OKC Regional Transit System

[Ross MacLochness]

You guys are really arguing about nothing. It totally is possible to move in the direction of financial prosperity without deannexing or screwing over anyone who already lives where they live. Incentivize particular development patterns over othes but grandfather in existing developments. Focus on key corridors as nodes of density and pass policy making building there easier. Limit sprawl in the periphery but don't "disinvest" If we enhance areas already primed for density, it will create more revenue to be spent on all areas of the city, including the sprawly parts. We don't have to trim the fat, we just need to stop eating cake and start building lean muscle to be able to support it.

[hoya]

I think OKC and the surrounding cities should create an Urban Growth Boundary. Even if it's within city limits, we say no more permits for building large scale development past a certain point. You can't build a new neighborhood on the other side of Draper Lake, or south-west of Will Rogers. Those areas can remain as they are, but we'll steer development into the more central parts of the city. I don't care if you want to build 200 houses on SW 104th and Mustang Road. No, you can't. I don't care that it's within OKC city limits, you still can't.

We'd need the surrounding cities to participate. Edmond, Yukon, Norman, Midwest City, etc. We could even get the counties to agree as well, so unincorporated land is covered. This would, over time, push up property values as we start getting a lot more infill. Combine that with the regional transit system, and people would start moving into the city instead of further out.

That's where I'd start.

[HangryHippo]

I think OKC and the surrounding cities should create an Urban Growth Boundary. Even if it's within city limits, we say no more permits for building large scale development past a certain point. You can't build a new neighborhood on the other side of Draper Lake, or south-west of Will Rogers. Those areas can remain as they are, but we'll steer development into the more central parts of the city. I don't care if you want to build 200 houses on SW 104th and Mustang Road. No, you can't. I don't care that it's within OKC city limits, you still can't.

We'd need the surrounding cities to participate. Edmond, Yukon, Norman, Midwest City, etc. We could even get the counties to agree as well, so unincorporated land is covered. This would, over time, push up property values as we start getting a lot more infill. Combine that with the regional transit system, and people would start moving into the city instead of further out.

That's where I'd start.

Excellent idea. Isn't this basically how Portland handled growth (the growth boundary)?

[GoGators]

There are many non contributing areas much closer in. Should we de-annex them? What is your criteria... only distance from an arbitrary center point? Services used vs revenue generated? Should we de-annex everything east of Broadway Ext because it costs too much to pump water over that distance from Lake Hefner water supply? What exactly is your criteria?

By the way, where do you live again?

I live in Gatewood. RIP Gatewood Elementary Where do you live?

[GoGators]

I think OKC and the surrounding cities should create an Urban Growth Boundary. Even if it's within city limits, we say no more permits for building large scale development past a certain point. You can't build a new neighborhood on the other side of Draper Lake, or south-west of Will Rogers. Those areas can remain as they are, but we'll steer development into the more central parts of the city. I don't care if you want to build 200 houses on SW 104th and Mustang Road. No, you can't. I don't care that it's within OKC city limits, you still can't.

We'd need the surrounding cities to participate. Edmond, Yukon, Norman, Midwest City, etc. We could even get the counties to agree as well, so unincorporated land is covered. This would, over time, push up property values as we start getting a lot more infill. Combine that with the regional transit system, and people would start moving into the city instead of further out.

That's where I'd start.

That is a very interesting idea. A nice way to curb sprawl while keeping the existing boundaries for everyone. You get my vote!

[Rover]

I live in Gatewood. RIP Gatewood Elementary Where do you live?

Glenbrook.

[Rover]

That is a very interesting idea. A nice way to curb sprawl while keeping the existing boundaries for everyone. You get my vote!

How do you get the other cities to give up development and the corresponding sales tax? Plus, maybe people actually want to live in outlying areas where there are better schools?

[Teo9969]

I think OKC and the surrounding cities should create an Urban Growth Boundary. Even if it's within city limits, we say no more permits for building large scale development past a certain point. You can't build a new neighborhood on the other side of Draper Lake, or south-west of Will Rogers. Those areas can remain as they are, but we'll steer development into the more central parts of the city. I don't care if you want to build 200 houses on SW 104th and Mustang Road. No, you can't. I don't care that it's within OKC city limits, you still can't.

We'd need the surrounding cities to participate. Edmond, Yukon, Norman, Midwest City, etc. We could even get the counties to agree as well, so unincorporated land is covered. This would, over time, push up property values as we start getting a lot more infill. Combine that with the regional transit system, and people would start moving into the city instead of further out.

That's where I'd start.

Even better: Don't put a "no more permits" boundary. Put a "surcharge" boundary (we can call it an "extension zone". You want OKC Utilities and services...developer pays all upfront capital costs (I think they currently do this anyway), + hefty impact fees, and then residents pay a surcharged rate for all utilities to the area along with increased taxes to cover maintenance in the "extension zone". If rich people want to go live out in the boondocks, let them go live out in the boondocks and pay the true maintenance cost of the area. You don't have to make it inaccessible to have a sensible cost structure to what usually starts out as premium areas. It's not like Deer Creek sprouted up with 1200 square foot homes and 300 unit apartment complexes.

[Jeepnokc]

I think OKC and the surrounding cities should create an Urban Growth Boundary. Even if it's within city limits, we say no more permits for building large scale development past a certain point. You can't build a new neighborhood on the other side of Draper Lake, or south-west of Will Rogers. Those areas can remain as they are, but we'll steer development into the more central parts of the city. I don't care if you want to build 200 houses on SW 104th and Mustang Road. No, you can't. I don't care that it's within OKC city limits, you still can't.

We'd need the surrounding cities to participate. Edmond, Yukon, Norman, Midwest City, etc. We could even get the counties to agree as well, so unincorporated land is covered. This would, over time, push up property values as we start getting a lot more infill. Combine that with the regional transit system, and people would start moving into the city instead of further out.

That's where I'd start.

How do you decide the line? SW of WRWA isn't really in the boondocks. I live sw of airport at sw104 and MacArthur. My property backs up to airport land. I am 2 miles from FAA, 2 miles from the new Amazon, 4 miles from OKCCC, 3.5 miles to Hobby Lobby HQ, 4.5 miles from the I240 corridor. These are all pretty busy areas and major employers. I am closer to downtown than anywhere on Memorial Road. I have no city utilities other than trash and the road to get to our privately maintained neighborhood road is the same road that that all the FAA employees drive on. I used much more city services when I lived in Heritage Hills.

[dankrutka]

Excellent idea. Isn't this basically how Portland handled growth (the growth boundary)?

Yep and it’s done wonders for the growth of their neighborhoods.

[Rover]

Even better: Don't put a "no more permits" boundary. Put a "surcharge" boundary (we can call it an "extension zone". You want OKC Utilities and services...developer pays all upfront capital costs (I think they currently do this anyway), + hefty impact fees, and then residents pay a surcharged rate for all utilities to the area along with increased taxes to cover maintenance in the "extension zone". If rich people want to go live out in the boondocks, let them go live out in the boondocks and pay the true maintenance cost of the area. You don't have to make it inaccessible to have a sensible cost structure to what usually starts out as premium areas. It's not like Deer Creek sprouted up with 1200 square foot homes and 300 unit apartment complexes.

I know that so many on here love to demonize successful people, but “rich” people aren’t driving sprawl. It is the affordability of single family homes and better schools. If anyone actually cares to drive around and see what’s being developed they would see lots of modest housing being developed in the burbs.

[Jeepnokc]

I know that so many on here love to demonize successful people, but “rich” people aren’t driving sprawl. It is the affordability of single family homes and better schools. If anyone actually cares to drive around and see what’s being developed they would see lots of modest housing being developed in the burbs.

This is true. Look at Williamson Farms at SW119 and Meridian. 725 homes closer together than home in Heritage Hills Tiny lots with no yards after building. http://www.wfokc.com/

[GoGators]

I know that so many on here love to demonize successful people, but “rich” people aren’t driving sprawl. It is the affordability of single family homes and better schools. If anyone actually cares to drive around and see what’s being developed they would see lots of modest housing being developed in the burbs.

Who is demonizing successful people? You are correct that what is driving sprawl is middle income developments and that is exactly what a surcharge boundary would prevent. Seems like a win win for everyone.

[OKC Guy]

Who is demonizing successful people? You are correct that what is driving sprawl is middle income developments and that is exactly what a surcharge boundary would prevent. Seems like a win win for everyone.

In the early 90’s downtown was mostly dead, a ghost town. It was those suburbanites who paid most of the MAPS tax so almost 30 years later folks could complain about those same suburbs. Ironic. Entitlement?

[Ross MacLochness]

^^^That is the worst take.

[Plutonic Panda]

Yep and it’s done wonders for the growth of their neighborhoods.

Portland, the white city that claims to be for diversity. Hilarious.

Oh, what’s this? https://www.oregonlive.com/trending/...s_increas.html

Really, using Portland as a model of good city planning? It often feels like many in this board are out of touch with western cities especially the coastal ones. Urban growth boundaries are awful and serve no purpose other than appear to foster an idealized environment that hurts the vulnerable— a group you often claim to be an advocate for.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.for...an-sprawl/amp/

Let’s not also forget—or perhaps learn—that Portland Metro’s urban growth boundary has also prevented the inclusion of Vancouver(WA) into their jurisdiction as they want no part of the urban growth boundary and its has many unintended consequences like delaying the I-5 bridge and the resistance to bringing light rail over the river.

Portland also suffers from traffic issues worse than cities 2-3 times its size because of their anti-freeway stance and the irony being they constantly adhere to the bike lane and streetcar malarkey. Having taken an hour to move a mile or less in that city I’d take DFW or Phoenix any day.

Portland as a model city. Don’t make me laugh. OKC would be better off using LA and LA is sh!t at that. LOL

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^That is the worst take.

It’s actually a very valid point. Imagine if all the people voting for MAPS were told that their dime is used to build and foster an urban environment that currently is in no way able to sustain itself without it and eventually when it becomes self-sustaining it’s de facto f@ck you.

[Plutonic Panda]

Who is demonizing successful people? You are correct that what is driving sprawl is middle income developments and that is exactly what a surcharge boundary would prevent. Seems like a win win for everyone.

Again: https://marketurbanismreport.com/por...undary-sprawl/

I suppose makeshift solutions can be had much like many of the anti-sprawl/suburban/car policies almost always require, but how is that more sustainable than what we have now? Just like congestion pricing right?

[Zorba]

You are literally describing a straw man argument.

Then what are you trying to say? If a city shouldn't make it easy for people to commute into them, that means they should make it hard. What is the other option? You literally said why would a city make it easy for people to commute into them. That means you think they shoudn't make it easy. Not easy is hard. This is the argument you are making, not a strawman.

So I guess your argument is they shouldn't make it easy for commuters, but also not hard, so medium, huh? Meanwhile, the people that live in burbs decide to just build their own restaurants and stores and keep their money to themselves.

[HangryHippo]

So I guess your argument is they shouldn't make it easy for commuters, but also not hard, so medium, huh?

According to your post, that's not a choice here - "Not easy is hard."

[hoya]

How do you decide the line? SW of WRWA isn't really in the boondocks. I live sw of airport at sw104 and MacArthur. My property backs up to airport land. I am 2 miles from FAA, 2 miles from the new Amazon, 4 miles from OKCCC, 3.5 miles to Hobby Lobby HQ, 4.5 miles from the I240 corridor. These are all pretty busy areas and major employers. I am closer to downtown than anywhere on Memorial Road. I have no city utilities other than trash and the road to get to our privately maintained neighborhood road is the same road that that all the FAA employees drive on. I used much more city services when I lived in Heritage Hills.

I'm not gonna bother drawing a line, because I don't think the city is actually going to set up a boundary. In real life, it would take a lot of careful planning and work, and it would be very political.

The thing is, even if we said no new developments SW of Will Rogers, that doesn't change anything about your neighborhood except potentially making it more valuable. Right now, it's only a matter of time before someone comes along and puts very similar neighborhoods to yours into what is now an empty field. Restrict their ability to do that and houses like yours become a much more limited resource.

[oklip955]

The idea of limiting growth in rural areas is done in other parts of the country. The have it in their master plans of keeping areas zoned ag and limiting development to one home per 40 ac, others rural residential with say mine of 5 ac lots. It keeps areas in farm land and also keeps areas where people want to have farm animals or horses of not having to worry about a small lot development coming in across their fence line.

[hoya]

If I were going to do an OKC area master plan, it would be something like this:

Downtown and adjacent areas (maybe go from Penn over to Lincoln, the river up to 23rd) would have the highest density requirements. All commercial developments must by at least 3 stories, no EIFS, everything built out to the street. New residential would be 2+ story townhomes, unless it's in Mesta Park or another existing historic neighborhood. Certain "prestige" places (like next to the new Scissortail Park) would have higher development requirements. Maybe 10+ stories for those.

The "inner loop" of I-44 to I-35 and I-240 up to I-44, would require higher density along major roads, and have to follow higher quality construction rules. In other words, no new sheet metal buildings, limited EIFS, and street-facing storefronts. Parking would be behind the buildings. Obviously existing developments are still okay, we aren't going to make people tear down an existing structure, but all new ones would have to comply. Also step up enforcement of code violations for particularly unsightly businesses. Start pushing out scrapyards and junk yards in this area (that Metal Check place off of I-35 and 59th is hideous).

For the regional transit system, everything with a half mile of one of the train stops gets higher density zoning. We don't want to invest the money in this thing only to see some jackass put in a trailer park or a self storage place nearby. Everything within a quarter mile gets much higher density zoning, effectively the same requirements as downtown. This will create pockets of high density throughout the city.

Then we just wait for like 30 years. Our city is at the extreme end of suburban sprawl. We have basically the lowest cost of housing in the entire country. While there are some positive aspects of that (poor people can afford to own homes here), it also depresses our economy and makes the city look trashy. Oklahoma City isn't going to turn into Manhattan or San Francisco overnight. But we do need to reverse course from the direction we are heading. We could build up our density for a century and still not have the same problems that other cities have. We are simply that spread out right now. Remember, Portland has about the same population as OKC proper, and is less than a quarter of our square miles.

[Zorba]

According to your post, that's not a choice here - "Not easy is hard."

I guess from now on when I see someone say we shouldn't make something easy, I should interpret that as "we should make it indifferent!" Considering one of the definitions of "easy" is "Not difficult" and the synonyms are "Difficult" and "hard" and I don't see anything like "medium" in there, I don't think my interpretation is unreasonable to his statement.

While we have the dictionary open, lets look up the word "not" - "a logical operator that produces a statement that is the inverse of an input statement" inverse means opposite, or a synonym, so therefore NOT Easy is HARD by definition.

I guess we can bicker about the English language forever, but at the end of the day he was specifically saying cities should make it harder on commuters than it has to be or than it could be.

[Zorba]

If I were going to do an OKC area master plan, it would be something like this:

Downtown and adjacent areas (maybe go from Penn over to Lincoln, the river up to 23rd) would have the highest density requirements. All commercial developments must by at least 3 stories, no EIFS, everything built out to the street. New residential would be 2+ story townhomes, unless it's in Mesta Park or another existing historic neighborhood. Certain "prestige" places (like next to the new Scissortail Park) would have higher development requirements. Maybe 10+ stories for those.

The "inner loop" of I-44 to I-35 and I-240 up to I-44, would require higher density along major roads, and have to follow higher quality construction rules. In other words, no new sheet metal buildings, limited EIFS, and street-facing storefronts. Parking would be behind the buildings. Obviously existing developments are still okay, we aren't going to make people tear down an existing structure, but all new ones would have to comply. Also step up enforcement of code violations for particularly unsightly businesses. Start pushing out scrapyards and junk yards in this area (that Metal Check place off of I-35 and 59th is hideous).

For the regional transit system, everything with a half mile of one of the train stops gets higher density zoning. We don't want to invest the money in this thing only to see some jackass put in a trailer park or a self storage place nearby. Everything within a quarter mile gets much higher density zoning, effectively the same requirements as downtown. This will create pockets of high density throughout the city.

Then we just wait for like 30 years. Our city is at the extreme end of suburban sprawl. We have basically the lowest cost of housing in the entire country. While there are some positive aspects of that (poor people can afford to own homes here), it also depresses our economy and makes the city look trashy. Oklahoma City isn't going to turn into Manhattan or San Francisco overnight. But we do need to reverse course from the direction we are heading. We could build up our density for a century and still not have the same problems that other cities have. We are simply that spread out right now. Remember, Portland has about the same population as OKC proper, and is less than a quarter of our square miles.

This all sounds pretty reasonable to me, except I don't know how affordable housing makes us look trashy. I've seen plenty of trash homes in high cost areas, that are built to much lower standards that what you'd find in OKC.

I know this is a chicken and egg thing, but the OKC school district is a huge hindrance to density in the core. It is a poorly rated school district in one of the lowest rated states, and it is surrounded by pretty good districts. Even for people with money, there is only one secular private school (at least that I know of) and it is on 122nd, the other big name private schools aren't exactly convenient to downtown either.