Liberty Park Development

[DowntownMan]

Thought that this is neat and would share. It’s in early planning phases. I believe this would be a similar development as Carlton Landing, Wheeler Park, or Watercolor Seaside FL for example.
They are hosting a design charrette this week each night.
This would be a change from the typical subdivision developments that have been developed in this area

Appears to be 408 acres north and south along coffee creek between Coltrane and Sooner. Large swath of undeveloped land with existing trees.

https://instagram.com/libertyparkedm...d=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
https://libertyparkedmond.com/

[Edmond Hausfrau]

"Return to the historic charm of yesteryear" as a tagline for development in Edmond is generally code for "keep out people of colour".

[DowntownMan]

Or just simply return to neighborhoods built around walkability and not around cars. Older style homes with large front porches with no visible garages in front.. Community areas for parks and concerts. Just a community based development.

[Edmond Hausfrau]

Or just simply return to neighborhoods built around walkability and not around cars. Older style homes with large front porches with no visible garages in front.. Community areas for parks and concerts. Just a community based development.

You had me at "walkability".

[BoulderSooner]

Thought that this is neat and would share. It’s in early planning phases. I believe this would be a similar development as Carlton Landing, Wheeler Park, or Watercolor Seaside FL for example.
They are hosting a design charrette this week each night.
This would be a change from the typical subdivision developments that have been developed in this area

Appears to be 408 acres north and south along coffee creek between Covell and Sooner. Large swath of undeveloped land with existing trees.

https://instagram.com/libertyparkedm...d=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
https://libertyparkedmond.com/

where is this going to be located ..??? sooner and covell are not parallel ..

is this going in north of coffee creek between coltrane and sooner??

[DowntownMan]

where is this going to be located ..??? sooner and covell are not parallel ..

is this going in north of coffee creek between coltrane and sooner??

Yes, meant Coltrane!

They had advertised near covell and 35 so I had that in my mind
My understanding is that is is basically all the undeveloped land 1/2 mile north and south of coffee creek between Coltrane and sooner

[BoulderSooner]

Yes, meant Coltrane!

They had advertised near covell and 35 so I had that in my mind
My understanding is that is is basically all the undeveloped land 1/2 mile north and south of coffee creek between Coltrane and sooner

very cool this should be a great development ..

[DowntownMan]

very cool this should be a great development ..

I’m very interested. I have been looking at this area for a move in about 5 years. Was looking at McCalebs upcoming Bison Ridge neighborhood at Douglas and Danforth, but will definitely have this on my list. Both should probably be in early phases by then.

I believe the home developers for Liberty Park is McGregor and massarossa which both build solid well built homes

[DowntownMan]

First phases of this development were up for planning meeting. Looks like small lot lines very similar to wheeler park. IMG_9422.jpegIMG_9423.jpeg

https://agenda.edmondok.com:8086/doc...2E7%2E23%2Epdf

[Plutonic Panda]

Hopefully many new freeways will be planned and it’d be nice to see 14+ lane freeway at some point in the future. Long term thinking but the ROW needs to be preserved.

[jerrywall]

^^ I can see both sides of it. To me the big reality is that if the city approves this they need to put special effort into the traffic around there. The Covell/Sooner intersection is nice, but already feels at capacity at times. Sooner north of Covell needs to be widened, and the intersection of Covell and Coffee Creek needs turn lanes and such for this type of dense development. I'm not sure if it's typical to recapture some of this cost from the developers (or require the developers to do some of this widening) or if we already do, but if not I would love to see this type of stuff included in these developments.

[jdross1982]

^^ I can see both sides of it. To me the big reality is that if the city approves this they need to put special effort into the traffic around there. The Covell/Sooner intersection is nice, but already feels at capacity at times. Sooner north of Covell needs to be widened, and the intersection of Covell and Coffee Creek needs turn lanes and such for this type of dense development. I'm not sure if it's typical to recapture some of this cost from the developers (or require the developers to do some of this widening) or if we already do, but if not I would love to see this type of stuff included in these developments.

The city normally requires the developer to do some of the widening to reduce the risk of wrecks and alleviate traffic.

[jerrywall]

What happens if those retail spots don't do as well as initially intended?

This is always the big issue for me on a lot of the "super cool, oh so neat, exciting developments" that Edmond supposedly misses out on thanks to "nimbys". Developer promises of things like a movie theater and an out of market grocery might sound awesome, but they might not ever come through, and Edmond has TONS of open available retail space currently. I'm all for strong developments but I'm not eager for a giant empty development that will still be empty in a decade.

[Midtowner]

This is always the big issue for me on a lot of the "super cool, oh so neat, exciting developments" that Edmond supposedly misses out on thanks to "nimbys". Developer promises of things like a movie theater and an out of market grocery might sound awesome, but they might not ever come through, and Edmond has TONS of open available retail space currently. I'm all for strong developments but I'm not eager for a giant empty development that will still be empty in a decade.

Exactly right. When we're talking about retail or a restaurant t the heart of a neighborhood... well.. I live in east Edmond and just got a mailer from Gaillardia Country Club--a pretty amazing feature in a pretty wealthy and self-contained neighborhood. They would not be sending flyers to East Edmond residents in (by their standards) tiny houses if they were well supported by their own residents.

So if Gaillardia Country Club is desperate for revenue, how is the little strip mall at the heart of your neighborhood going to make it? They're trying to be Carlton's Landing, but their retail will be competing with Edmond, not Eufaula.

[onthestrip]

Single family homes add to the ad valorem collections and supply customers to pay all of those sales taxes. I'm happy to see the City kick the can down the road until the right development comes along, i.e., something less dense, where property values are going to be high and they are going to hold their value. I see Liberty Park and its seems very similar to a Coffee Creek type development. What happens if those retail spots don't do as well as initially intended? What happens when the developer moves on and the community gets its very own marijuana dispendary and vape shop? What happens if someone buys the retail property and converts it to multifamily housing? HOA supported parks, trails, maybe swimming pools seem pretty safe and sustainable. I wouldn't take any long term bets on anything else.

All of these things can be addressed in the PUD. Many PUDs specifically restrict certain types of retail.

This is always the big issue for me on a lot of the "super cool, oh so neat, exciting developments" that Edmond supposedly misses out on thanks to "nimbys". Developer promises of things like a movie theater and an out of market grocery might sound awesome, but they might not ever come through, and Edmond has TONS of open available retail space currently. I'm all for strong developments but I'm not eager for a giant empty development that will still be empty in a decade.

In the meantime you get cookie cutter buildings with drive thrus all around for things like Swig or Dutch Bros. Not saying those are bad but maybe its ok to let something a bit more ambitious get developed. And the empty storefront thing is always funny. Its like saying stop building any new homes because theres dozens of empty homes that arent selling.

Exactly right. When we're talking about retail or a restaurant t the heart of a neighborhood... well.. I live in east Edmond and just got a mailer from Gaillardia Country Club--a pretty amazing feature in a pretty wealthy and self-contained neighborhood. They would not be sending flyers to East Edmond residents in (by their standards) tiny houses if they were well supported by their own residents.

So if Gaillardia Country Club is desperate for revenue, how is the little strip mall at the heart of your neighborhood going to make it? They're trying to be Carlton's Landing, but their retail will be competing with Edmond, not Eufaula.

I dont even know how you can compare country clubs to retail development.

[jerrywall]

In the meantime you get cookie cutter buildings with drive thrus all around for things like Swig or Dutch Bros. Not saying those are bad but maybe its ok to let something a bit more ambitious get developed.

And I'm fine with something ambitious - but I'm not over here rending my hair, gnashing my teeth, and flipping tables every single time a development gets opposed in Edmond like some people are. We have lots of cool developments going on, and some really neat areas being built out like the areas West of Downtown, the Stephenson Park area, etc. But a lot of projects that are listed upthread weren't ambitious unique developments - I mean, being upset that a Walmart was opposed? Or a random retail development on Covell? Even the Spring Creek stuff wasn't anything special IMO - it could have *potentially* evolved into something, but it also could have been a lot of empty space (there's plenty over there still now.) There's a middle ground where folks can see both sides, and not every single development has to be blindly supported, and even if good ones don't happen, that's not the end of the world. There is plenty of retail development happening in Edmond. Edmond's year over year sales tax revenues have continued to go up. It's not doom and gloom every time folks oppose a development.

And the empty storefront thing is always funny. Its like saying stop building any new homes because theres dozens of empty homes that arent selling.

Home developments get questioned all the time about this. I watch most of the planning/council meetings. A large neighborhood suddenly thrown up where there wasn't one does cause traffic concerns, wastewater and floodwater concerns, and more. And if there isn't a need or a demand for homes there, I don't think it should automatically be approved. This is also a reason I opposed developments like 18 on Park, which I didn't see as filling a need for anyone but the developers (getting to sell 18 overpriced lots on the space of 2) in the middle of one of the oldest and most desirable neighborhoods in Edmond. On the flip side I love developments like the Lark and the Silos, which are providing the infill in an area where it makes sense (walkable, local grocery and retail, etc). And of course, with new housing they're often not rezoning the land. Often times these developments are fought over the rezoning of land that was previously residential or single family. It's lower barrier to build housing on land already zoned for housing.

[onthestrip]

Home developments get questioned all the time about this. I watch most of the planning/council meetings. A large neighborhood suddenly thrown up where there wasn't one does cause traffic concerns, wastewater and floodwater concerns, and more. And if there isn't a need or a demand for homes there, I don't think it should automatically be approved. This is also a reason I opposed developments like 18 on Park, which I didn't see as filling a need for anyone but the developers (getting to sell 18 overpriced lots on the space of 2) in the middle of one of the oldest and most desirable neighborhoods in Edmond. On the flip side I love developments like the Lark and the Silos, which are providing the infill in an area where it makes sense (walkable, local grocery and retail, etc). And of course, with new housing they're often not rezoning the land. Often times these developments are fought over the rezoning of land that was previously residential or single family. It's lower barrier to build housing on land already zoned for housing.

My issue is why is the new proposed neighborhood going to cause flood and traffic concerns when the protesting neighbor is unbothtered by their neighborhood contributing to flooding or traffic. Its like all new home development should stop as soon as the protester bought and moved into their home. I am not going to give any credence to the I was here first mentality, because someone was there before them and was impacted in some way by that new neighborhood.

I cant recall what or where exactly 18 on park is. But another issue I have is what you said about it. You say you dont see it filling a need for anyone, but is that really your call? If someone is spending their money to develop and build something, they probably have a good idea if theres an existing need for it. Basically, if you dont like it, dont buy it.

[jerrywall]

I see this argument on here a lot (typically from the same few folks) that somehow land ownerships is the end all of the discussion for the land use. That's not how communities and civilization work. If you want that, go out in the middle of unincorporated land and build something. Someone wanting to develop in a community is wanting something FROM that community. They want the benefits of being in the city, and they want the benefits of having the local populace support their development. That comes with tradeoffs.

Land is the single most important limited resource a city has - we can't create more (outside of expanding our boundaries and even that has limits) and once it's all used, that's it. That's why Edmond has long term development plans, zoning, and more. Buying a piece of land doesn't cede you absolute control over its use, nor should it.

[Plutonic Panda]

Zoning should have limits and can go overboard. Edmonds a textbook definition of that.

[Swake]

Zoning should have limits and can go overboard. Edmonds a textbook definition of that.

Zoning is a set of planned limits on land use set by the city based on the city plan. When a landowner wants to build something /different/more than the zoning allows then the owner has to go though the Planned Urban Development process (PUD).

The PUD is a negotiation between the city and the land owner but in most cases should still conform to the city plan. The proposed PUD will have to be announced and posted on the land and the public will have input usually at both the planning commission and city council level. Special attention is paid to the wants of the nearby surrounding landowners/users of any proposed PUD.

[Plutonic Panda]

Zoning is a set of planned limits on land use set by the city based on the city plan. When a landowner wants to build something /different/more than the zoning allows then the owner has to go though the Planned Urban Development process (PUD).

The PUD is a negotiation between the city and the land owner but in most cases should still conform to the city plan. The proposed PUD will have to be announced and posted on the land and the public will have input usually at both the planning commission and city council level. Special attention is paid to the wants of the nearby surrounding landowners/users of any proposed PUD.

I appreciate that information. Maybe you could elaborate on why a pineapple contains neither pine nor is an apple but yet it’s called a pineapple.

[April in the Plaza]

Edmond definitely needs to raise the referendum bar a lot higher. Should need to pick up at least 20k signatures to place any land use question on a ballot.

[jerrywall]

It would take a lot to convince me that some random development in the middle of a neighborhood is going to generate more sales tax revenue than a well developed and filled large shopping center at a major intersection located with easy access to the interstate. Edmond has had positive year over year sales tax growth pretty consistently, and we have plenty of available retail space that can be utilized. We do have some pretty cool developments going in the CBD as well. Outside of bringing in some new to the market business that would be a draw, as a whole I don't see a new development necessarily adding much to the tax revenues in Edmond (it's just moving dollars from one shopping center to another). Now, east of I-35 will absolutely need retails services to support the residents, but the East Edmond plan addresses that, and the goals will be the city center type of developments, which still won't be just planting multi-use in the middle of a neighborhood.

[Urbanized]

It would take a lot to convince me that some random development in the middle of a neighborhood is going to generate more sales tax revenue than a well developed and filled large shopping center at a major intersection located with easy access to the interstate...

Not that this is what you are specifically referring to, but on a per acre or per sq ft basis it almost certainly will earn more. Lots of data backs this up, and in fact it is the entire focus of a planning consultant known as Urban3. They use some startling visualizations to demonstrate this. Their website is worth a visit, and there are quite a few interesting YouTube videos out there with their principal, Joe Minicozzi.

[jerrywall]

Not that this is what you are specifically referring to, but on a per acre or per sq ft basis it almost certainly will earn more. Lots of data backs this up, and in fact it is the entire focus of a planning consultant known as Urban3. They use some startling visualizations to demonstrate this. Their website is worth a visit, and there are quite a few interesting YouTube videos out there with their principal, Joe Minicozzi.

I'll take a look, and I'll take you word for it in general, but I do think in this specific case I'll have to look and it will take some convincing. I'm all about urban infill and density and great mixed use developments, but I think they're more successful as infill projects and where they are organically created and designed as part of the community and where they make sense - especially taking into factors such as public transportation availability and such. So a dense multi use development near downtown or the bus routes makes sense. But not just anywhere and everywhere and I think mixed use just for the sake of mixed use isn't an automatic success.