Map of Potential Infill Sites in Central OKC

[shane453]

I came across a thread at SkyscraperCity (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=12557910) where one of the members had created images comparing some North American cities by taking a Google Earth shot from 9000 ft and filling in areas of surface parking lots to show how surface parking dominates business districts. This got me wondering how Oklahoma City's shot would look.

I knew that the core of our CBD has no surface parking lots, but beyond that there are a lot of them. As I started drawing them out, I noticed that raw land (where structures have probably been demolished in the past) is extremely plentiful in central OKC. So I have made maps showing most of the sites in central OKC where a developer could build WITHOUT TEARING DOWN A SINGLE BUILDING.

Here is the map with parking and greenfields shown:



Parking only:



And greenfields only (SoSa, the area South of the Medical District (SoMed?), and the area between the Medical District and DT are amazing):





And we thought the frontier days were over. We have work to do!

[Kerry]

Shane453 - thank you for taking the time to do this.

[circuitboard]

This is awesome! Thanks for the work on this!

[Spartan]

Looks like a very Merry Christmas downtown.

[Kerry]

@Shane453 - can you give the link to the skyscraper page again? The one above doesn't work.

[jmarkross]

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showth...690618&page=31

[bombermwc]

I must be the minority here, but I don't feel like we need to populate every square foot with concrete in one shape or another. I actually like seeing areas of green around without a building there....it reminds me that "oh yeah, there is nature her". It's actually a very good thing to have greenspace in an urban area folks. Not only does it help have somewhere for some of the rain to go to help refill aquifers (if it's all concrete it just goes into the over flowing storm sewer to dump to the rivier and be fed downstream out of our auqifer), and it also helps to clear the air. The more conrete we have, the fewer air scrubbers we have. I look at a google map of somehwere like LA and get depressed at all the conrete and lack of green. And their bad air is an example of how that "paid off" for them. I'd rather take a stance like Portland any day.

[Architect2010]

Ummm, those lots were once filled with development. I'm sure the city wasn't so unhealthy and had horrible flooding problems because there were continuous plots of development. That is an excessive amount of open land in the core of the city and it's not a good thing.

[Kerry]

I must be the minority here, but I don't feel like we need to populate every square foot with concrete in one shape or another. I actually like seeing areas of green around without a building there....it reminds me that "oh yeah, there is nature her". It's actually a very good thing to have greenspace in an urban area folks. Not only does it help have somewhere for some of the rain to go to help refill aquifers (if it's all concrete it just goes into the over flowing storm sewer to dump to the rivier and be fed downstream out of our auqifer), and it also helps to clear the air. The more conrete we have, the fewer air scrubbers we have. I look at a google map of somehwere like LA and get depressed at all the conrete and lack of green. And their bad air is an example of how that "paid off" for them. I'd rather take a stance like Portland any day.

There is a place for people like you. It is called the suburbs. All that smog in LA is caused by people driving hours everyday just to get to work and back. If LA had high-rise density like NYC, Vancouver, Hong Kong and Singapore, or low-rise density like London and Paris, they wouldn't have a smog problem. In fact, LA is the poster child for bad urban sprawl. Intersting that you cited them as a "what not do" example.

[metro]

Those renderings are telling, someone needs to smack the city council with them on how bad the problem really is.

[Kerry]

As bad as those pictures are, they get even worse if you had some way to quantify the quality of the structures on the non-vacant land. We aren't Detroit bad, but we are in pretty bad shape. There is a long long long way to go just to get OKC back to the density of 1940. Just think, OKC went from nothing to super dense in 40 years. Can we do it again?

[Pete]

Although things are better now, the amount of un- or under-developed property around downtown and just beyond always smacks me in the face when I come for a visit.

As illustrated, there are still huge gaps everywhere, even in the 'better' areas of Midtown and northward.


We've got a long way to go but at least we are on the right track.

What would help most is to turn OCURA into a pro-active entity and actually fill it with people that have a passion for and knowledge of urban development.

[okclee]

Shane, thank you for putting in more work in one weekend than OCURA has done in a year.

Time to send my monthly email to the city in reference to OCURA, and ask how the Urban Renewal website is coming along?

OCURA must become more accountable and the leader for urban renewal and growth. Like Pete said OCURA must be "pro-active"!

Again take a look at the urban renewal websites of cities Denver and Portland.
http://www.renewdenver.org/
http://www.pdc.us/

[Rover]

Great work!

This illustrates why it is so hard to convince developers to build UP instead of building suburban style. Until land is scarce and therefore valuable, we will have this problem. However, some creative incentives, restrictions, taxations, permitting, etc. could attack this.

I happen to think a surtax on dilapidated properties, unkempt properties, vacant properties, etc. should be imposed so that it gets expensive to just hold onto properties without doing something to improve them and the city around them. Right now there is no disincentive. If it becomes progressively expensive to own, the owners would be forced to develop or sell. On the flip side, expedited permitting, tax incentives for the right kind of construction, etc. can encourage quicker development.

[circuitboard]

Great work!


I happen to think a surtax on dilapidated properties, unkempt properties, vacant properties, etc. should be imposed so that it gets expensive to just hold onto properties without doing something to improve them and the city around them. Right now there is no disincentive. If it becomes progressively expensive to own, the owners would be forced to develop or sell. On the flip side, expedited permitting, tax incentives for the right kind of construction, etc. can encourage quicker development.

I like this!

[Kerry]

You're correct Rover, there needs to be a push and a pull. Your point about the disincentive to build is spot on also. This is why I said I would rather see mediocre development take place if for no other reason than to use up all the available ground space. Once that is gone then everything has to go vertical. Step one is getting rid of the empty lots and surface parking. This can be done by making it to expensive to let it sit vacant but by also simplifying the process to build with incentives for going vertical.

I would be in favor of freezing property taxes at the current level for 5 years for every 5 floors of vertical development for residential projects. For example, there is a lot now that pays $7,500 per year in property taxes. If they build a 10 story residential mid-rise they would pay the same $7,500 per year for 10 years. After that it would go up. Meanwhile, the value of surrounding properties would go up as normal over the 10 years. People would have to develop or get out of the way.

[Rover]

I would be in favor of freezing property taxes at the current level for 5 years for every 5 floors of vertical development for residential projects. For example, there is a lot now that pays $7,500 per year in property taxes. If they build a 10 story residential mid-rise they would pay the same $7,500 per year for 10 years. After that it would go up. Meanwhile, the value of surrounding properties would go up as normal over the 10 years. People would have to develop or get out of the way.

How about property tax being on the land only and a separate tax for the improvements that gives them certain credits for construction costs, etc., helping them justify increased investment. The land tax could be established and raised each year without material improvements and then when construction starts be reduced to the original low level. Improvement taxes don't start until the building is permitted for occupancy or use. Things like surface parking would be considered same as undeveloped with rates reduced on parking garages based on investment made (multiple story).

Maybe be creative on prop tax for condos...for instance, make sure all within the development area are less than same size suburban property taxes for similar. Reduced rates for every additional floor....10th floor rates are cheaper than 3rd floor. Give incentives for condo owners or builidng owners to build UP.

Maybe a suburban development tax can be added for new developments and those taxes go primarily to subsidize inner city development.

Then, lightning fast track construction permitting, inspections, etc. so that developers can reduce their construction financing costs and risk of market changes.

[Kerry]

You might be able to do that Rover. My only concern is that if the plan gets too complicated, it will scare people away, or discourage them from even trying to figure it out.

[Midtowner]

Rover, the supervision of such a system would be too objective and obviously wide open for fraud and abuse.

Honoring the KISS policy, the smart play is just to eliminate property tax exemptions for developers. Make sitting on land cost money. That's a win-win for the city--it motivates development to increase the value of the property and the tax base, while adding a new and significant revenue stream.

[Kerry]

Midtowner - do you have an example of property tax exemptions for developers? People should not get an exemption for sitting on vacanct property. If they are a 'developer' they need to develop. Otherwise they are land speculators and need to pay up. Unfortunately, OCURA is the worst land speculator disguised as a 'renewal' authority. They hold property for decades and OKC doesn't get a penny in property taxes.

[Rover]

Rover, the supervision of such a system would be too objective and obviously wide open for fraud and abuse.

Honoring the KISS policy, the smart play is just to eliminate property tax exemptions for developers. Make sitting on land cost money. That's a win-win for the city--it motivates development to increase the value of the property and the tax base, while adding a new and significant revenue stream.

I agree wholeheatedly. But I think the issue is in clearly delineating the program, helping people understand it, more than the complexity of it. It has to be done such that favorites are not played...that the rules are the rules for everyone.

The city has in many ways suffered from not having a real development plan with teeth. People and companies do what they are $$$ motivated to do. Something has to be actively done to change the $$ dynamics or it will take a century to work off the undeveloped inventory of land. HOPING will not do it.

[shane453]

Couldn't find edit button on original post, but here is the corrected link: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1255791

Enjoying the discussion on disincentives/incentives to help encourage development of underutilized land. I'll dig around to see if I can find examples from other cities. I know I've heard of basing taxes on the value of the property rather than the structure, so that vacant core properties might be taxed as much as nice homes in the suburbs based on the value of the land. There may even be some merit to something as simple as a marketing campaign generating awareness to developers about these abundant opportunities for infill. Our best hope in OKC is for some of our big suburban developers to decide to try their hand at a few urban developments, so making them aware of the infill opportunities would be a good step.

This map could also be used to show density of vacant space, which could help in the streetcar planning. Walker, 4th St, and Robinson all look like they would benefit greatly from having a streetcar line nearby. Walker especially, because it has a lot of vacant space but also a lot of existing nodes nearby. (Sycamore/Legacy/Civic Center, Plaza Court/St Anthony)

Bomber, your point is correct that not every inch should be filled with concrete and buildings- there is a place for open space in the urban environment, but it is better for it to be in the form of a park or other public space rather than a parking lot (which is not a welcoming environment) or private vacant lot. However, I think a vacant lot is preferable to a surface parking lot because you have places like the triangle between 4th and Gaylord that become unofficial gathering spaces.

Also for comparison's sake, here's one I made of Tulsa:



And here are a few of the others from the SkyscraperCity thread.

Houston



Seattle



Vancouver (Really well known for its desirability for residential construction)

[Spartan]

They were a little generous with the Houston map. In addition a LOT of the red lots have been filled, particularly around the Discovery Green...

[blangtang]

how hard would it be to put a color on the OCURA properties?

[HOT ROD]

Great work!

This illustrates why it is so hard to convince developers to build UP instead of building suburban style. Until land is scarce and therefore valuable, we will have this problem. However, some creative incentives, restrictions, taxations, permitting, etc. could attack this.

I happen to think a surtax on dilapidated properties, unkempt properties, vacant properties, etc. should be imposed so that it gets expensive to just hold onto properties without doing something to improve them and the city around them. Right now there is no disincentive. If it becomes progressively expensive to own, the owners would be forced to develop or sell. On the flip side, expedited permitting, tax incentives for the right kind of construction, etc. can encourage quicker development.

Amen Rover - very well stated!!!

Midtowner, Kerry, Pete - this is great discussion. And definitely thanks to Shane for initiating.

This is very good, and progressive discussion.