Mayor Mick Cornett Should Adopt Downtown Housing Incentive Program For Developers

[okclee]

I am not familiar with that? What is the program?

I am asking, if the city were to offer a downtown incentive, shouldn't the city offer the same to other areas for development? (using Memorial Road as an example)

[G.Walker]

I am asking, if the city were to offer a downtown incentive, shouldn't the city offer the same to other areas for development? (using Memorial Road as an example)

No, the key is to attract development downtown. If they were to offer it all over the city, then nothing would ever get build downtown, lol.

[Spartan]

You really think a couple of dense residential projects will stop sprawl?

Exactly. Look at Houston, it still has mega sprawl (yes, I know its much bigger than here) going out almost an hour from its core. I dont think you are going to stop sprawl. It will be nice to encourage and offer some other options, but its not going to stop. Families are going to want a brand new home for a good price no matter what and that means homes will continue to sprawl out into the countryside where land is cheap. Some natural barriers would help us out, but we sure dont have any.

I say just give people options. I don't believe we need to eliminate suburbia, we just need to keep it from disabling urban living as a viable option. I believe every step needs to be made to make the urban option truly economically viable, and not just a novelty. I do not believe that decades of suburban market manipulation in OKC will allow for the private market to just fix downtown all on its own, so there will need to be a lot more proactive planning than we have seen since the 40s when that went away. People will balk, call it communist, call it un-American, but it's what is needed to make both downtown and suburbia an option for most people. Simply enact urban growth boundaries and limit sprawl directly and the private market will begin to focus equally on both areas.

[OKCTalker]

I'm amazed at the number of people here talking about government or OKC Chamber offering incentives for CBD Class A office space and housing. The line for handouts forms over there :oints to the left:: If the demand for Class A office space exists, then developers like Fred Hall or Ford Price will risk personal capital and build it. I don't have a problem with sales taxes going into public infrastructure ala MAPS (ballparks, arenas, Civic Center, library, Project 180, etc.), but I'm absolutely dead-set against public funds going to subsidize projects that compete directly with the private sector, when entrepreneurs and capital exist to meet the needs. Besides, have you all forgotten the Class A downtown housing project that we're all about to pay for? It's called the new County Jail - and the price tag on that will be a doozy!

[semisimple]

Plus, I have worked on several downtown development projects in Austin and I can tell you that there is huge vacancy there. Let's see how it plays out as the Austonian comes on the market.

You are right about that--back in September, the four newest condo towers (three of which are high end, including the Austonian) collectively were only about 53% sold: http://www.statesman.com/business/do...rn-924163.html.

It shouldn't be a huge surprise, though, given the time these high-priced condos came on the market, and I know the condo towers that opened a few years ago have fared much better. Most of the downtown apartment towers and midrises seem to be doing well--at least most of them were sold out in my price range earlier this year. The one I moved into (a 250-unit midrise with "entry-level" pricing starting at $1300/mo.) is around 95% occupied according to one of the managers.

[Kerry]

You really think a couple of dense residential projects will stop sprawl?

Uhm, ok.

No, but it gives people an option of opting out of it. After moving from one new suburban subdivision to the next new suburban subdivision I am ready to give the alternative a try.

[Spartan]

I'm amazed at the number of people here talking about government or OKC Chamber offering incentives for CBD Class A office space and housing. The line for handouts forms over there :oints to the left:: If the demand for Class A office space exists, then developers like Fred Hall or Ford Price will risk personal capital and build it. I don't have a problem with sales taxes going into public infrastructure ala MAPS (ballparks, arenas, Civic Center, library, Project 180, etc.), but I'm absolutely dead-set against public funds going to subsidize projects that compete directly with the private sector, when entrepreneurs and capital exist to meet the needs. Besides, have you all forgotten the Class A downtown housing project that we're all about to pay for? It's called the new County Jail - and the price tag on that will be a doozy!

We're not paying for a new county jail because that project is Whetsel b.s. Price is not a developer. Hall is developing Class A stuff. Public funds would be used to leverage office space to recruit companies, this is not an uncommon practice.

I told you someone would balk and call it socialism.....shocking.

[Kerry]

I'm amazed at the number of people here talking about government or OKC Chamber offering incentives for CBD Class A office space and housing. The line for handouts forms over there

But the City already offers incentives to build on the outter fringe. I wish someone could produce a map of OKC using concentrict rings showing how far out from the center the city spends money. I would assume most of the spending takes place on the outter rings away from the center (MAPS taxes withstanding). Each new ring has exponentially more area to cover with roads, police and fire protection, sewar lines, water lines, etc...

[G.Walker]

We're not paying for a new county jail because that project is Whetsel b.s. Price is not a developer. Hall is developing Class A stuff. Public funds would be used to leverage office space to recruit companies, this is not an uncommon practice.

I told you someone would balk and call it socialism.....shocking.

Thank you, somebody finally gets it!

[Kerry]

I am asking, if the city were to offer a downtown incentive, shouldn't the city offer the same to other areas for development? (using Memorial Road as an example)

Memorial Road (and accompanying infrastructure) IS the incentive. Do you think there would be any development along Memorial Road if it was a graded dirt section line road? Nope. But the City pays for a lot of asphalt, pipes, etc and development takes over. I know you are saying to yourself 'but look at all the money the city collected in sales taxes'. Two things, 1) if that development had been directed to where exisiting infrastructre is already in place then the additional sales tax would have been all profit so taxes could have been lowered across the board for everyone, 2) currently the money just gets rolled over to even more expansion so in the long run nothing ever gets better, it just keeps expanding but every new mile of expansion cost more than the previous mile. It is the law of diminishing returns.

[G.Walker]

Could this work:

1. Offer residential developers tax credits, and waiver of property taxes for a given time.
2. Fee Waiver for Developers
3. Build Class A Office Space, and city will lease it out to employer, provide TIF on that development, to help surrounding area.
4. City can set requirement of what type of employer downtown.

[EBAH]

Austin also has extreme and seemingly unsolvable traffic problems. This provides a nice incentive to live in the downtown core and/or near the major employment centers. I believe there was some pent-up demand. But, incentives probably helped some developers move things along more quickly and change some priorities.

I would love to see an additional 25,000 people downtown in the next 10 years. But with the abundance of undeveloped or underdeveloped land, I would like to see incentives extended to the near-core areas as well. We could dramatically boost density in 10-Penn, Capitol Hill, Plaza, and many other areas making this city much more walkable and streetcar-able. There is no reason to continue the infrastructure madness (i.e., Kilpatrick Turnpike, extending Hefner Parkway to the moon, etc). Instead, we should focus on enhancing and optimizing our current revenue base.

I couldn't agree more. I would love to see some form of graduated incentives that doesn't leave the inner city (both south and north) out. There is a real wealth of semi urban property in the inner city, that could be purchased and renovated for less than the cost of many of the luxury condos in high rise or mid rise new construction. I'd love to see mid and high rise buildings built as well. But, part of having a true "urban", walkable city, with decent transit, will be getting our inner city up to par with the growth downtown. The way that our inner city is underserved by a lot of retail and services means that many inner city residents have to still travel many miles to do most shopping and personal business. Downtown is great, and I'd love to see 25,000 people move there too. But, at the current time, with our current economy, it seems silly that the city doesn't do a little more to breath some life in to our numerous, fantastic neighborhoods in the inner loop. Just spend some time in Austin's inner city (former suburbs) or in the middle sections of Houston (i.e. the Montrose) and you can see the tremendous potential of many of these smaller, lower income historic neighborhoods. How about some incentives to redevelop condemned lots in University park in to modern midrise apartments, or even some breaks to any one willing to take one of the dozens of antique strip retail centers on 10th, 13th, 23rd, may, penn, etc etc and gut and clean them up? Just seems we could get a lot of bang for the buck with people in $80K houses than 1 tower of $200K condos....sorry for the unfocused rant.

[G.Walker]

I couldn't agree more. I would love to see some form of graduated incentives that doesn't leave the inner city (both south and north) out. There is a real wealth of semi urban property in the inner city, that could be purchased and renovated for less than the cost of many of the luxury condos in high rise or mid rise new construction. I'd love to see mid and high rise buildings built as well. But, part of having a true "urban", walkable city, with decent transit, will be getting our inner city up to par with the growth downtown. The way that our inner city is underserved by a lot of retail and services means that many inner city residents have to still travel many miles to do most shopping and personal business. Downtown is great, and I'd love to see 25,000 people move there too. But, at the current time, with our current economy, it seems silly that the city doesn't do a little more to breath some life in to our numerous, fantastic neighborhoods in the inner loop. Just spend some time in Austin's inner city (former suburbs) or in the middle sections of Houston (i.e. the Montrose) and you can see the tremendous potential of many of these smaller, lower income historic neighborhoods. How about some incentives to redevelop condemned lots in University park in to modern midrise apartments, or even some breaks to any one willing to take one of the dozens of antique strip retail centers on 10th, 13th, 23rd, may, penn, etc etc and gut and clean them up? Just seems we could get a lot of bang for the buck with people in $80K houses than 1 tower of $200K condos....sorry for the unfocused rant.

You do have a good point, but I would rather the city focus on mid-rise condo development, like 15-20 stories, just south of the i40, and maybe a few places in deep deuce area.

[Kerry]

Could this work:

1. Offer residential developers tax credits, and waiver of property taxes for a given time.
2. Fee Waiver for Developers
3. Build Class A Office Space, and city will lease it out to employer, provide TIF on that development, to help surrounding area.
4. City can set requirement of what type of employer downtown.

1 and 2 good, 3 and 4 bad. I have already seen what happens when the City gets involved with build and lease deals. We end up with sururban style Bass Pro buildings taking up prime canal front space..

[EBAH]

1 and 2 good, 3 and 4 bad. I have already seen what happens when the City gets involved with build and lease deal. We end up with sururban style Bass Pro buildings.

agreed, city should not ever own or have control of office space unless they themselves are occupying it. And, the market should pick what employers move downtown, not the city. Now if the city wants to make it more attractive to any employer that can afford it, well then more power to em. But, when government tries to pick winners, their track record is terrible.

[bluedogok]

Austin's "bad traffic problem" is overblown, basically if you can't get where you want at the speed limit or higher you have a "bad traffic problem", stay off I-35 and it isn't as bad. I commute 18 miles (one way) from South Austin to North Austin on Mopac daily, in the morning it isn't too bad and in the afternoon it is stop-n-go but after living in Dallas 20 years ago it isn't any worse than that. Sure it could be better, almost any place could have a better traffic situation than they currently have but those who think it's real bad here are those who have been here for 30 years and remember when Austin was a sleepy little college town and want it to go back to that. Most of the transplants from larger cities laugh at Austin's traffic problem. I would rather work downtown, that would cut my commute to about 6 miles (one way) but my boss prefers to be north close to where he lives.

As semisimple stated, the mid-range and rental units are a pretty hot commodity, the rentals especially. Most of the high end stuff came on line late which has affected them greatly. I know people who have been selling their suburban homes and renting in a place like The Monarch to "test out" downtown living and most have purchased a condo once their lease is up. I think that mid-range market is the once to be explored in OKC since there is no existing up market housing to push down market.

[Spartan]

1 and 2 good, 3 and 4 bad. I have already seen what happens when the City gets involved with build and lease deals. We end up with sururban style Bass Pro buildings taking up prime canal front space..

City isn't Randy Hogan.

[Kerry]

City isn't Randy Hogan.

Maybe not but the City built the Bass Pro building, not Randy Hogan.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n10153802/

Oklahoma City officials will decide Tuesday whether to approve an agreement that will have Bass Pro Shops locate to Bricktown for at least 20 years in exchange for $17.2 million in city incentives.

Under the deal worked out between city officials and the Springfield, Mo.-based retailer, Oklahoma City would provide funding for a new 110,000-square-foot building at the east end of Bricktown. The building, owned by the city and leased to Bass Pro, would be constructed over the next year.

[G.Walker]

I am a firm believer that city funded Class A office space would work.

[soonerguru]

I couldn't agree more. I would love to see some form of graduated incentives that doesn't leave the inner city (both south and north) out. There is a real wealth of semi urban property in the inner city, that could be purchased and renovated for less than the cost of many of the luxury condos in high rise or mid rise new construction. I'd love to see mid and high rise buildings built as well. But, part of having a true "urban", walkable city, with decent transit, will be getting our inner city up to par with the growth downtown. The way that our inner city is underserved by a lot of retail and services means that many inner city residents have to still travel many miles to do most shopping and personal business. Downtown is great, and I'd love to see 25,000 people move there too. But, at the current time, with our current economy, it seems silly that the city doesn't do a little more to breath some life in to our numerous, fantastic neighborhoods in the inner loop. Just spend some time in Austin's inner city (former suburbs) or in the middle sections of Houston (i.e. the Montrose) and you can see the tremendous potential of many of these smaller, lower income historic neighborhoods. How about some incentives to redevelop condemned lots in University park in to modern midrise apartments, or even some breaks to any one willing to take one of the dozens of antique strip retail centers on 10th, 13th, 23rd, may, penn, etc etc and gut and clean them up? Just seems we could get a lot of bang for the buck with people in $80K houses than 1 tower of $200K condos....sorry for the unfocused rant.

Yes, yes, yes!

This city is an empty canvas. It could be wonderful. I hate to say it, but I think part of the problem comes from the attitudes of the ruling class of this town. The only acceptable places for them to live are Edmond, far Northwest OKC, Nichols Hills, and if they're kinda arty, Heritage Hills or Crown Heights. They actually think of the inner city as ugly and worthless (with bad schools, too, ahem). Therefore, they only really care about the CDB, Bricktown, and the interstates that take them to their suburban enclaves.

I note that you mention NW 10th, 13th, etc. You are a true urbanite, and that's why you see the potential of these areas. Unfortunately, a lot of the OKC ruling class would never find beauty in these areas because they are not urbanites at all. They would rather live in all-white, "safe" areas of town and would never consider walking anywhere. They simply cannot see the potential in our city because they could never envision taking advantage of a true urban environment. In fact, even when they visit places like NYC they probably cluster in Midtown and go the shows, Times Square, the park, and that's it.

I wish more of our rich people had an urban orientation.

[Spartan]

Maybe not but the City built the Bass Pro building, not Randy Hogan.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n10153802/

I stand corrected. My point however being that the deal you're referring to, which I'm just as sour about as anyone on here, was clearly not about building spec space to attract good jobs or anything other than a myopic desire to bring BASS PRO downtown at all costs as if that were a good idea.

Though, I guess it is relevant to the idea of the city initiating development that the city clearly does not have any grasp of what quality urban development is, given the track record that's well-established.

[G.Walker]

So how would the city attract high paying jobs in the urban core? They should build and engineering/tech school in that area, that would work!

[Kerry]

So how would the city attract high paying jobs in the urban core? They should build and engineering/tech school in that area, that would work!

I have said it a hundred times and I will say it again. A private (or even public) polytechnic university downtown would be awesome; Engineering, Architecture, Business, and Bio Science. Even if it just had 2500 students it would make a big impact.

[betts]

Yes, yes, yes!

This city is an empty canvas. It could be wonderful. I hate to say it, but I think part of the problem comes from the attitudes of the ruling class of this town. The only acceptable places for them to live are Edmond, far Northwest OKC, Nichols Hills, and if they're kinda arty, Heritage Hills or Crown Heights. They actually think of the inner city as ugly and worthless (with bad schools, too, ahem). Therefore, they only really care about the CDB, Bricktown, and the interstates that take them to their suburban enclaves.

I note that you mention NW 10th, 13th, etc. You are a true urbanite, and that's why you see the potential of these areas. Unfortunately, a lot of the OKC ruling class would never find beauty in these areas because they are not urbanites at all. They would rather live in all-white, "safe" areas of town and would never consider walking anywhere. They simply cannot see the potential in our city because they could never envision taking advantage of a true urban environment. In fact, even when they visit places like NYC they probably cluster in Midtown and go the shows, Times Square, the park, and that's it.

I wish more of our rich people had an urban orientation.

Even in New York City the truly wealthy live on Central Park, Sutton Place, etc. They're not living in the grittier parts of the city, by and large. And most of them have a house in Connecticut too. Our population of "rich" is so small that it's going to be hard to create a section of downtown where the rich as a large group want to live. The reason most of them consider the inner city ugly and worthless is because it's still a work in progress, and it's early in the process. The truly rich surround themselves with things that are aesthetically pleasing. And, if someone did try to build the kind of development attractive to the rich, people here would complain about the price per square foot anyway. Or complain that the city was not doing enough to promote development of housing for the not rich.

What we actually need is a nice middle class population downtown. And that's what we'll get, eventually. Right now it takes some bravery to buy downtown because it's so difficult to know how the place is going to end up looking and what's going to be behind you. But to build the kind of buildings people want to live in and that will stand the test of time....that will actually look as better in 20 years than they do today because the trees will have matured.....takes the willingness to spend money. And people will complain about the price per square foot on this forum if developers try to do that.

[Hutch]

Not to mix threads, but the quickest way to jump start OKC's urban housing development is to develop a regional rail transit system for the metropolitan area. Look at any other city where urban housing is successful and you'll find an effective transit system. Urbanites want a great transit system for their transportation needs...not a car...and they want to be able to travel throughout the metro...not just downtown. You can institue monetary incentive programs for developers to try to jump start construction projects, but until you can create significant urban housing demand not much will change. The sooner we have a regional transit system in place, including modern streetcar and commuter rail, the sooner downtown urban housing demand will increase and housing development will really get going. Until then, one of the best things we can do is to continue to educate our political and business leaders on the direct positive relationship between transit and urban development. Some of our business leaders may live in the suburbs and have no interest in riding trains, but many of them own and run major corporations, financial institutions, development companies and entertainment venues in the downtown area, all which would benefit economically from increased urban development. Here's some good wisdom from a recent article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel...

“Economic development is about people. The better we move people, the more business we generate.”

“Economic success in the 21st century requires making our region attractive to an educated workforce. Corporations have discovered that a good transit system is essential to recruiting such talent.”

“Even people who may never ride transit have an interest in the economic development that transit investments would create.”

“Good transit is not a partisan issue.”

Feel free to share.