There's a lot to be said for living in a city without neighbors on top and below you while you get to park your car in your own garage, not some distant parking garage. Not everyone, especially in Oklahoma, likes being overly crowed... Many Oklahomans like big houses, big yards, and big trucks (though I can do without the truck) and simply driving to a store of their choice (and being able to park nearby).

It's nothing to do with the soil, Regent Bank just north of here has a small structured garage so I'll grant that this property probably has similar characteristics. Going vertical drastically increases your costs so it's really a numbers game of whether the added benefit (higher valuation via higher rents and monthly parking fees) is commensurate with the elevated costs. My argument is that this makes much more sense, for instance in downtown Edmond (The Oxley), Classen Curve (The Canton) or even Chisolm Creek (Argon). These places already have, or are anticipated to have, substantial density and some form of walkability.

This site is not in a dense or walkable area. If you're going to build 200+ units in Edmond knock yourself out, I'm just saying to do it on a site where the underlying land is best suited for multifamily. In the current environment it's already difficult enough to get more conventional garden-style deals off the ground, so when you account for the added risk, investors would required a higher return which is difficult to achieve right now. Anyway, this site has characteristics that align much closer with retail than multifamily.

I typically disagree firmly with NIMBYs, particularly in Edmond. It's pretty well known by multifamily peeps in the OKC Metro that for MF you want to be OKC city limits but Edmond "Vibe". It's not impossible to do multifamily in Edmond but it is harder to get the appropriate approvals.

I guess we could put another OnCue here, or a fast food joint might make people happy. LOL

Structured parking can be valuable with any multifamily projects. People would prefer to park close and under roof. Why is everyone up in arms about structured parking anywhere but downtown?

I think the question is the cost per square foot for high rise residential and structured parking. Is a parking garage $75-100/ft? And then you build the concrete and steel tower that has to have enhanced water capacity for fire-fighting purposes in a poorly served area? Could this project wind up costing $400-500/ft all in?

I mean, as citizens keep moving there, more services are required. And if Edmond wants more people, then they need to offer more retail/restaurants to get people in.

Yep and right now those services, let’s say public safety are at the max. If citizens want to receive the same service they’ve grown accustomed too, they need to allow the growth to fund the service growth. Right now a city such as Bentonville (half the population, one third the landmass), has the same number of officers on duty and more fire stations than Edmond.

I live in the neighborhood to the west of this proposal. My single-story home that I share with my wife (so just two of us and 3 dogs) is on the same amount of land as this proposed housing for 204 tenants. This area has been the subject of neighborhood controversy for a few years now, mainly the large area north which a few years back had an apartment building proposal defeated due to a strong and organized neighborhood opposition. But this is the parcel of land to the south and it is really small. I wasn't a NIMBY on the last proposal because you can't simply hope that someone's going to develop this area as a zoo or 3 McMansions. I'm undecided if I'll be a NIMBY on this one, I'd rather have an apartment building than an OnCue or another truck stop. The city council agenda from this past Monday was rescheduled to February 4th as the representative for the developer was surprised to see that there was opposition. Looks like someone on that side skipped over some research about this neighborhood's highly organized NIMBY status. Me personally, I'm afraid to see any development because I have grown accustomed to the beauty of the deer that hang out on my front lawn and sometimes stroll down our sidewalks.

I live in the neighborhood to the west of this proposal. My single-story home that I share with my wife (so just two of us and 3 dogs) is on the same amount of land as this proposed housing for 204 tenants. This area has been the subject of neighborhood controversy for a few years now, mainly the large area north which a few years back had an apartment building proposal defeated due to a strong and organized neighborhood opposition. But this is the parcel of land to the south and it is really small. I wasn't a NIMBY on the last proposal because you can't simply hope that someone's going to develop this area as a zoo or 3 McMansions. I'm undecided if I'll be a NIMBY on this one, I'd rather have an apartment building than an OnCue or another truck stop. The city council agenda from this past Monday was rescheduled to February 4th as the representative for the developer was surprised to see that there was opposition. Looks like someone on that side skipped over some research about this neighborhood's highly organized NIMBY status. Me personally, I'm afraid to see any development because I have grown accustomed to the beauty of the deer that hang out on my front lawn and sometimes stroll down our sidewalks.

I believe an oncue is actually planned for somewhere at this exit in their plans over next few years

I believe an oncue is actually planned for somewhere at this exit in their plans over next few years

and the other 3 corners of this intersection are in OKC

I live in the neighborhood to the west of this proposal. My single-story home that I share with my wife (so just two of us and 3 dogs) is on the same amount of land as this proposed housing for 204 tenants. This area has been the subject of neighborhood controversy for a few years now, mainly the large area north which a few years back had an apartment building proposal defeated due to a strong and organized neighborhood opposition. But this is the parcel of land to the south and it is really small. I wasn't a NIMBY on the last proposal because you can't simply hope that someone's going to develop this area as a zoo or 3 McMansions. I'm undecided if I'll be a NIMBY on this one, I'd rather have an apartment building than an OnCue or another truck stop. The city council agenda from this past Monday was rescheduled to February 4th as the representative for the developer was surprised to see that there was opposition. Looks like someone on that side skipped over some research about this neighborhood's highly organized NIMBY status. Me personally, I'm afraid to see any development because I have grown accustomed to the beauty of the deer that hang out on my front lawn and sometimes stroll down our sidewalks.

I get this but please tell me you do realize this is a ridiculous reason to oppose someone building something on land they control? You want to stop others from building on a small piece of land because it might have an effect on the amount of deer that comes by your house? Because if you want to continue that line of thinking, your house must have had an effect on the deer as well, making whoever lived in your area before you possibly seeing less deer too. Maybe your house should have never been built?

Long story short, this is an absurd reason that gives you the idea that you should be have to power to stop the development of a tract of land.

Long story short, this is an absurd reason that gives you the idea that you should be have to power to stop the development of a tract of land.

especially along the I-35 corridor that will soon have 1 way access roads partly because they want to encourage more development

I get this but please tell me you do realize this is a ridiculous reason to oppose someone building something on land they control? You want to stop others from building on a small piece of land because it might have an effect on the amount of deer that comes by your house? Because if you want to continue that line of thinking, your house must have had an effect on the deer as well, making whoever lived in your area before you possibly seeing less deer too. Maybe your house should have never been built?

Long story short, this is an absurd reason that gives you the idea that you should be have to power to stop the development of a tract of land.

That's what you got from my statement? Where did I say that I should have the power to stop this development? I stated that I like to see deer. What the hell is wrong with you?

This past Monday the developer held a public meeting about this project to allow the neighborhoods nearby to voice their concerns. Very NIMBY. IMHO, it all seems a little sketchy to me. I feel as though they're throwing a huge and unattainable project out there hoping that the nearby residents will happily settle for something less. Just my feeling. My favorite part was when the developer Sabid Kalidy stated "There's not a home within 1.5 miles of this project, I looked at it on Google Maps !" The actual distance from this project site to the home at 4606 Karen Dr is 0.2 miles and 430 feet from the home at 5540 E Memorial Rd. If you get a chance to drive by this site just imagine your 10th-story apartment that faces east right with that I-35/I-44 interchange high intensity series of lamps on those high mast poles in your line of site. So far, there has been no talk of a subsidy for black-out curtains.

Karen Dr. being the name of the closest residential street is actually hilarious.

This past Monday the developer held a public meeting about this project to allow the neighborhoods nearby to voice their concerns. Very NIMBY. IMHO, it all seems a little sketchy to me. I feel as though they're throwing a huge and unattainable project out there hoping that the nearby residents will happily settle for something less. Just my feeling. My favorite part was when the developer Sabid Kalidy stated "There's not a home within 1.5 miles of this project, I looked at it on Google Maps !" The actual distance from this project site to the home at 4606 Karen Dr is 0.2 miles and 430 feet from the home at 5540 E Memorial Rd. If you get a chance to drive by this site just imagine your 10th-story apartment that faces east right with that I-35/I-44 interchange high intensity series of lamps on those high mast poles in your line of site. So far, there has been no talk of a subsidy for black-out curtains.

The more I think about it, a project like the proposed project is all Edmond should be allowing on this corridor. It can't entirely be lined with starbucks and sculpture gardens. But the NIMBYism here is so insane. There are folks as far away as NW Edmond who are going nuts about this project. My biggest concerns would be regarding infrastructure--this is on the edge of town--what will it cost to get adequate water and sewer out there and who is going to pay? If there is any kind of TIF, I'd be very against it. In principle though, I don't really mind it, and while I'm not on Karen Dr., I'm pretty close to that.

As I've said before, I have a hard time believing that someone who has done very little commercial development has figured out a way to construct a 10-story residential building with structured parking in a very suburban area when nobody has been able to crack this nut in the core -- even with ample TIF awards available -- for the last 60 years.

There are reasons new-construction housing downtown never goes above 6 levels and to go only slightly higher means you have a lot more cost without gaining that many units.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

If you drive around this part of town, Kalidy's name is emblazoned on almost every single vacant lot. It may not be so much a business thing as an ego thing.

If you drive around this part of town, Kalidy's name is emblazoned on almost every single vacant lot. It may not be so much a business thing as an ego thing.

He’s been underestimated a lot.