Mayor Mick Cornett Should Adopt Downtown Housing Incentive Program For Developers

[G.Walker]

Good Schools = Educated Workforce = High Paying Jobs = Premier Job Attraction = Economic Boom/Stability

[Urban Pioneer]

This whole conversation thread deeply frustrates me as a "Pioneer." After watching this stuff first hand for over a decade, I think that the best incentive that we could give to people who will bring ambition, creativity, and diverse housing to downtown is to sub-divide a major Urban Renewal parcel and offer it up for individual applications.

Enough with this constant experiment to try to "snag" the big mega developer. They will come with time. It took me 7 years to find my own "reasonably priced" property downtown with day-to-day inside downtown knowledge and cultivated relationships with property owners. Out of sheer luck and perseverance, I found something that I could afford.

We need to subdivide an Urban Renewal property of your choice and offer individual lots (at appropriate prices) for people to build what they desire. There is too much vacant land downtown to think that we should wait for high-rises.

SOSA is a great example of people buying the last remaining fairly priced lots in desperation to build something that is functional and affordable.

Subdivide a UR parcel, create an overlay of basic requirements to maintain order, and allow people to go out and hire the architect of their choice to develop what the market really demands.

I am staring out my window now at the houses rapidly being built on NW 5th street. They are squeezing two single family homes with a combined 7 bed rooms and common area for pets on a 25' by 140' lot. Incredible. More San Francisco housing is needed and less New York. Lets build something that people actually need, desire, and can afford. We have plenty of land to do anything we want. If you can achieve that "critical mass," perceptions will change, and nearly anything (including grocery) could survive downtown. Right now, we need more people here 24hrs.

Unfortunately, I think that such innovative thinking in small development is not going to come out of the current Urban Renewal board. It is a completely alien concept to them.

[Urban Pioneer]

I need to add to this line of thinking. They (UR) is offering individual parcels up for redevelopment in JFK neighborhood. It has been a huge success creating new individualized housing. However, it is unfortunately in the "suburban" form.

If this idea were to be extrapolated into downtown proper, it would need the an overlay of basic urban requirements to stimulate the kind of SOSA projects that I am quite literally staring out at from my window.

The UR board is open enough to finally do something with JFK, now it should be done in the CBD, with proper urban form.

[G.Walker]

This whole conversation thread deeply frustrates me as a "Pioneer." After watching this stuff first hand for over a decade, I think that the best incentive that we could give to people who will bring ambition, creativity, and diverse housing to downtown is to sub-divide a major Urban Renewal parcel and offer it up for individual applications.

Enough with this constant experiment to try to "snag" the big mega developer. They will come with time. It took me 7 years to find my own "reasonably priced" property downtown with day-to-day inside downtown knowledge and cultivated relationships with property owners. Out of sheer luck and perseverance, I found something that I could afford.

We need to subdivide an Urban Renewal property of your choice and offer individual lots (at appropriate prices) for people to build what they desire. There is too much vacant land downtown to think that we should wait for high-rises.

SOSA is a great example of people buying the last remaining fairly priced lots in desperation to build something that is functional and affordable.

Subdivide a UR parcel, create an overlay of basic requirements to maintain order, and allow people to go out and hire the architect of their choice to develop what the market really demands.

I am staring out my window now at the houses rapidly being built on NW 5th street. They are squeezing two single family homes with a combined 7 bed rooms and common area for pets on a 25' by 140' lot. Incredible. More San Francisco housing is needed and less New York. Lets build something that people actually need, desire, and can afford. We have plenty of land to do anything we want. If you can achieve that "critical mass," perceptions will change, and nearly anything (including grocery) could survive downtown. Right now, we need more people here 24hrs.

Unfortunately, I think that such innovative thinking in small development is not going to come out of the current Urban Renewal board. It is a completely alien concept to them.

You have made some good points, but I would like the city to focus on mid-rise development in the urban core. Mid-rise condos would work, and if private developers would build them, they would get filled with residents. We can sit here and speculate what could and could not happen, but we will never know unless we try.

Will all the developments going on downtown, now is the time to start building mid-rise residential loft/condos, because about the time they are completed, Devon will be completed, project 180, and new blvd etc. The area will be more attractive, and people would want to live down there.

The downfall is developers who wait until everything is completed 5 years from now, will miss out on a grand opportunity. And the developers who step up now, take the risk, and build, would see great return, because the property value in that area will skyrocket once everything is completed, and it makes sense to already have your development in place before it happens.

Now, I am not talking about building expensive 50+ stories high-rise condos, like The Austonian in Austin, it would be nice, but lets be realistic. We need to build mid sized 15-20 story condos/lofts, mid priced.

[Rover]

The market ultimately forces development. When developers see that building in the core area is going to be rewarded more than urban development then we will see infill. If there is real demand that exceeds their other opportunities then they will go the path of least resistance and greatest opportunity. To create that requires some real data and some really creative thinking...something we have too little of.

To provide the right incentives requires a complete understanding of what motivates developers, something too few urban planners care to REALLY understand. The developers live in the real world and not some philosophical universe. They care less about lifestyle of the community than they do profit for their stakeholders. When we get the planners and the doers on the same page, they we all get what we want.

[Urban Pioneer]

You have made some good points, but I would like the city to focus on mid-rise development in the urban core. Mid-rise condos would work, and if private developers would build them, they would get filled with residents. We can sit here and speculate what could and could not happen, but we will never know unless we try.

Will all the developments going on downtown, now is the time to start building mid-rise residential loft/condos, because about the time they are completed, Devon will be completed, project 180, and new blvd etc. The area will be more attractive, and people would want to live down there.

The downfall is developers who wait until everything is completed 5 years from now, will miss out on a grand opportunity. And the developers who step up now, take the risk, and build, would see great return, because the property value in that area will skyrocket once everything is completed, and it makes sense to already have your development in place before it happens.

Now, I am not talking about building expensive 50+ stories high-rise condos, like The Austonian in Austin, it would be nice, but lets be realistic. We need to build mid sized 15-20 story condos/lofts, mid priced.

I don't disagree. Mid-rise is ideal. I do think that we have enough vacant land to offer that we can take a UR owned block and do this concept though. The idea should not extend to the available land as a whole. I just think that the "developer" needs to be taken out of the equation entirely in one specific area to foster real "organic" development. There needs to be a place where people can build to their exact specifications and needs. This is particularly true for families who need a larger design space at a reasonable price. This is also needed for the people who want a small yard or garden.

I just don't have the confidence in the developers providing all of the solutions. Most have proven to be completely out of touch with the market (other than apartments) and we have lost many great people to the suburbs who would have preferred to build an urban house down here. The competitively priced land is simply not generally available, therefore you have to "buy" someone else's creativity and pay a premium for it.

[G.Walker]

Something like this could work:

[G.Walker]

Or if you wanted something on a smaller scale:

[Urban Pioneer]

You guys are still thinking "mega-developer." We need more of this...

[soonerguru]

You guys are still thinking "mega-developer." We need more of this...

Yes. I've noticed a lot of housing of this type in Midtown Tulsa just north of Cherry Street. Great residential infill projects there.

[Kerry]

I don't care if people lived in dog condos - I just want to do whatever uses up the available land the fastest. Once the land is used up then the only place to go is vertical. Personnaly, I wold rather see ten 3-story condos vs one 30-story condo but the location is also important. If we are talking about the urban core as defined by the CBD on the downtown district map, then higher is better. All other districts mid and low rise works for me.

[G.Walker]

I don't care if people lived in dog condos - I just want to do whatever uses up the available land the fastest. Once the land is used up then the only place to go is vertical. Personnaly, I wold rather see ten 3-story condos vs one 30-story condo but the location is also important. If we are talking about the urban core as defined by the CBD on the downtown district map, then higher is better. All other districts mid and low rise works for me.

Thanks!

[Rover]

Lots of great architecture to post, but little real information which shows a developer will risk their money to build something like it. Having grand ideas is easy...getting it done is not.

[betts]

Or this type of concept in places like SoSA and JFK would work. Although I like contemporary housing, not everyone does and there are "skinny house" options that appeal to people with different taste:

http://www.metropolismag.com/story/2...e-of-the-small

http://chatterbox.typepad.com/portla..._smart_pr.html

http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?c=51302

[Spartan]

Yes. I've noticed a lot of housing of this type in Midtown Tulsa just north of Cherry Street. Great residential infill projects there.

It's all over Midtown, not just Cherry Street. Personally I only care that something is pedestrian friendly, which "The Broadway" pictured above doesn't really seem to be.

[soonerguru]

nm

[soonerguru]

Lots of great architecture to post, but little real information which shows a developer will risk their money to build something like it. Having grand ideas is easy...getting it done is not.

Thanks a lot, Debbie Downer.

[circuitboard]

Yes. I've noticed a lot of housing of this type in Midtown Tulsa just north of Cherry Street. Great residential infill projects there.

This website shows some of those projects, I like, wish we did have more of this for infil in OKC.

http://www.moderntulsa.net/2008/11/0...-street-lofts/

[Rover]

Thanks a lot, Debbie Downer.

Not trying to be a downer, but it takes more than imagination to make these things work. If this is a "what if" discussion, then fine. If this is a serious discussion on what it would take and what kind of incentives actually work to make development downtown happen, than we need to be real about what we are dealing with. It is fun to just imagine, but that doesn't really get it done.

[CChandler]

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.

I registered just so I could say that I completely agree with the both of you! This is my vision for the city- not just development of highrises downtown but revitalization in the inner city. Midtown, Plaza District, 16th St, 23rd St., and the Paseo have made great strides in the past years, drawing in locally-owned restaurants and retail. Now these areas need some better medium-density housing options, as well as the continued renewal and preservation of historic neighborhoods. What Midtown Renaissance, http://midtownr.com/, is doing is right in line with that vision.

As a wanna-be urbanite with kids, I would never move downtown to a condo, much less one with a $300k price tag. However neighborhoods like Venice, Crestwood, Cleveland, Mesta Park, Shepherd, Venice, Gatewood, and Edgemere Park are all appealing. Even moreso now that there is restaurants and retail within reasonable walking distance. What these areas need now are higher quality medium density apartments and townhomes, more sidewalks and bike lanes/paths to downtown and the nw exp corridor, better public transportation, and last but not least, beautification efforts. Okc schools are another downside but many surbanites fail to realize that Okc actually has some award winning Elementary schools and nationally-recognized arts and science/magnet high schools.

In order to stop the sprawl OKC HAS to get more middle-class families into this core area, north of downtown. Not just artsy folks or hipsters who think it's cool to live in a turn of the century home with drug dealers down the street.

[G.Walker]

Not trying to be a downer, but it takes more than imagination to make these things work. If this is a "what if" discussion, then fine. If this is a serious discussion on what it would take and what kind of incentives actually work to make development downtown happen, than we need to be real about what we are dealing with. It is fun to just imagine, but that doesn't really get it done.

Then what do you suggest?

[Kerry]

...and this whole time I thought the world ran on lollipop wishes.

Are there any developers (big or small) reading this? We would like to hear your take on why more in-fill doesn't happen and what it would take to make it happen.

[dismayed]

You know I've been visiting or spending extended time in Austin for the better part of 15 years now, and really the thing about their downtown is that it seems to me like everything down there falls into one of two categories... you have the more traditional businesses in office towers, and then you have the recreational activities. Let's start with the recreational activities... because if you are talking about downtown housing that is what is drawing people there. A while back I was down there and in a single night I couldn't tell you the number of places I was able to hit to eat, meet friends, have drinks, listen to live music, see real art, take in a show, and on and on and on. For the most part, all of the places I visited were locally owned. The few chains that were around were what I would consider more upscale places. There is a lot of creativity and vibrancy. The housing places that are built DO NOT look like brownstones or other things that would appeal to empty nesters. I mean hell look at the area surrounding the Whole Foods corporate headquarters... some of those condos remind me of something avante garde you would see in Amsterdam. The whole place is built for young, creative, hip, and unmarried people. That is why people are moving there.

Now that isn't to say that this is what OKC has to market for. The actual point is that downtown Austin has a very good grasp on what niche it is marketing to. You're not going to see families pushing baby strollers down Sixth. You're just not. That's neither a good thing or a bad thing, it just is what it is. There are a lot of good things about targeting that demographic. If you're trying to capture raw creativity and also capture people in a stage of their lives where they can spend a lot of money on entertainment, and are on the verge of spending huge amounts on starting up their lives, then that is the way to go. If you're strategy is something else then it's something else.

Does downtown OKC have any discernible strategy on who it wants living down there? Not that I can tell. That's a problem.

The thing about Austin is that it really did not have a government entity stand up and say, "let's build a downtown for urban hipsters." Not really. They just had a government that didn't get in the way, and made some decently smart choices about their town when they realized what was going on down there. For the most part, they had the demographic and a lot of private folks with enough money to start a business moved in down there and took advantage of the climate. When that started to happen, their city didn't try to squash it.

At times I have felt that downtown OKC started to get a sense of itself and create its own identity, but every time the city government and/or your typical busybodies in this city have either gotten in the way or squashed whatever was happening. There was a brief moment early-on where I think this city had an opportunity to appeal to the "Austin demographic," but it quickly faded as the city became hell-bent on ensuring that downtown was a place for families/everyone/everything/anything/etc. That is just extremely poor vision. Shortly after that city leaders began clamoring for the creative class, and yet they continue to build housing units downtown that do not appeal to them. They continue to spend tax dollars attracting things like a Bass Pro, but still have yet to attract any substantial retail. People around town say that they want to attract young professionals, but then the Bricktown Association decides to paint all folks of that demographic in a particular light and paint in a great swath across the canvas of downtown a giant "not in my backyard, get off the lawn damn kids" banner at the first sign of any unruly behavior, typically by folks who aren't even in the demographic they are supposedly targeting. Are downtown leaders really this bipolar? Apparently.

Now say that isn't the demo you want in your downtown. That's perfectly fine. Admit it, and figure out what demo you want because you can't have it all. You're not New York. Ask yourself why someone would want to spend the kind of money they would spend in virtually any comparable urban market in the country, when a lot of them have a lot more entertainment and dining options going on 24/7/365? If it's not that then what is your product differentiation? If it is entertainment then shape up and get on the ball.

Now with respect to the Austin downtown office building aspect of this post, I actually think that goes back to an area being created where there's a critical mass of business that tends to feed off of itself. I've posted lengthy thoughts on this before so I want ramble on about that again, but really I think a lot of that just has to do with businesses being in close proximity to one another, which creates B2B opportunities, knowledge sharing, and being close to a customer base of folks. If you're specifically talking about the technology industry, then I have to say part of the reason those companies are there is because of that 'creative class' stuff that Austin has going for it. If you're young, really smart, and have a lot of disposable income you are probably going to be looking for some of the finer things in life... and amidst its bar scene Austin has that in abundance everywhere. There are clothing brands there that you just can't get here. Types of interesting food there that you can't get here. Hair salons with amenities beyond anything you can find downtown. Bars and bartenders offering services that you can't find here. World-class artists and musicians playing in random bars all over town every night of the week that you just aren't going to get anywhere else. If you're a technology worker you probably have a creative and somewhat strangely unique side to your personality. Austin certainly is appealing to that. If that is what OKC is interested in attracting then it needs to step up its game at all levels. If OKC realizes its future lies with something else then it needs to admit that, figure out what its niche is, and try to capitalize on that.

I'm sorry for the long post, but I'm just not brief on this issue. Take it for what it's worth, just another rant from a random on the interwebs I suppose.

[Rover]

OKC has some unique opportunities and at the same time challenges. I just think that sometimes cities and well intentioned and professional groups tend to get very philosophical and sometimes miss the real reasons why development does or doesn't get done. The bottom line is that the city has to help make developments of the kind they want financially attractive. I think there are many ways for the city to do that and it isn't all with $$ incentives.

I think that it would be worthwhile to work with some urban developers to really find out what THEY would find to be real incentives and what makes or breaks their opportunities. Our opinions don't matter, but theirs matter greatly. They aren't in the business for altruistic reasons, but for investment purposes.

[Spartan]

Well, what dismayed is talking about is something that everyone can agree with in general, and then when it comes to specific issues I think people would be surprised at which side of the issue they come down on.

I used to think we needed to maximize the higher-end real estate market because people were so convincing back in 2005 that we'd have to build out that demographic which would then attract the lower income groups. But the lower income groups aren't artists and beatniks, they're empty nesters and CEOs--so that's what we're trying to appeal to in our downtown. I didn't begin to realize what a moronic development strategy that was until time went on and development failed to meet expectations.

Another issue is Reggae Fest in Bricktown. They got that the hell outta there.

Another issue is that drinking bar crawl thing for cancer. That was a huge stink, and apparently the families in Bricktown were angry at being surrounded by binge drinking in the middle of a weekday. No more bar crawl.

I also have seen more than 5 times the cop presence in Bricktown, especially late at night, that I've seen on 6th or other big nightlife areas. They also have a completely different mentality--cops on 6th Street will disperse and hang out at bar entrances to make sure there aren't fights either in clubs or in the street and to make sure bouncers do their job, whereas cops in Bricktown will find one crowded area and just line up in a group of 10 and look all imposing and then occasionally swoop in on someone who's too drunk. What's the use in that?

Also look at the businesses that have opened up in Bricktown. Candy Shop. Banjo Museum. We were firing on all guns trying to get a toy museum to come. Come on, what is that? I'll be honest, there is absolutely no way that Bricktown will thrive as a family destination. There is no way that can make a thriving urban district, absolutely no way. Basically a lot of Bricktown's latest destinations have simply replaced the family-friendly kiosks and stuff you would have found in Crossroads Mall 10 years ago. And most families still aren't going to say, "let's load up the strollers and take those whiney loud kids to Bricktown for the day."

And as long as you put the focus in Bricktown on families, it's not going to attract much more unless you let those families be surrounded by other elements. People in charge aren't gonna let that happen, either. Family-friendly is the worst type of no-sum game you can play when it comes to downtown.