Can Automobile Alley Be Our Michigan Ave.?

[BDP]

I was driving down Broadway after driving down the new downtown entrance at 6th and Walnut. The corridor really strikes me as a perfect place to be downtown and OKC's retail hot spot. There are medium to large warehouses which could house shops like Gap, Banana Republic, Urban Outfitters, Fossil, Crate and Barrel, etc. There are a few smaller properties that could house the specialty shops like Coach and Nine West or even boutiques. And there are some empty spaces for new development for those that want to build rather than renovate, possible for an anchor department store, like Nordstrom’s or Neiman Marcus. And, it seems to me, that there is enough space between the properties on the east side and the tracks to erect plenty of parking garages that wouldn't be visible from the street.

On the other side of the tracks, you have Deep Deuce, the Brownstones, the Triangle, and other developments going up that will create some nice density numbers. You have the synergy of a major entertainment district just around the corner and more housing going up in mid-town. One day we could have some form of public transit that runs up and down Broadway (not just a tourist loop like the trolleys) completely connecting AA, BT, the CBD and convention area. IMO, such a plan would mirror the scheme, location, and synergy of shopping districts in major cities like Chicago and San Francisco. It would be like a smaller version of Michigan Ave or Union Square, respectively. The wide streetscape also seems perfect to handle the car traffic and future public transit. You could direct AA traffic to 10th street exit and BT traffic down 6th, minimizing the congestion.

The big question would be if these retailers would see such locations as merely cannibalizing their other locations here, if they have any. But I would suggest that it would be a way for them to expand their reach into the south side of the city and tap into the convention and tourism industries that are more and more centered in OKC's core. I think it would also take a single developer or a group of developers with the same vision to make it a reality.

It just seems like such a natural for the district and the answer to downtown's quest for retail. It would also feed off the growing density and create more, as well as connect downtown to uptown, which may very well end up being the center of OKC's alternative shopping and entertainment, sort of like a Melrose, Bucktown/Wicker Park, or Haight St.

Maybe I'm behind on this and everyone already shares this vision, but it seems to me like our retail solution is staring us right in the face. You fill AA with major retail and suddenly OKC becomes this well organized city with a city core as vibrant and diverse as any city in the region and would mirror some of America most popular cities in design (adjusted for scale, of course )

[Luke]

Once we see a significant portion of the planned housing there actually open, then we'll see retailers coming in. Michigan Avenue? Maybe way down the road... but it defintely can happen.

[jbrown84]

I really like the idea of parking behind the buildings. I don't know how you would get it all together unless one developer bought all the properties.

[soonerliberal]

I would like to see more of the upscale car stores to come back to "Automobile Alley". I know Mercedes and Jaguar are down there, but I would like to see a BMW and maybe a Land Rover dealership on the outskirts of "Automobile Alley" along with some of the places you have already mentioned.

[SoonerDave]

But I would suggest that it would be a way for them to expand their reach into the south side of the city

Not to rain on the parade, but tapping that "south side" market is an uphill battle with all the new retail development going in along the I-240 corridor and just off I-35 in Moore. As a life-long southside resident, I have no need or interest in driving downtown if a similar or same retail group(s) are just a comparative stone's throw away. For me, I want more retail venues *closer* to me on the south side, not more distant, which downtown certainly would be.

Combine that with the fact that this huge new mall is going in down in Norman, and I have a hard time seeing how a huge, new, retail presence in downtown OKC can be reborn. You might get a niche of specialty stores (maybe), but without a firm residential presence, it's going to be difficult. The "south side market" isn't going to get it there, IMHO.

-SoonerDave

[Stinger]

These are the kind of stores that would add some uniqueness and make this area thrive:
http://www.westvil.com/home.html

The county assessor shows that Chris Salyer owns most of the property in Automobile Ally, so the ownership leverage is in place.

[jdsplaypin]

People need to desire a thriving "center city" to obtain one, which means being willing to go out of your way to see that your downtown makes it. With attitudes similar to SoonerDaves this will never happen. Like he said, he'd never go the distance if his amenities are right around the corner. And there's nothing wrong with soonerdaves opinion, but that's the reality of it. Lets be honest, we'd need a good 10-15 thousand NEW downtown residents to begin thinking about a shopping strip downtown.

[BDP]

Michigan Avenue? Maybe way down the road

Yeah, I don't mean to say that it would ever be like Michigan ave in scale, just that it would be a city center shopping area near the CBD and live off of both its convention and near by residents and possibly have a similar, but smaller, cross section of retail options. It may be a ways off, but I think AA has the best potential for being OKC’s central retail area strip, if we’re ever to have one.

we'd need a good 10-15 thousand NEW downtown residents to begin thinking about a shopping strip downtown

I think you're right, but it would definitely serve the mid city area as well: Mid-Town, Mesta, Heritage Hills, along with the new developments. There would definitely have to be that kind of residential numbers and more to get stores that already have a presence in our malls to consider it, but there are a fair number of large retail chains that still do not have a presence in the city, like Urban Outfitters, that may be interested.

People need to desire a thriving "center city" to obtain one,

Very true and I think it's changing. When I said south side market, I meant the people who want to live in the city, not the ones who wish they lived in Norman or Edmond. Maybe the number of people in OKC who want a city center hasn't reached critical mass yet, but I do think it is growing as people recognize the returns that our rejuvenating core is already providing to the city economically and in terms of quality of life.

In fact, Dave's post actually highlights a reason to do this. Oklahoma City needs to develop in a value added way, so that the Normans, Edmonds, and the Moores of the world don't continue to suck it dry of life, money, and image. I think we have seen for 50 years the kind of drain on image and life the suburban sprawl put on the city and have recently began to see the real value and ROI that a vital core has to the community.

Dave’s model for a city is one that simply abandons one mall (Crossroads) for another (whatever’s going in Moore and/or Norman) as it expands outward, leaving the city and its infrastructure to rot as it pours money into additional infrastructure. Here we have a district that could bring the city together instead of driving its communities away.

Let's face it, OKC is 500,000 people spread over 600 square miles. You can't have a retail center on every block with those numbers. People from the south side drive farther than downtown already to go to shops in Penn Square or Memorial Road. These places wouldn't do as well without them. AA could cut the distance in half for many of them as well as add new options to compliment our current malls.

In addition, no downtown non-local visitor wants to huff it out to the Oklahoma suburbs to go to a mall. But, they may very well take a trolley 6-10 blocks to shop in-between meetings, convention event, games, or before dinner. It's an option for regional visitors to experience a change of pace from their 7-11 lives without having to get on a plane to do it.

However, I concede that it does sound ambitious at this time and as the new residential areas come online, AA may take on a more main street feel for those people with local shops and services. That would be just fine by me, but in OKC's expanse, even in that area, I think there is plenty of room for both.

[HOT ROD]

Let's face it, OKC is 500,000 people spread over 600 square miles. You can't have a retail center on every block with those numbers. People from the south side drive farther than downtown already to go to shops in Penn Square or Memorial Road. These places wouldn't do as well without them. AA could cut the distance in half for many of them as well as add new options to compliment our current malls.

I disagree. OKC is 534,000 people spread on roughly 250 square miles. The rest of the 350 some miles are rural and watershed - something I wish we'd let the county or a regional government authority do.

(dont we have Association of Central Oklahoma Governments, who is supposed to be the regional authority, why dont they manage regional water/sewer and transportation? instead of OKC).

IF we had ACOG (or whatever their acronym is), manage the watersheds for OKC, then the city could deannex some 200 sq miles of rural land, yet retain enough to accomodate any future growth.

Another thing the city could do is sell land to suburbs provided that the city would get a proportional cut of the sales tax revenue should that suburb decide to develop the land in a commercial way. I know OKC is so big in land area because it does not want to be locked in tax wise by its suburbs (not only because of the watershed). This thing is happening to our little sister to the NE.

But, if the city would de-annex land near suburbs of Moore, Norman, Yukon, Piedmont, Edmond, Midwest City, Choctaw, and SE OK county; and provide those cities agreement in principle that should the land turn commercial/industrial that the city would share a cut of the sales tax for X period. The watershed areas could be spit off to the county and managed by ACOG.

If this were the case, OKC could be roughly 350 square miles or less - which contains ALL of the urbanized area of the city; and certainly would move the city density index immediately up from 900 today to 1800+ per sq mile (using the existing pop).

A city with a density of 1800 per sq mile sounds like a major urban area. In reality, this IS Oklahoma City (actually OKC's density is higher if you just consider the urbanized area; it would be 2700).

Downtown's density (right NOW) is over 3000 [its 4500+ in the CBD districts right NOW]. Look for that to double by 2010, if not sooner - with all of the development as well as the permanent NBA teams.

Time is NOW to start planning OKC's downtown core, get the master plan in place, get projects on the table NOW so that they can be implemented or fast tracked so that we will have a vibrant urban core to match our new "major league" status. This includes developing the districts (such as the AAlley idea from BDP), light rail circular, new museum buildings in the Arts Quarter, draw more touring events to the Civic Center, MORE RETAIL. ...

Once this happens, no one will EVER say that OKC stole this or OKC isn't this. We'd have an urban core as vibrant as those we look up to - Seattle, Chicago, LA. Not as big, but certainly as vibrant!!!

Otherwise, OKC will continue to be the laughing stock of the major leagues. GET ER DUN!!!!

[Luke]

Speaking of upscale car dealerships, how 'bout a true luxury car dealership with Aston Martin, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Rolls Royce and Bently among others...

Believe it or not, I think it would fly in our market. After seeing a $170,000 ring at B.C. Clark and being told that they would sell "several" of those per year, I really think our market would support it. The guy I was talking with at B.C. Clark commented that I would be surprised at the money in this town. The NBA doesn't hurt things either.

[BDP]

You just want a place to test drive these cars.

[SoonerDave]

Dave’s model for a city is one that simply abandons one mall (Crossroads) for another (whatever’s going in Moore and/or Norman) as it expands outward, leaving the city and its infrastructure to rot as it pours money into additional infrastructure. Here we have a district that could bring the city together instead of driving its communities away.

Hmmm... I love having words put in my mouth.

When did I ever say we should abandon Crossroads, especially considering I don't believe we should? It is a statement of fact that a huge mall development is underway in Norman, and it is also a statement of fact that substantial new retail development is underway in the north Moore area, and along I-240 in south Oklahoma City. I'm not sure how that is extrapolated to my personal model of a city rotting from the core.

The practical realities are that the increasing suburban populations make this urban core concept *decreasingly* likely. Solving this mythical "urban sprawl" problem doesn't do a thing to alleviate the fact that populations in Moore, Norman, Edmond, heck, even Midwest City, are growing, and new retail developments are thriving, and represent little-to-no opportunity for leverage into a theoretically revived downtown Oklahoma City retail center. You can "value-add" downtown OKC all you want, but it won't bring in the "core" of people that are mandatory for this urban concept to succeed.

jdsplaypin hit it on the head - you have to have a core of people that want that urban lifestyle. I think the number he quotes is too low, however; I don't think a population base of 15K is anywhere near enough; you need to think of something more on the order of 50K to catch a retailer's eye (okay, maybe not that literal number, but in terms of order of magnitude). Understand, too, that not everyone holds a romantic fascination for downtown and the notion of living there. No criticism at all if you do, that's great, but the realities are that most people in Oklahoma (myself included) enjoy the spaces of suburban life.

I realize this sounds critical of an urban core concept, and I really don't mean that to be the case - heck, if you like living downtown, that's great. The original idea was posted, however, with an allusion to attracting the "south side" market, and then expanded to an implcitly semi-moral tone that we all "oughta" live downtown rather than in a "torn apart" community. That one of either suburban or urban life could be deemed morally superior to the other is arrogant presumption.

-SoonerDave

[BDP]

That one of either suburban or urban life could be deemed morally superior to the other is arrogant presumption.

Talk about putting word in someone's mouth.

if you like living downtown, that's great.

I don't live downtown.

the fact that populations in Moore, Norman, Edmond, heck, even Midwest City,

Exactly, which is why Oklahoma City has to differentiate itself to sustain itself. Oklahoma City has basically paid for the infrastructure for people to leave the city or, in some cases, to never live there in the first place.

I do not see urban living or a vital core as a romantic vision, but as one for economic and competitive advantage. I live in OKC and I want to see it prosper. It's future quality of life and attractiveness to businesses depends on expanding its variety of quality choices of how to live, work, and play. One way it can do this is to have a strong dense and urban like district. It already has some of the best suburbs in the country with virtually 0 commute. What’s wrong with wanting to offer one of the best urban cores as well?

I did not put words in your mouth. I’m sorry you felt that way. I simply stated the very obvious observation that neglecting the core and supporting the migration of growth outward leads to inner city abandonment and decay. This is the city I grew up in and now live in and I don’t want to see that. The city for decades has paid for the infrastructure so that people can move farther and farther away from its center and now the surrounding communities grow faster than it does, decreasing its commerce base, its economic growth potential, and its tax base. It has basically slowly paid for its demise and disintegrating image. Thankfully it never died and the city is coming back. A strong core and a community who wants to support the city is its future, plain and simple.

It is in no way a moral or arrogant position, nor is it even a question of superiority. I can’t even imagine why you would think that is an issue. It is simply a question of choice. Oklahoma currently does not have that choice. To live in Oklahoma is to live in the suburbs with a suburban life based on commuting and isolation, period. That closes off Oklahoma as an option for thousands of people who don’t want to live and work that way, putting Oklahoma and OKC at a competitive disadvantage.

I think what you continue to miss is that a vital city core does not come at the expense of any suburban living in OKC, either concretely or culturally. No suburbs are torn down, no one is forced to move downtown, you could easily never even know it’s there, especially if you choose to go to Moore and Norman for your services. At the most, suburban communities within the city limits would share in the expense of improving some infrastructure that has been there for years and was neglected because the city had to build the infrastructure for the suburbs. That’s a pretty fair trade, especially when a strong city core draws more tourism than suburban communities ever do and, therefore, increases tax revenue that benefits the city as a whole.

Again, I don’t live downtown and I am not going to. But anyone can see the dividends the improvements to our core have already generated and I was simply suggesting a way to keep that momentum going and increase the strength of the city and the choices of life available within its vast city limits as a way to better its image, attract more visitors and conventions, improve quality of life, and raise its competitive status in the near and long term future. Any talk of moral superiority doesn’t even seem relevant, imo, which is why I didn’t mention it.

[windowphobe]

Before the Great Oil Bust, Jackie Cooper (then in the Village) was selling Rolls-Royce (and presumably Bentley, since they were twins back then) and Maserati; I actually got to test-drive one of the Masers.

Bob Moore has the local Land Rover franchise. Moore's Broadway Extension spread has some high-zoot stuff indeed: Mazda, Hummer, Cadillac/Buick, Land Rover, Infiniti, Porsche/Audi. I don't know if they'd consider moving some of that downtown, but they're running out of space up there after splitting Porsche/Audi off from the Infiniti store into their own showroom.

In terms of "spaces," I suppose I'm fortunate: I'm just west of Penn Square/50 Penn Place, but downtown is a pretty quick slide down I-235, and yet I have enough space to make me wonder why I got such an underpowered lawn mower. If retail choices are offered on Broadway, I'll look into them; right now, the only reason I go north for anything other than groceries is because Lowe's at 39th and May isn't open yet. And if downtown presents me with a reasonable grocery alternative - but that topic's been done to death.

[SoonerDave]

Talk about putting word in someone's mouth.

And I never claimed you said that, did I?

Oklahoma City has basically paid for the infrastructure for people to leave the city

Oklahoma City bought that problem by going on an annexing spree two or three decades ago. presumably as an angle for land-tax revenue (that's a guess on my part). Some cities, like Moore, successfully fought it.

What’s wrong with wanting to offer one of the best urban cores as well?

Nothing at all. Again, I stated that if that's anyone's choice, super!

A strong core and a community who wants to support the city is its future, plain and simple.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. If the only future is in the urban core, why are the suburbs exploding? The development is occuring precisely where the market is driving it.

It has basically slowly paid for its demise and disintegrating image.

Disintegrating image because we have no "urban core?" Guess the NBA overlooked that "disintegrating image" when they allowed the Hornets to relocate here (whether temporarily or permanently).

The people I know that did not live or grow up here tell me they love it because of its suburban appeal - it's a great place to raise kids, good neighbors. They certainly don't come across as perceiving OKC as having a "disintegrating image." If anything, they see a citywide revivial emerging from 9/11 and the May 3rd tornado.

It is in no way a moral or arrogant position, nor is it even a question of superiority.

See next sentence.

It is simply a question of choice. Oklahoma currently does not have that choice. To live in Oklahoma is to live in the suburbs with a suburban life based on commuting and isolation, period.

And that is why I make the inference that your position is a moral one, and condescending towards people who make that choice. The term "..to live in the suburbs with a suburban life based on commuting and isolation, period" implies commuting is bad, and isolation is bad. It just can't be taken any other way. Whether you realize or not, the implication is that the urban life is "better." I'm a suburbanite, I commute, but tell me how you know I'm "isolated?"

The point is that often this "urban core" concept can be characterized as a desire to reform Oklahoma City into something it is not and never will be - a Dallas or Manhattan or other "chic" metropolitan area reproduction in microcosm. And, quite frankly, I don't want Oklahoma City to become those places. That is expressly not to be taken as a condemnation of those cities, but an illustration that differentiation from one group may well imply imitation of another. Finding that narrow path between the two - differentiating from suburbs while not imitating existing "urban cores" - is an extremely difficult prposition, but may allow an Oklahoma version of the "urban core" concept to succeed.

-SoonerDave

[BDP]

If the only future is in the urban core, why are the suburbs exploding?

I think you're missing this one. These suburbs aren't the city. Norman and Edmond are their own cities. They are growing faster than the city. The city needs to keep up.

Disintegrating image because we have no "urban core?" Guess the NBA overlooked that "disintegrating image" when they allowed the Hornets to relocate here (whether temporarily or permanently).

The Hornets example makes a great case. The city had already been turned down more than once by the NHL and NBA, despite the suggestion by many that it could support it? Why? Bad image or, really, no image. It took one of the worst natural disasters creating an emergency situation for a franchise to move here. Once here, it worked. Unfortunately, OKC could not overcome its image to even attract an NHL team on its own before Katrina necessitated it. It’s image was worse than its potential because it’s perceived by many as a dusty outpost with nothing to do:

http://www.sportsline.com/columns/story/9573738

The term "..to live in the suburbs with a suburban life based on commuting and isolation, period" implies commuting is bad, and isolation is bad. It just can't be taken any other way. Whether you realize or not, the implication is that the urban life is "better." I'm a suburbanite, I commute, but tell me how you know I'm "isolated?"

My statement was in no way a qualitative one. I don't see how you can take it that way. Relative to an urban setting suburban life IS isolated. Isn't that exactly what the suburbs are designed to provide? That's exactly their selling pitch. Gated communities, large yards, planned subdivisions, personal car commutes, etc. are all designed to provide isolation. People live in suburbs to get away from the crowds, noise, and unwanted interaction of an urban setting. That's all I'm saying. These are the very things that suburban life is sold on and IT'S PERFECTLY FINE!

I can't imagine what you're afraid of, but I am sorry for disrupting your peace or mentioning the south side market in my post. I’m not suggesting any radical change, just the simple conversion of a sleepy street downtown into a retail center. You’d think I suggested leveling your neighborhood to do it…

I don't want Oklahoma City to become those places.

Your Oklahoma City never will be those places and nothing will change that. Even all those cities you mentioned have strong growing suburbs that you wouldn't even know exist when you visit. Having a vital core doesn’t change that. It also isn’t a reason to ignore the inner city.

You can have both. That is what I am saying. You'd rather drive out of your way to to a mall in Norman. I'd rather go out of my way to shop in a downtown retail district. Wouldn't if be freaking great if in Oklahoma City you actually had that CHOICE? I don't know what is wrong with me suggesting that having that choice is good for the city.

You are saying that we should never have anything but what we have now. Why? Because you don't want Oklahoma City to be become “those places". It doesn't sound like I am the one making a moral choice in a condescending tone.

[windowphobe]

Repeat after me: "The best of both worlds."

Continue to repeat until it sinks in.

Or, as I once (actually twice) said:

"I take comfort in the fact that they're still in the city ... we're all in this together, whether we live on 9th Street, 99th Street, or 199th Street."

[SoonerDave]

You are saying that we should never have anything but what we have now.

More words in the mouth. Thanks.

I'll make a final comment and leave it at this.

I've said in at least two previous posts that if anyone wants to make a choice to live in a downtown area, or suburban area, or something in between, that's great. Power to you. I don't know how many times I have to say it. Living wherever you wish is as integral a part of American freedom as anything I can think of.

There is a difference between creating an "urban core" and the desire by extension to transform OKC into something it isn't. The point is that those who aspire to the latter will always be disappointed, will always refer to OKC as a backwoods town. And the line between those two ideas is very narrow. People like the author of the Sportsline column you reference will never think of OKC as anything but hick and backwoods, and frankly I don't care if I ever change his mind. He's not worth my time.

I realize that my position comes off as rather parochial about the concept of an urban core, and to that extent I have failed to make my point. My intent was to differentiate between revitalizing the urban core that used to exist in downtown OKC, and the desire to turn OKC into some sort of superficial, chic clone of other metro areas. The risk is that I believe those two are more closely knit than you realize; if we can accomplish the former without inducing the latter, it's fine with me.

-SoonerDave