what the situation is.

BTW, I would argue that my area is suburban, but still has more urban features than what alot of people like to call urban.

In urban areas they are called intact grids. I don't know what you are trying to prove. You are wrong about the area that surround the Plaza. Your area is suburban because it is a single entrance/exit to a cul-de-sac housing addition. This destroys any notion of walkability. 63rd doesn't even have sidewalks so absolutely nothing is within easy walking distance. It isn't a bad thing but comparing the two is just silly.

In urban areas they are called intact grids. I don't know what you are trying to prove. You are wrong about the area that surround the Plaza. Your area is suburban because it is a single entrance/exit to a cul-de-sac housing addition. This destroys any notion of walkability. 63rd doesn't even have sidewalks so absolutely nothing is within easy walking distance. It isn't a bad thing but comparing the two is just silly.

Good try... my cul de sac is not a development, but a street in the development. I’m also surprised that nothing is easily walkable since I do it all the time and I’m nearly 70 years old. And it is easy for me. Go figure. But then, you are the expert.

Did this sell at the auction? Been pretty quiet

I drive by it fairly often. There is a sign up on the corner, I'm thinking for the club house area, 14 ac for sale. I doubt it sold at the auction. Maybe try the county clerks records to see if there is a different owner.

Already checked. Still owned by the same people. Maybe they didn't meet their reserve

Or buyers dont want the hassle of dealing with the people.

Or buyers dont want the hassle of dealing with the people.

Or buyers don't want to inherit a bad situation where homeowners are rightfully angry because they bought golf course property and it is no longer golf course property. That's probably a better description.

If you invested in lake front property and a few years later they decided to fill in the lake and try to build more houses or businesses, I'm 100% confident you would be just as angry. This is no different.

Or buyers don't want to inherit a bad situation where homeowners are rightfully angry because they bought golf course property and it is no longer golf course property. That's probably a better description.

If you invested in lake front property and a few years later they decided to fill in the lake and try to build more houses or businesses, I'm 100% confident you would be just as angry. This is no different.

Sure, they have reason to be angry but what good does it do to fight any and everything proposed in place of the golf course? The golf course isnt coming back so a few more homes, nice walking trails and some small amount of commercial development sounds much better than whats there now.

Or buyers don't want to inherit a bad situation where homeowners are rightfully angry because they bought golf course property and it is no longer golf course property. That's probably a better description.

If you invested in lake front property and a few years later they decided to fill in the lake and try to build more houses or businesses, I'm 100% confident you would be just as angry. This is no different.

It’s actually a lot different.

It’s actually a lot different.
No it's really not.

No it's really not.

Sure it is. Big differences.

Sure it is. Big differences.

No it really isn't.

No it really isn't.

Decent straw man, but no.

Sure, they have reason to be angry but what good does it do to fight any and everything proposed in place of the golf course? The golf course isnt coming back so a few more homes, nice walking trails and some small amount of commercial development sounds much better than whats there now.

I don't disagree with you, but I expect more than a few of the folks in opposition would prefer what's there now to new development.

Decent straw man, but no.

I can't believe I have to do this, but....

You buy a house with a lake in the back yard you fully expect to always have a lake there.

You buy a house with a golf course in the back yard you fully expect there to always be a golf course there.

Same. Thing.

Maybe you don't value a golf course as much as you do a lake, but I can damn sure promise you the people bought those houses BECAUSE there was a golf course there and they most definitely have reason to be pissed, especially with the shady way it was done. And no, there's no mixed use development in existence that will make them feel better about what happened.

Already checked. Still owned by the same people. Maybe they didn't meet their reserve

FYI, there were six parcels up for bid and four of them sold for 2.16MM. The largest parcel was purchased by a homebuilder.

FYI, there were six parcels up for bid and four of them sold for 2.16MM. The largest parcel was purchased by a homebuilder.

Thanks for the update! Do you happen to know the builder?

Thanks for the update! Do you happen to know the builder?

No, I have no idea who purchased any of the tracts. The largest one sold was 74 acres, all fairway, and it was already approved for residential. I don't think the corner (where a convenience store could eventually go) met his reserve.

It’s actually a lot different.
How?

Maybe some life left in the golf course after all

https://agenda.edmondok.com:8086/agenda_publish.cfm?id=&mt=ALL&get_month=8&get_year=2021&dsp=agm&seq=15112&rev=0&ag=11141&ln=98427&nseq=15113&nrev=0&pseq=15109&prev=0#

Yeah but if you look at plans it will only have a handful of holes. Not the entire property.

But for property owners, its better than houses. From what I understand, it would've cost too much money to redo the irrigation for the entire course/property

Does anyone have any updates on where everything stands with this? It has been so quiet for so long.

Some really housing units were proposed to fit in with a greenway trail connecting to a small mixed use retail development at Coffee Creek and Kelly. In typical Edmond NIMBY fashion there was uproar and the excuse this time was the homes backing up to the golf course property were entitled to have that feature for all eternity. There’s always an excuse why Edmond can’t build anything other than bland cookie cutter strip malls and homes barring few exceptions downtown and frankly Edmond’s downtown doesn’t really excite me all that much other than its potential which is big.

So the current situation is nothing more than cookie cutter housing and maybe the same for some strip mall or office buildings on the corner. That’s it. Surprise surprise.

From what I understand a golf pro shop with driving range and putting greens is currently being constructed. I don't like golf at all, but something like this is perfect for that part of town.

As for the NIMBY comments above, people bought in that neighborhood with the golf course there as part of the neighborhood. I don't live there, but I would be completely p'd off if I spent extra money on a house for the view of a golf course only for it to be sold and have apartments put in, or really anything other than some sort of greenbelt. You bet I would be astronomically mad. Now if I bought a house that backed up to just a giant parcel of empty land, that would be a totally different story.

This situation and scenario would be played out exactly the same in neighborhoods surrounding any golf course in any town. Even OKC alone -- Surrey Hills, Hidden Trails, Earlywine -- you don't think the people who bought houses backing up to those courses would be angry? I'll leave OKC Golf and Country Club out since I'm sure you feel they are ultra and dirty rich and feel entitled to their golf course lands.

You (Plutonic) always have some sort of NIMBY negative comment in almost any post that involves shooting down development that involves Edmond. I don't understand your negativity with people who don't want things that I guess you want around their houses. Do you live in Edmond? What is your beef with Edmond? Has Edmond done something to you personally?

People choose to move to Edmond because of the place it is and for the quality of life it offers. Duh.

Nobody proposed apartments on the golf course. so your entire comment is complete BS.

Your reading comprehension is also questionable or you’re just responding emotionally without reason or logic. Because if you actually paid attention to my posting history in the Edmond thread, you know that I’ve stated multiple times I love, Edmond, I grew up here, and my family has quite a bit of history and developing parts of the city. If, and when I make it big-time in the entertainment industry out here in LA if I can ever overcome my issues that I have going on in my life, it would be an honor to use some of that money to come back and be a part of Edmond’s growth.

So yes, it makes me very angry when I see development after development that isn’t anything else other than a cookie cutter strip mall or tract housing development shot down.

Now to the point of the homes that backed up against the golfing course yes I can understand why those homeowners would be mad. Frankly, I personally would not feel comfortable having a home that backs right up to a golf course. But for those who do and enjoy it. Yes I can understand the anger. But the problem goes beyond that. it’s the general mentality around the city of Edmonites who are the worst NIMBYs just screaming no at everything. Downtown is the exception.

I can’t wait to see how these folks react when they learn a commuter rail station is planned at Coffee Creek Road

^^ Completely wrong. I'd hold off on calling someone's comment as BS if you don't even know what was proposed. No sense debating with someone who doesn't even know the facts about the land. Maybe you were responding emotionally without reason or logic. LOL

https://www.koco.com/article/edmond-city-council-approves-development-plan-for-coffee-creek-area/32679520

Have a good evening.

That article is a bunch of bs. Show me a site plan that shows apartments? Maybe they were on the corner of Coffee Creek and Kelly but not on the golf course like the other poster claimed.

That article is a bunch of bs. Show me a site plan that shows apartments? Maybe they were on the corner of Coffee Creek and Kelly but not on the golf course like the other poster claimed.
Frylock* “hit the boobie cannons””

Paul: “what?”

Frylock: “oh nothing I didn’t say anything”

Paul: “okay good, because I thought you said hit the boobie cannons and that would have made me awful mad”

Meatwad: “she loves you, she just wants your attention”

You (Plutonic) always have some sort of NIMBY negative comment in almost any post that involves shooting down development that involves Edmond. I don't understand your negativity with people who don't want things that I guess you want around their houses. Do you live in Edmond? What is your beef with Edmond? Has Edmond done something to you personally?

His daddy is a developer. He lacks the empathy to understand the frustration of people for whom $300K-$500K is a lot of money and they have nearly all of it tied up in their family homes which folks like Panda's daddy have the power to enhance or destroy by the almost seemingly arbitrary decisions in what to devlelop on adjacent property. Will it be an office complex or will it be Section 8 housing? Your family's future will be significantly affected based on what Panda's daddy chooses.

--and if you don't like it and stand in their way, you're a NIMBY ahole.

Hope that clears things up.

And it's precisely that lack of empathy and that lack of building things which don't harm adjacent landowners which has created this sort of relationship in Edmond between homeowners and developers.

It’s pretty funny that out of all the times I applaud Edmond for doing something, the times I don’t have and have criticism it must be because I hate Edmond or the fact that my daddy is a developer and so here lies some conspiracy theory that explains why I have criticism. Sure.

* edit to correct spelling

It’s pretty funny that out of all the times I applaud admin for doing something the times I don’t have criticism it just must be because I hate Edmond or the fact that my daddy is a developer and so here lies some conspiracy theory that explains why I have criticism. Sure.

You don't hate Edmond, you just see it differently. Undeveloped land is opportunity, landowners are challenges to overcome, not people with lives and interests which should also be considered. You'd likely think nothing of developing Section 8 housing in the middle of town. Traffic, overcrowding local schools, blight.. not your problem.

Developers have all of the power to make that relationship less contentious and they steamroll residents anyhow. It's just frustrating to them in Edmond that our municipal government gives a lot of attention to the interests of the residents.

And that's fine for us. Edmond doesn't want giant developments or sprawling multifamily complexes. We don't want "lifestyle centers" or shopping malls.

And that's going to lead to slow growth, which many of us see as a feature and not a bug.

I dig the Aqua Teen Hunger Force quotes

You don't hate Edmond, you just see it differently. Undeveloped land is opportunity, landowners are challenges to overcome, not people with lives and interests which should also be considered. You'd likely think nothing of developing Section 8 housing in the middle of town. Traffic, overcrowding local schools, blight.. not your problem.

Developers have all of the power to make that relationship less contentious and they steamroll residents anyhow. It's just frustrating to them in Edmond that our municipal government gives a lot of attention to the interests of the residents.

And that's fine for us. Edmond doesn't want giant developments or sprawling multifamily complexes. We don't want "lifestyle centers" or shopping malls.

And that's going to lead to slow growth, which many of us see as a feature and not a bug.

But that attitude affects the entire Metro area. Edmond has the demographics that upscale retail developers and stores look for. Maybe the only place in the Metro that truly does. So it sucks for us who live elsewhere in the Metro have no opportunity to shop at upscale stores, and have to go to Dallas for it. If Edmond were willing in the last 25 years, the Metro would very likely have had an upscale center that would draw people from all over Oklahoma. And I'm talking more upscale than Classen Curve could ever dream of being. And it would make a killing, and benefit Edmond so much, on OKC's back, for the most part. But no, NIMBY-ism is so rampant there. Look at Frisco and Plano. They are killing it in EVERY way. They make Edmond look like child's play, and all because Edmond is so anti-growth.

But if someone wants to put a fast food restaurant up or strip center with laundromat and herbalife place, they are more than fine to approve it. But the expansion of the Spring Creek development on 15th and Bryant? Or, too much traffic or we have to care about the environment and prettiness of the Creek. They don't care about the Creek. They just want control, and go against their own best interest due to NIMBY-ism.

Maybe I am a bit selfish, of course. But I know the Metro area would benefit and be even better than it currently is, if Edmond weren't so anti-growth and selfish. They mislead developers, pull the wool over their eyes, and piss them off so they don't try again.

You don't hate Edmond, you just see it differently. Undeveloped land is opportunity, landowners are challenges to overcome, not people with lives and interests which should also be considered. You'd likely think nothing of developing Section 8 housing in the middle of town. Traffic, overcrowding local schools, blight.. not your problem.

Developers have all of the power to make that relationship less contentious and they steamroll residents anyhow. It's just frustrating to them in Edmond that our municipal government gives a lot of attention to the interests of the residents.

And that's fine for us. Edmond doesn't want giant developments or sprawling multifamily complexes. We don't want "lifestyle centers" or shopping malls.

And that's going to lead to slow growth, which many of us see as a feature and not a bug.
I don’t necessarily agree that Edmond doesn’t want lifestyle centers. I think there’s a prevailing mentality in Edmond, such as the way you phrase it I would agree with you a lot of Edmondnites think that they don’t want such a development but I’d argue it would be very successful. It just hasn’t been given a chance.

Look at downtown Edmond.

As far as any traffic issues go that is only going to get worse over time and OKC sprawls. Edmond has just been on the outer fringes of the metropolitan area for a while, but that is going to change.

I dig the Aqua Teen Hunger Force quotes
If I recall correctly, Matt was going to create a spin off called Spacecataz but it didn’t pass the pilot so they incorporated the pilot into the prologues of the 3 or 4th seasons(I forget exactly which ones) but it’s one of my favorite cartoons. The 2000s were great man. Adult swim, Toonami, early seasons of SpongeBob when Hillenburg was actually involved, and of course family guy. But unfortunately this industry has gotten weird about how they go about green lighting production these days and I don’t think we’ll get much of those types of shows anymore. At least for the time being.

You’re a person of culture I see.

... The 2000s were great man. Adult swim, Toonami, early seasons of SpongeBob when Hillenburg was actually involved, and of course family guy. ...

And Samurai Jack.

And Samurai Jack.
Yeah, that was a great one. I really miss those shows. Everything from Ed, Edd, n Eddy to Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy to Codename Kids Nextdoor just seemed to have so much soul and thought put into it. I loved Rick and Morty but one of the creators was accused of being a bigot and was subsequently kicked off of the project. I don’t know the specifics but what a shame.

But that attitude affects the entire Metro area. Edmond has the demographics that upscale retail developers and stores look for.

Outside of Edmond, Classen Curve has done okay. Not great, but okay. And that said, does it really? Edmond is not a community of million dollar homes. Maybe out in East Edmond and in the Deer Creek areas on the west side of town in OKC city limits, but Edmond proper? It's more The Trails than Oak Tree. It's more Chimney Hill than Mullholland. Spring Creek might be the closest thing we've had to upscale retail, and even then, its been very hit and miss in there.

Traffic planning in Edmond has always been piss poor, with major roads only on the section lines, and no fast way to get anywhere. No one is interested in adding more cars to that daily commute. Not too many developers live in neighborhoods like The Trails, the daily commute of someone living there is not something that probably crosses their mind.


So it sucks for us who live elsewhere in the Metro have no opportunity to shop at upscale stores, and have to go to Dallas for it. If Edmond were willing in the last 25 years, the Metro would very likely have had an upscale center that would draw people from all over Oklahoma.

You just can't compare a metroplex like DFW to OKC. It's not apples:apples, not even close. You're talking an MSA of 7.6MM people compared to 1.5MM in OKC. If Neiman Marcus wanted a store in the OKC MSA, they could have built something at Penn Square Mall. Probably not Quail Springs anymore as that place is now about 10 years from being a charter school campus or call center.


But if someone wants to put a fast food restaurant up or strip center with laundromat and herbalife place, they are more than fine to approve it. But the expansion of the Spring Creek development on 15th and Bryant? Or, too much traffic or we have to care about the environment and prettiness of the Creek. They don't care about the Creek. They just want control, and go against their own best interest due to NIMBY-ism.

I suspect you're right about the issues at Spring Creek. What I think developers failed to consider is that the local elementary school, Chisholm, has about 800 students and is already at capacity and is performing extremely well. Local residents, myself being one, know that a development such as that which was proposed would be enough to trigger redistricting and no one wants that. It's not development that is really the 3rd rail in Edmond, development is just a symptom for the real issue. Folks love their schools and don't want to see change in them.

And I wouldn't put it all on Edmond. There are not-great developers who get approved for one thing, then come back and apply for entirely different things once the ball is rolling. And no one trusts developers in Edmond because of fiascos like the Coffee Creek development or that residential developers are trending towards the lower end of things and higher end developers are doing ridiculous things like those $500/sq. ft. "cottages" downtown by the railroad tracks. Neither side, developers, nor the city get gold stars in my book.

But to pretend the disfunction is one-sided is disingenuous.

It’s just that Edmond has shot down so many developments of great potential the one that makes the angriest is 15th and Bryant shopping mall. That would’ve been an amazing development and extremely successful.