Pappadeaux

[BoulderSooner]

From a planning standpoint density generally refers to population density. This doesn’t positively impact that metric, and could potentially be a barrier to more dense development, especially to the north by interrupting the walk appeal from the north to the more dense and walkable city center.

Sure, placing a building on a site that is currently vacant improves the building density…on that lot. However if it is a suburban site plan proximate to more urban building density it actually REDUCES the overall average concentration of urban fabric, at the very least from the standpoint of potential. It’s an opportunity cost.

All of this said, I’m generally not “anti” this particular development. It’s a really good add to the urban core from an amenities standpoint, and I suspect it may be helping to unlock a more concentrated development to the south. So I still feel it may be a net positive. I just wish it was sited a bit differently. And yes, I do understand there are some compelling limiting factors.

thank you for the detailed explanation ..

[bamarsha]

I understand the relative positives. I was responding to the comment that this somehow magically improves density. It very specifically does NOT improve density in this area.

Also, I’m sorry, but you cannot make the case that this isn’t in the core of Oklahoma City. Is it in downtown proper? No, of course not. But the core of Oklahoma City extends beyond the central business district.

I'm pretty sure a thriving restaurant is more dense than land with a few homeless tents on it.

[Jake]

Don't Facebook my OKCTalk.

[Urbanized]

I'm pretty sure a thriving restaurant is more dense than land with a few homeless tents on it.

Perhaps next time you could say “better than crappy makes me happy.” It would be less offensive.