SandRidge Center & Commons

[rondvu]

WOW, I want to go there on vacation.

[circuitboard]

That is a pretty skyline. Not overly done or gaudy looking.

[Rover]

You are correct. Vancouver metropolitan area is 2.1 million. Calgary is 1.1 million. Both are great urban areas, though Vancouver is much more of a lifestyle city with great nightime life in the core city. Calgary is more of a business downtown with mid and high-rise condos on the edge of downtown. Vancouver has the benefit of a great waterfront area. I do disagree that the geography hems them in as they have plenty of expansion area to the south and east of downtown and public transport to get people out there.

Someone stated they would like to go on vacation to Calgary...it isn't even close to Vancouver as a destination city.

Back to the subject...both do a better job of zoning, taxing, and assisting for growth in the urban core. They all realize that the healthier the core, the healthier the whole city. They work hard to make the core more livable. Than includes getting jobs downtown vs. in the burbs.

[mheaton76]

I hope these examples are taken into account. Canadian cities are a great model to look toward. Toronto also does a wonderful job of blending the old, in with the new. It is one of my favorite spots to visit, and is a wonderfully enjoyable urban environment.

[Pete]

I also want OKC to be much more dense but realistically you can't compare American cities to those in other countries.

The U.S. was developed much differently because of the tremendous power and influence of big oil and the auto makers. They thwarted the streetcar systems, lobbied for the massive interstate system, fought against foreign competition, etc.

Cities in Canada and Australia are way denser because they never had those influences. They are in fact much more sparsely populated countries but the cities are very dense with fantastic public transit.

Anyway, there are things we can take away from many cities, but to take the proper incremental steps I think it makes more sense to see what other American cities have done in this regard.

[Kerry]

Back to the subject...both do a better job of zoning, taxing, and assisting for growth in the urban core. They all realize that the healthier the core, the healthier the whole city. They work hard to make the core more livable. Than includes getting jobs downtown vs. in the burbs.

Do you have any examples of this? I have been a proponent of offering tax breaks and freezing property taxes for up to 20 years if developers build up. The higher they build the bigger the tax break or the length of time the property tax is frozen.

[mheaton76]

Anyway, there are things we can take away from many cities, but to take the proper incremental steps I think it makes more sense to see what other American cities have done in this regard.

I agree...BUT I also think it helps to think big. In Canada, we can see examples of cities based on the same basic grid, and framework as ours, but because of policy and zoning decisions, have done wonders for their urban fabric. Besides, cities in the US that are getting it right in terms of their urban development are so different than OKC (Chicago comes to mind as one I see referred to frequently) - I think it makes no difference where we pluck the ideas from.

[Rover]

Another thing they do is expedite the approvals for core city developments. Permits, licenses, inspections, etc. They help fast-track the whole process, much like the city did for Devon.

One other thing is, people are willing to pay for the lifestyle. Here, people focus on how cheaply they can rent. That's not to say they don't have adequate supply of lower priced housing, but it is outside the main lifestyle area. People are willing to spend more of their income on housing. Wealthier tennants are not resented like they are here. If you want a growing healthy downtown, get the people with the means to make it so your core residents.

[HOT ROD]

You are correct. Vancouver metropolitan area is 2.1 million. Calgary is 1.1 million. Both are great urban areas, though Vancouver is much more of a lifestyle city with great nightime life in the core city. Calgary is more of a business downtown with mid and high-rise condos on the edge of downtown. Vancouver has the benefit of a great waterfront area. I do disagree that the geography hems them in as they have plenty of expansion area to the south and east of downtown and public transport to get people out there.

Someone stated they would like to go on vacation to Calgary...it isn't even close to Vancouver as a destination city.

Back to the subject...both do a better job of zoning, taxing, and assisting for growth in the urban core. They all realize that the healthier the core, the healthier the whole city. They work hard to make the core more livable. Than includes getting jobs downtown vs. in the burbs.

keep in mind, the 2.1M figure for metro Vancouver was from 2001. You should also keep in mind that Canada defines metro areas different than the US. metro Vancouver only covers a somewhat limited portion of the 'Vancouver Lower Mainland' and 'Se Vancouver Island'; which if where America would be all defined as metro Vancouver.

There are commute/shopping/governance patterns from Victoria and Nanaimo (on the Island) to Vancouver and from far East in Chiliwak/Hope and Abbotsford to Vancouver (Fraser Valley) yet those areas are separate Canadian Census Statistical Area's (despite being less than 30KM from downtown Vancouver and quite urban/suburbanized all the way). In the US, the entire lower mainland/se island would be called the Vancouver CSA with a pop over 3.5M. Downtown Vancouver alone has hundreds of thousands of residents and a financial district and huge convention centre to boot.

You should also know, that Austin planners visited Vancouver (as did Atlanta and San Diego, and of course - Seattle and many other cities) and all of those cities' development is modeled after Vancouver. I don't see why OKC can't join that crowd of Vancouver followers.

Vancouver is a very impressive city that IS limited to upward development by mountains and ocean, this is especially true for the downtown peninsula where most of the skyscrapers are. Vancouver city also has a 2nd downtown area in the broadway corridor that we would call it's midtown, and also an uptown area on the upper reaches of Granville Street. I expect TOD development to be even greater now that the new subway down Cambie street is complete.

If you look at the suburban development, it's not much different than America - once you leave the inner suburb 'ring' surrounding the Vancouver; The inner ring: West Vancouver, North Vancouver, Coquitlam, Burnaby, New West, and Richmond is quite impressive and would be central cities in the US on their own rights, each having their own highrise cores (and quite impressive). The outer suburb and exurb bands are just like MWC, Norman, and Edmond. Surrey looks just like NW/SW Oklahoma City, outside of their rapidly developing new downtown core. Coincidentally, Surrey is approximately the same population of OKC city and has the largest land area of the metro Vancouver cities/suburbs.

[Kerry]

How much of Canada's highrise development is a result of the weather? I saw where Calgary gets snow 8 months out of the year and for 6 months the averge temp is below freezing.

[Rover]

Actually, the residents of Vancouver are outdoors a lot. They ski in the winter (winter olympic sites 100 miles and less north), golf a lot (great courses in the area - like Furry creek), bicycle a lot (bicycling clubs very active) and walk a lot in the downtown and around the harbour areas. I actually think that in many ways they get out and use their outdoors more than we do here in OKC. Lots of festivals. Here, we get to our large homes in the suburbs and spend our outdoors in the back yards where no one can see us.

[Kerry]

Rover - I can understand that happening in Vancouver and I probably should have excluded them in my question. Vancouver has the moderting effect of the ocean but many of the cities in Canada don't and all of their cities have dense downtowns. I think the cold temps for a large part of the year is a large factor in why so many want to live in small area. Now that might facilitate the items mentioned earlier like speed-up the development process with the city.

[1krr]

It's good to see some effort to revitalize OKC's downtown area. This city has been undersold for a very long time I think. I will say I'm not holding my breath for this project however. Sandridge is drowning in debt, has very little cash, and is a potential KMG/Anadarko waiting to happen. Would hate to see things just getting started when Ward decides he's sunk enough of his personal fortune and cashes out leaving the city holding the bag not unlike KMG did with the buildings surrounding the tower and the Kerr Park.

[Rover]

I think the spread we see here has more to do with cheap suburban lots, little to no development restrictions, a "disposable" building mentality, and years of no re-investment in downtown more than the climate. Finally, Larry Nichols and Devon have stepped up and dare to be a patron of downtown. And even though this thread started as a critique of Sandridge, at least they are making a committment and placing their money on the table. Most cities need strong corporate leadership who will take ownership positions and develop strategic areas of the city. Look what guys like Trammel Crowe did for Dallas. And, the Maps vote confirms the general (though not all) population agrees that downtown has to be a point of continued empahsis for this city to grow.

Perhaps the hope for Sandridge will be that they are so successful that a few years from now they will add buildings to their plaza area for their employees to live in or to house more employees than their current structure will allow. They conceivably can create their own in-fill when it makes sense. Right now to hold unreparable buildings in a city core about to have to absorb 900M sq ft of space might be a bit much to ask of anyone.

[CaptDave]

CaptDave, do you know the name of it? I'd like to see more photos and info on that. Looks pretty innovative.

I see some others have answered your question Steve - sorry I didnt see it sooner. They look pretty nice. They are adjacent to several nice restaurants and within walking distance of 4th Street Live (entertainment district) and the river.

[Spartan]

Did someone say Calgary?

I also want OKC to be much more dense but realistically you can't compare American cities to those in other countries.

The U.S. was developed much differently because of the tremendous power and influence of big oil and the auto makers. They thwarted the streetcar systems, lobbied for the massive interstate system, fought against foreign competition, etc.

Do you realize that Calgary is the Oil Capital of the North? Alberta, as a whole, is also politically foreign to the rest of Canada, where even if it were in the U.S., it would be conservative by our standards. The simple fact is that more people in Calgary actually care about their city. That's why Mercer ranked us the world's cleanest city, why we're ranked as one of the most livable cities in the world, and so on.

There's a boundary line that goes around the city that reigns in the suburban sprawl, and a lot of the Rocky Mountain foothills outside of town are environmentally protected. Beautiful landscapes. The inner city also enjoys absolutely free LRT access. The LRT only has fares once you leave the downtown core area. And another thing in Calgary's favor is the simple fact that DT Calgary has reached critical mass..DT OKC hasn't even come close.

[HOT ROD]

so?

[Kerry]

There's a boundary line that goes around the city that reigns in the suburban sprawl, and a lot of the Rocky Mountain foothills outside of town are environmentally protected. Beautiful landscapes. The inner city also enjoys absolutely free LRT access. The LRT only has fares once you leave the downtown core area.

I have been advocating the free transit for a long time. As for the ring around the city, I come and go on this issue. I don't like someone being told what they can or can't do on their land but I think the city would be well served to rein in the city limits a few hundred sq miles and just not offer services outside the city limit. If someone wants to build outside the city limits in an unincorporated area let them have a well and septic tank and go to the county for fire and police. We should stop building infrastrucutre into rural areas when there isplant of available urban land to use - especially during tough economic times.

[Spartan]

Right. Anyone can build a home outside Calgary or even a neighborhood, you can do whatever you want outside the boundary--but it's just that, the city won't provide infrastructure. So a lot of the development that goes on outside the ring is the upper echelon of real estate, and people who can afford to put in their own infrastructure and sprawl out with a McMansion on several acres.

Here is one such example of an area just NW of the newly extended boundary around the Stoney Trail.
[url=http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&source=hp&q=Calgary,+AB&ie=UTF8&hq=&hne ar=Calgary,+Division+No.+6,+Alberta,+Canada&gl=us& ei=FrlxS6i_GoPR8QbouLnDCw&ved=0CAkQ8gEwAA&ll=51.16 9657,-114.263992&spn=0.052956,0.154324&z=13]Calgary, AB - Google Maps[/url

Ultimately it really IS the City of OKC that is buckling to sprawl interests and helping the sprawl just as much as anyone.
____________

Back to the topic at hand, when does it go before the Downtown Design Review Committee?

[Kerry]

Thanks for the confirmation Spartan and I agree, the City of Oklahoma City is its own worst enemy when it comes to sprawl and the lack of new buildings downtown. If they would rein in the city limits and stop providing infrastrucutre to the far reaches of the fringe they would be a lot better off.

If they put me in charge for a day I would de-annex all land that is not currently urbanized. If people want to still live there fine, but the OKC taxpayers aren't going to build a four lane road to your development. Form your own town or go ask the county.

Is there anyway a citizens initiative could do this or does it take an act of the city council?

[mugofbeer]

Is there anyway a citizens initiative could do this or does it take an act of the city council?

I would be interested, too. More sprawl = more tax revenue for the city. But the mindset needs to change to one of boosting the property values IN the already-developed areas by encouraging redevelopment. I don't know how you do that.

[Kerry]

More sprawl = more tax revenue for the city. But the mindset needs to change to one of boosting the property values IN the already-developed areas by encouraging redevelopment. I don't know how you do that.

That would be true if all the land in OKC was urbanized but when someone builds a subdivision 1 mile down a dirt road and the city has to spend a few million to pave roads out to it it plus other infrastructure it takes a long time to recoup those costs. I would rather they work to increase property values within the current urbanized area as well.

[Spartan]

but the OKC taxpayers aren't going to build a four lane road to your development.

*cough* Quail Springs *cough*

[Kerry]

*cough* Quail Springs *cough*

Exactly. Look at all of those office building out there in the +100,000 sq range. If the city refused to put in infrastrucutre that far out all of that development would have occured in town using existing infrstructure. Think of all the tax dollars that would have saved.

[metro]

So when does this go before Downtown Design Review or whomever? Steve, we need this event promoted to the public so we can show up and protest.