EastPoint

[bombermwc]

So there's a structure now, but an issue with getting tenants in the space and keeping them then?

[HOT ROD]

this sort of thing ALWAYS happens in the Eastside, because there never is anyone leading the efforts to improve that part of the city nor a master plan/vision. You always have competing interests (See Freedom Center/Luper Center for example). Then you have a liberal element blaming everything on the city or people of non-color (or preventing people of non-color from being involved), or misappropriating funds and voila!

Incompetence and self interests at its best, short term money grab at its worst. Time for this crap to stop, but oh well, at least the area is better than it was in the 1990s I suppose.

[Rover]

this sort of thing ALWAYS happens in the Eastside, because there never is anyone leading the efforts to improve that part of the city nor a master plan/vision. You always have competing interests (See Freedom Center/Luper Center for example). Then you have a liberal element blaming everything on the city or people of non-color (or preventing people of non-color from being involved), or misappropriating funds and voila!

Incompetence and self interests at its best, short term money grab at its worst. Time for this crap to stop, but oh well, at least the area is better than it was in the 1990s I suppose.

First, it isn’t a “liberal” issue. There are baked in biases in getting capital, getting loans, insurance costs, etc. and it hinders entrepreneurship in poorer areas already underserved while discouraging investment. This issue in the whole of the neighborhood isn’t the simplistic “everyone over there is incompetent and evil” Hannity type spin you threw out there. Much deeper and more endemic.

[bombermwc]

I agree with Rover that the bias that has been present for decades has created the situation we're in. I don't think that's a liberal statement at all. That's not uncommon across the country. Redlining, for example. Access to capital for anything. Or at least fair term capital at that. It perpetuates a circle that is extremely difficult to get out of without extra support. The DIS-investment we've seen, doesn't help anyone. So I would ask, why should it take all of this effort just to get something started? I mean all this just to get someone to build a grocery store was insane. Failed promise after failed promise. And what they ended up saying they would create was much more than a grocery store. That's great, but it complicates things to much. And Homeland has an AWFUL record for stores. They build and close their tiny stores all over town because they can't manage things unless its in an affluent area and even middle income areas seem to be an issue for them. I was not happy to see them say a Homeland was going in there because i knew it wouldn't last.

What OKC needs is an investment group focused on areas like this with experience in what works, what doesn't work. There is absolutely a way to make all of this profitable, but it's a long-term ROI and not a fast-money venture. FAR too many developers have the short-term build/sale model on their mind and aren't investing in the community like they used to. They need to be a part of the community here and have a commitment. It's far too rare that we see that.

[OkieBerto]

The article seems only to mention those who had to shut down. Scrambl'd, Eastside Pizza House, Monarch Properties, Market at Eastpoint, Restore OKC, and others are seeing success. It will always be difficult for a location to have consistent success. Belle Books Boutique & More owner just recently finished a Business incubator where they helped small business owners gain market research and better plan for their new businesses. They also received a grant and made pitches to potential investors. Sometimes, you have to be brave enough to fail to find success.

[mugofbeer]

Businesses will always be hesitant to invest in a previously impoverished, high crime area until the issue of the evil of "gentrification" can be overcome.

[PhiAlpha]

Businesses will always be hesitant to invest in a previously impoverished, high crime area until the issue of the evil of "gentrification" can be overcome.

Yeah the idea gentrifying an area without gentrifying it (which seems like the sentiment behind these developments) is a noble cause but it’s tough to run a profitable business when there aren’t enough people in the area with enough disposable income to support those businesses. It’s the reason grocery stores have struggled on the northeast side as well (though it does seem like the new homeland is doing alright). It’s just tough problem without one easy solution but props to the people who are putting a ton of effort into trying to make it work.

[bombermwc]

IM not trying to be a downer, but dont count on Homeland. They seem to struggle to keep stores open. Their small store model has always had too high of prices to compete with the Crests and Walmarts out there, so they eventually shudder. There are countless former Homeland stores in the metro that are no more. Although, funny enough, some of them have turned into other grocery stores and been fine, like Crest. It's just a bad management model at Homeland.

[PhiAlpha]

IM not trying to be a downer, but dont count on Homeland. They seem to struggle to keep stores open. Their small store model has always had too high of prices to compete with the Crests and Walmarts out there, so they eventually shudder. There are countless former Homeland stores in the metro that are no more. Although, funny enough, some of them have turned into other grocery stores and been fine, like Crest. It's just a bad management model at Homeland.

They’ve done a lot better with new management and their new store designs.

[Rover]

Yeah the idea gentrifying an area without gentrifying it (which seems like the sentiment behind these developments) is a noble cause but it’s tough to run a profitable business when there aren’t enough people in the area with enough disposable income to support those businesses. It’s the reason grocery stores have struggled on the northeast side as well (though it does seem like the new homeland is doing alright). It’s just tough problem without one easy solution but props to the people who are putting a ton of effort into trying to make it work.

What are you talking about? Investors love gentrification. It’s the social aspect of gentrification that is the problem. But from a pure investment they are rewarded when more wealth and redevelopment follows them. Investing in an area with new expensive developments without gentrification is the issue. I think that may be what you meant.

[PhiAlpha]

What are you talking about? Investors love gentrification. It’s the social aspect of gentrification that is the problem. But from a pure investment they are rewarded when more wealth and redevelopment follows them. Investing in an area with new expensive developments without gentrification is the issue. I think that may be what you meant.

I mean that’s almost verbatim what I said. Investment in new, expensive development in rundown areas IS gentrification and their goal was to add those developments for the residents currently there without encouraging further gentrification that would push those residents out. They are trying to gentrify the neighborhood without gentrifying it. It sounds nice in theory but areas that haven’t been gentrified usually lack the collective disposable income to support the businesses in expensive developments like this. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

From the article:
“EastPoint on NE 23 drew accolades nationwide for the efforts taken to redevelop a commercial stretch along the historically Black corridor while avoiding gentrification by giving tenants a shot at ownership.”

[Rover]

I mean that’s almost verbatim what I said. Investment in new, expensive development in rundown areas IS gentrification and their goal was to add those developments for the residents currently there without encouraging further gentrification that would push those residents out. They are trying to gentrify the neighborhood without gentrifying it. It sounds nice in theory but areas that haven’t been gentrified usually lack the collective disposable income to support the businesses in expensive developments like this. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

From the article:
“EastPoint on NE 23 drew accolades nationwide for the efforts taken to redevelop a commercial stretch along the historically Black corridor while avoiding gentrification by giving tenants a shot at ownership.”

Not to nit pick, but I think what you are asking for is INVESTMENT without gentrification. You can have investments in businesses and even property without the widespread effects of the whole process of gentrification. But investment by way of easing of loan requirements, or of outright bias, that allows current businesses to buy inventory competitively, upgrade their properties to meet basic standards, hire appropriate personnel, control their specifically high cost of insurance, etc., and improving basic infrastructure like sidewalks, streets, internet access, etc. can all enable organic growth without kicking off aggressive rounds of gentrification.

[warreng88]

Back when Pivot did this and won the ULI award, Dodson was told that he needed to keep doing this without the gentrification aspect of it. I know they are building another building to the east of it and I guess the hotel is on hold at this point so this might be it for the foreseeable future. Hopefully other developers will come in and do something similar to keep the organic growth on NE 23rd moving forward.

[HOT ROD]

Rover you missed my point, which was not to pull a Hannity moment. So I'll rephrase.

The reason EastPoint is/has failing/failed is because 1) there was/is a lack of leadership, 2) lack of vision/master plan, and 3) interested parties (I called them 'liberal') who don't care about the overall goal of improving the city/Eastside, only to help themselves usually at the expense of others. You're speaking of point 1 and 2, where the traditionally Black community had hardships due to bias but that could also be due to there not being a plan or a proven/interested leader.

Im not talking civil rights, I'm talking development of the Black community. Even deep deuce was not a well developed city, even though it was long the urban black center of OKC and even more successful than the Eastside has ever been.

Now I'll break it down for you on point 3 (the liberal interests), these same people will play the race card as soon as they can in order to get that pay-off to keep quiet and the status quo. Who is at fault here?

WHAT happened with the original development at 23rd and MLK, or 36th near Kelly, or the Freedom Center/Clara Luper center, On and On. ...
Points 1, 2, and especially 3.

[PhiAlpha]

I’m not asking for anything. They are asking for investment without gentrification. But that is my point. By most definitions, investment by affluent outside sources into poor areas in itself IS gentrification.

Various gentrification definitions:

Merriam-Webster: : a process in which a poor area (as of a city) experiences an influx of middle-class or wealthy people who renovate and rebuild homes and businesses and which often results in an increase in property values and the displacement of earlier, usually poorer residents

wikipedia: Gentrification is the process of changing the character of a neighborhood through the influx of more affluent residents (the "gentry") and investment.^[1][2] There is no agreed-upon definition of gentrification.

[Rover]

I’m not asking for anything. They are asking for investment without gentrification. But that is my point. By most definitions, investment by affluent outside sources into poor areas in itself IS gentrification.

Various gentrification definitions:

Merriam-Webster: [FONT="]: [/FONT][FONT="]a process in which a poor area (as of a city) experiences an influx of middle-class or wealthy people who renovate and rebuild homes and businesses and which often results in an increase in property values and the displacement of earlier, usually poorer residents

wikipedia: [/FONT]Gentrification is the process of changing the character of a neighborhood through the influx of more affluent residents (the "gentry") and investment.^[1][2] There is no agreed-upon definition of gentrification.

Investment itself isn’t gentrification. Strategic capital into the existing economy to grow the businesses and opportunities of the existing population can be achieved. Raise the fortunes of everyone already there. Provide well paying jobs and business opportunities that enable the current population to stay in their homes and make their own improvements can and should be the goal. Wholesale takeover by outside populations shouldn’t be the goal. But investment isn’t gentrification.

[PhiAlpha]

Investment itself isn’t gentrification. Strategic capital into the existing economy to grow the businesses and opportunities of the existing population can be achieved. Raise the fortunes of everyone already there. Provide well paying jobs and business opportunities that enable the current population to stay in their homes and make their own improvements can and should be the goal. Wholesale takeover by outside populations shouldn’t be the goal. But investment isn’t gentrification.

At this point you are arguing just to argue. I’m out.

[Rover]

At this point you are arguing just to argue. I’m out.

Not arguing, but pointing out that all investment is not gentrification. It isn’t binary.

[bombermwc]

I think I get what you're trying to say, and I THINK i agree...lol.

If you want to look at how gentrification changes an area, just look at 23rd west of 235. The commercial development was met with a widespread residential effort over about a 30 year period. When the residential aspect kicks in, that's when the gentrification occurs. Homes are flipped, or rentals are remodeled, and those that previously could afford to live in the area area slowly pushed out by higher prices/property taxes. In general, communities of color are displaced.

Looking east of 235, we're so far away from having to worry about that. What we haven't been able to do yet, is have a long-term viable commercial presence that the existing community can keep going. Frankly, without some sort of support, the cycle will just continue. We need someone looking for that long-term local investment, and not the "flip" mentality that most commercial developers have (build it up, sell it). They need to be willing to ask a little less for rent than they could if they were west of 235, and be OK with that. The local businesses need that extra little leg up to be able to be successful given the other barriers mentioned above.

What can be done? Well, the city can create investments corridors where, think of Ad Valorem, comes in to play. The city can decide to reduce the taxes that they are charging (and frankly, the state could too but i find that less likely unless they create a whole plan statewide for economically depressed areas). If we can give bog box developments a break, well then we can target breaks at a smaller scale to help too. They will have a longer ROI, but for the city, this means that they have a better chance of helping kick-starting improvement. The same can be used in other parts of the city that are struggling as well.

All of that to say, like is being said above, we're in a cycle right now of failed promises in this area. One failed development/idea after another and another and another. All while the community is the one that suffers for it. And in the back yard of the capital too. So close to people capable of helping, but so far away from that help. We as a city and a state could do better. But we as tax payers also have to be willing to put some tax dollars where our mouths are to help out with a structured support system with lots of oversight. Unfortunately, our state leaders (current and past) do not have a good record with that oversight piece. I would trust the city though. Perhaps we need some MAPS projects to help kick some things off?