Mayor Mick Cornett Should Adopt Downtown Housing Incentive Program For Developers

[G.Walker]

Mayor Mick Cornett can learn from former Austin Mayor Will Wynn. Wynn set out a goal for having up to 25,000 people living Downtown Austin by 2015, and the city provided incentives for building residential units in the urban core. After this incentive program was implemented, Austin saw a boom of high-rise condo development downtown is the last 6 years.

I think Mick Cornett and city officials, should really sit down and look at such a program, with all the developments going on now, its a win/win situation. Now would be the perfect time.

[Kerry]

Can you give some examples of the 'incentives' Austin used?

[G.Walker]

Can you give some examples of the 'incentives' Austin used?

Incentive Program

One of the most effective aspects of Austin's Smart Growth Initiative is the Incentive Program. The incentives include fee waivers, infrastructure investments and expedited approval of development applications.

[semisimple]

Mayor Mick Cornett can learn from former Austin Mayor Will Wynn. Wynn set out a goal for having up to 25,000 people living Downtown Austin by 2015, and the city provided incentives for building residential units in the urban core. After this incentive program was implemented, Austin saw a boom of high-rise condo development downtown is the last 6 years.

The incentives probably helped, sure, but the sheer amount of construction suggests there was pent-up demand for downtown living in Austin. Indeed, some of those condo/apartment towers are full or nearly full although the more recently-finished ones (which are mostly high-end) have been filling more slowly.

Amenities that don't exist in downtown OKC, like a downtown grocery store (Whole Foods opened downtown in 2005), riverside trails/parks, and a vibrant downtown nightlife probably helped accelerate this wave of construction.

Factor in other things like the tremendous difference in the growth rates of OKC and Austin and it just seems highly unlikely that--incentives or not--OKC will see a high-rise residential construction boom like Austin's anytime in the next several years.

[G.Walker]

The incentives probably helped, sure, but the sheer amount of construction suggests there was pent-up demand for downtown living in Austin. Indeed, some of those condo/apartment towers are full or nearly full although the more recently-finished ones (which are mostly high-end) have been filling more slowly.

Amenities that don't exist in downtown OKC, like a downtown grocery store (Whole Foods opened downtown in 2005), riverside trails/parks, and a vibrant downtown nightlife probably helped accelerate this wave of construction.

Factor in other things like the tremendous difference in the growth rates of OKC and Austin and it just seems highly unlikely that--incentives or not--OKC will see a high-rise residential construction boom like Austin's anytime in the next several years.

We are in the same position Austin was back in 2002, then it all started with their Frost Bank Tower, then a few years after that, after streetscapes, incentive programs for emloyers and housing developments, you saw a span 7 skyscrapers built in 8 years, amazing.

So if history repeats itself, we could see in influx of high-rises being built after Devon, project 180 and convention center is completed!

[soonerguru]

We are in the same position Austin was back in 2002, then it all started with their Frost Bank Tower, then a few years after that, after streetscapes, incentive programs for emloyers and housing developments, you saw a span 7 skyscrapers built in 8 years, amazing.

So if history repeats itself, we could see in influx of high-rises being built after Devon, project 180 and convention center is completed!

Or we'll have more and more people moving to places like Deer Creek and trashing our public school system on this board.

[Spartan]

Incentive Program

One of the most effective aspects of Austin's Smart Growth Initiative is the Incentive Program. The incentives include fee waivers, infrastructure investments and expedited approval of development applications.

That hardly competes with what we already do in downtown. I mean, how could Austin's Smart Growth Initiative even come close to competing with years-long approval processes through OCURA (which the developers here obviously prefer), the good ole boy system (again), and any good ole boy demands they might make like a TIF, infrastructure, cheap land (contrary to Midtowner's assertion of 'free land'), and so on...

Sarcasm aside, what we need to do for the most part is make people with good ideas successful and people with bad ideas unsuccessful. We need to make land squatting and shoddy development unfeasible and we need to make quality urban development and quick action profitable.

[G.Walker]

That hardly competes with what we already do in downtown. I mean, how could Austin's Smart Growth Initiative even come close to competing with years-long approval processes through OCURA (which the developers here obviously prefer), the good ole boy system (again), and any good ole boy demands they might make like a TIF, infrastructure, cheap land (contrary to Midtowner's assertion of 'free land'), and so on...

Sarcasm aside, what we need to do for the most part is make people with good ideas successful and people with bad ideas unsuccessful. We need to make land squatting and shoddy development unfeasible and we need to make quality urban development and quick action profitable.

Then why doesn't the City of Oklahoma, or Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce, pay the bill, and build class A office space downtown, to attract new employers.

The good thing about doing that is we can tailor to what type of employers could move in the office space. For example, the city could require that the salaries start at a certain level, that they be in a particular industry (biotech, engineering, etc). and apply TIF to that office space. Sounds good to me? Your thoughts?

[Midtowner]

We've given developers free land to use in Midtown and they still couldn't get 'er done.

If the city's involved at any level, I'm skeptical.

[G.Walker]

We've given developers free land to use in Midtown and they still couldn't get 'er done.

If the city's involved at any level, I'm skeptical.

Thats Midtown, I am talking about urban core, there is still plenty land available east of downtown, and will have plenty of land available south of downtown.

[OKCTalker]

What would justify the use of taxpayer dollars to move people downtown? The economies of supply & demand seem to be working just fine.

[Kerry]

What would justify the use of taxpayer dollars to move people downtown? The economies of supply & demand seem to be working just fine.

How about not having to pay the price of sprawl. All those new four lane roads going out into the country in all directions have to be paid for and maintained. Police are patroling hundreds of square miles of low density areas, etc...

[Chicken In The Rough]

Austin also has extreme and seemingly unsolvable traffic problems. This provides a nice incentive to live in the downtown core and/or near the major employment centers. I believe there was some pent-up demand. But, incentives probably helped some developers move things along more quickly and change some priorities.

I would love to see an additional 25,000 people downtown in the next 10 years. But with the abundance of undeveloped or underdeveloped land, I would like to see incentives extended to the near-core areas as well. We could dramatically boost density in 10-Penn, Capitol Hill, Plaza, and many other areas making this city much more walkable and streetcar-able. There is no reason to continue the infrastructure madness (i.e., Kilpatrick Turnpike, extending Hefner Parkway to the moon, etc). Instead, we should focus on enhancing and optimizing our current revenue base.

[G.Walker]

Austin also has extreme and seemingly unsolvable traffic problems. This provides a nice incentive to live in the downtown core and/or near the major employment centers. I believe there was some pent-up demand. But, incentives probably helped some developers move things along more quickly and change some priorities.

I would love to see an additional 25,000 people downtown in the next 10 years. But with the abundance of undeveloped or underdeveloped land, I would like to see incentives extended to the near-core areas as well. We could dramatically boost density in 10-Penn, Capitol Hill, Plaza, and many other areas making this city much more walkable and streetcar-able. There is no reason to continue the infrastructure madness (i.e., Kilpatrick Turnpike, extending Hefner Parkway to the moon, etc). Instead, we should focus on enhancing and optimizing our current revenue base.

You have a good point, but I would rather see nice mid-rise development to, outside of the core area, like along I-40 going east into the city, and south of I-40. Nice mid-rise development, provides the city with character and diversity, and shows developers were are not just focused on big development.

I think the city should be focused on bringing another big employer downtown, high-paying, that will attract housing development also.

[EBAH]

Austin also has extreme and seemingly unsolvable traffic problems. This provides a nice incentive to live in the downtown core and/or near the major employment centers. I believe there was some pent-up demand. But, incentives probably helped some developers move things along more quickly and change some priorities.

I would love to see an additional 25,000 people downtown in the next 10 years. But with the abundance of undeveloped or underdeveloped land, I would like to see incentives extended to the near-core areas as well. We could dramatically boost density in 10-Penn, Capitol Hill, Plaza, and many other areas making this city much more walkable and streetcar-able. There is no reason to continue the infrastructure madness (i.e., Kilpatrick Turnpike, extending Hefner Parkway to the moon, etc). Instead, we should focus on enhancing and optimizing our current revenue base.

I couldn't agree more. I would love to see some form of graduated incentives that doesn't leave the inner city (both south and north) out. There is a real wealth of semi urban property in the inner city, that could be purchased and renovated for less than the cost of many of the luxury condos in high rise or mid rise new construction. I'd love to see mid and high rise buildings built as well. But, part of having a true "urban", walkable city, with decent transit, will be getting our inner city up to par with the growth downtown. The way that our inner city is underserved by a lot of retail and services means that many inner city residents have to still travel many miles to do most shopping and personal business. Downtown is great, and I'd love to see 25,000 people move there too. But, at the current time, with our current economy, it seems silly that the city doesn't do a little more to breath some life in to our numerous, fantastic neighborhoods in the inner loop. Just spend some time in Austin's inner city (former suburbs) or in the middle sections of Houston (i.e. the Montrose) and you can see the tremendous potential of many of these smaller, lower income historic neighborhoods. How about some incentives to redevelop condemned lots in University park in to modern midrise apartments, or even some breaks to any one willing to take one of the dozens of antique strip retail centers on 10th, 13th, 23rd, may, penn, etc etc and gut and clean them up? Just seems we could get a lot of bang for the buck with people in $80K houses than 1 tower of $200K condos....sorry for the unfocused rant.

[G.Walker]

I couldn't agree more. I would love to see some form of graduated incentives that doesn't leave the inner city (both south and north) out. There is a real wealth of semi urban property in the inner city, that could be purchased and renovated for less than the cost of many of the luxury condos in high rise or mid rise new construction. I'd love to see mid and high rise buildings built as well. But, part of having a true "urban", walkable city, with decent transit, will be getting our inner city up to par with the growth downtown. The way that our inner city is underserved by a lot of retail and services means that many inner city residents have to still travel many miles to do most shopping and personal business. Downtown is great, and I'd love to see 25,000 people move there too. But, at the current time, with our current economy, it seems silly that the city doesn't do a little more to breath some life in to our numerous, fantastic neighborhoods in the inner loop. Just spend some time in Austin's inner city (former suburbs) or in the middle sections of Houston (i.e. the Montrose) and you can see the tremendous potential of many of these smaller, lower income historic neighborhoods. How about some incentives to redevelop condemned lots in University park in to modern midrise apartments, or even some breaks to any one willing to take one of the dozens of antique strip retail centers on 10th, 13th, 23rd, may, penn, etc etc and gut and clean them up? Just seems we could get a lot of bang for the buck with people in $80K houses than 1 tower of $200K condos....sorry for the unfocused rant.

You do have a good point, but I would rather the city focus on mid-rise condo development, like 15-20 stories, just south of the i40, and maybe a few places in deep deuce area.

[soonerguru]

I couldn't agree more. I would love to see some form of graduated incentives that doesn't leave the inner city (both south and north) out. There is a real wealth of semi urban property in the inner city, that could be purchased and renovated for less than the cost of many of the luxury condos in high rise or mid rise new construction. I'd love to see mid and high rise buildings built as well. But, part of having a true "urban", walkable city, with decent transit, will be getting our inner city up to par with the growth downtown. The way that our inner city is underserved by a lot of retail and services means that many inner city residents have to still travel many miles to do most shopping and personal business. Downtown is great, and I'd love to see 25,000 people move there too. But, at the current time, with our current economy, it seems silly that the city doesn't do a little more to breath some life in to our numerous, fantastic neighborhoods in the inner loop. Just spend some time in Austin's inner city (former suburbs) or in the middle sections of Houston (i.e. the Montrose) and you can see the tremendous potential of many of these smaller, lower income historic neighborhoods. How about some incentives to redevelop condemned lots in University park in to modern midrise apartments, or even some breaks to any one willing to take one of the dozens of antique strip retail centers on 10th, 13th, 23rd, may, penn, etc etc and gut and clean them up? Just seems we could get a lot of bang for the buck with people in $80K houses than 1 tower of $200K condos....sorry for the unfocused rant.

Yes, yes, yes!

This city is an empty canvas. It could be wonderful. I hate to say it, but I think part of the problem comes from the attitudes of the ruling class of this town. The only acceptable places for them to live are Edmond, far Northwest OKC, Nichols Hills, and if they're kinda arty, Heritage Hills or Crown Heights. They actually think of the inner city as ugly and worthless (with bad schools, too, ahem). Therefore, they only really care about the CDB, Bricktown, and the interstates that take them to their suburban enclaves.

I note that you mention NW 10th, 13th, etc. You are a true urbanite, and that's why you see the potential of these areas. Unfortunately, a lot of the OKC ruling class would never find beauty in these areas because they are not urbanites at all. They would rather live in all-white, "safe" areas of town and would never consider walking anywhere. They simply cannot see the potential in our city because they could never envision taking advantage of a true urban environment. In fact, even when they visit places like NYC they probably cluster in Midtown and go the shows, Times Square, the park, and that's it.

I wish more of our rich people had an urban orientation.

[J. Pitman]

How about not having to pay the price of sprawl. All those new four lane roads going out into the country in all directions have to be paid for and maintained. Police are patroling hundreds of square miles of low density areas, etc...

You really think a couple of dense residential projects will stop sprawl?

Uhm, ok.

[benman]

[QUOTE=AbcGum;378543]You really think a couple of dense residential projects will stop sprawl?


Exactly. Look at Houston, it still has mega sprawl (yes, I know its much bigger than here) going out almost an hour from its core. I dont think you are going to stop sprawl. It will be nice to encourage and offer some other options, but its not going to stop. Families are going to want a brand new home for a good price no matter what and that means homes will continue to sprawl out into the countryside where land is cheap. Some natural barriers would help us out, but we sure dont have any.

[Spartan]

You really think a couple of dense residential projects will stop sprawl?

Exactly. Look at Houston, it still has mega sprawl (yes, I know its much bigger than here) going out almost an hour from its core. I dont think you are going to stop sprawl. It will be nice to encourage and offer some other options, but its not going to stop. Families are going to want a brand new home for a good price no matter what and that means homes will continue to sprawl out into the countryside where land is cheap. Some natural barriers would help us out, but we sure dont have any.

I say just give people options. I don't believe we need to eliminate suburbia, we just need to keep it from disabling urban living as a viable option. I believe every step needs to be made to make the urban option truly economically viable, and not just a novelty. I do not believe that decades of suburban market manipulation in OKC will allow for the private market to just fix downtown all on its own, so there will need to be a lot more proactive planning than we have seen since the 40s when that went away. People will balk, call it communist, call it un-American, but it's what is needed to make both downtown and suburbia an option for most people. Simply enact urban growth boundaries and limit sprawl directly and the private market will begin to focus equally on both areas.

[Kerry]

You really think a couple of dense residential projects will stop sprawl?

Uhm, ok.

No, but it gives people an option of opting out of it. After moving from one new suburban subdivision to the next new suburban subdivision I am ready to give the alternative a try.

[Patrick]

How about not having to pay the price of sprawl. All those new four lane roads going out into the country in all directions have to be paid for and maintained. Police are patroling hundreds of square miles of low density areas, etc...

Those folks are paying city sales taxes just as much as people living in the inner city areas.

[Kerry]

I always get a kick out of people that say "it won't work in OKC". It is as if 1900 to 1955 never happened. All these things us 'urbanist' want already happened in OKC once. Steve, your next book should be called The Rise and Fall and Rise of Oklahoma City. We're coming back with a vengence. And this time it's personal.

[G.Walker]

I always get a kick out of people that say "it won't work in OKC". It is as if 1900 to 1955 never happened. All these things us 'urbanist' want already happened in OKC once. Steve, your next book should be called The Rise and Fall and Rise of Oklahoma City. We're coming back with a vengence. And this time it's personal.

It will work, everything is coming in place. We just need the City to implement programs to lure high-tech employers, and boost downtown housing development.

[okclee]

I continue to throw this out there as a challenge; Try convincing someone who lives in the suburbs into moving to downtown Okc.