New Urbanism Presentation by Jeff Speck

[CaptDave]

JTF/Sid,

I think the three of us agree 100% on the why we need to rethink development and at least 90% on the way to implement smart development. You are correct there will be certain aspects that appear contradictory on the surface, but when looked at as part of the entire picture it is less contradictory. I don't think we will ever see Moore, Edmond, or Mustang become the little towns out in the country they once were, but we can hope to see them become "Strong Towns" within Metro OKC. It is also not likely (or even smart) to expect bulldozers to level the auto-centric developments and replace them with traditional neighborhoods. I live in one of those greenfield subdivisions and would trade it for Mesta Park, Crown Heights, or Core to Shore in an instant were it not for the school situation I cited previously.

I asked Russell last night if he thought we might see a couple suburban developers start looking toward downtown OKC. He indicated he "is working on a couple". One of them is obviously Richard McKown who should be congratulated for Level Urban - hopefully he will get interested in for sale bungalows, row houses, etc in addition to rental developments.

I would love to see an analysis of areas the city could de-annex with minimal loss of property tax revenues and maximum reduction in infrastructure maintenance costs. This could be a way to let Dubya have his place in the country outside the city while focusing our finite resources on the urban core. As an example, I am accustomed to county sheriffs having law enforcement duties in the county other than directing traffic at mega-churches and warrant service. Why not reduce the OKC footprint and return these areas to the county and let Oklahoma County get back to taking care of rural county functions? I wonder how many people in these areas would favor deannexation.

One perception issue that needs to be overcome is that "those darn liberals want to put us in storehouses for people and make us give up our cars and ride busses." I have run into people who really believe this type of stuff. Each of you hit on it when you stated we need to make downtown OKC a place people want to be and they will come on their own accord as their resources permit. This is why I think it is critical that more affordable purchase options become available in the next 3-5 years. As downtown evolves, more and more people want to be there now - they would rather walk a few blocks home after a Thunder game or dinner/drinks than getting back into their car. (They better be walking or in a cab after the drinks part!)

I have rambled on too long once again. I think OKC is definitely moving in the right direction though. This is why I want to stay here and be part of making a good place to live become a great place to live.

[Just the facts]

One thing I would like to add regarding the urban/rural transect that I left out because it get complicated without a chart.

Downtown Norman would be the center of one transect and let's say downtown Noble would be the other. At some distance from downtown Noble the density would decrease until it reached rural (maybe 1 mile total). The same thing would happen in Norman with highest density in downtown Norman deceasing with distance from the center. At some point towards Noble it would turn to rural. Thus Norman and Noble would have their highest popualtion densities at the center with decreasing densities as you move away from the core with the rural Noble ring touching the rural Norman ring.

As Norman grew that growth should have been from the center out. The high density core would have moved a block out which would have converted a medium density block to high density. In time, the medium density block would have grown further out converting a low density block to medium density. Eventually the domino effect would work its way to the rural fringe at which point a small area is converted from farm to very low density residential (5 acre lots), and thus urban Norman and urban Noble get closer together but the highest density is still at the core.

That is how urban growth has worked for 10,000 years of human development, but then the 1949 Housing Act was passed and we changed that. The 1949 Housing Act created what we know today as urban sprawl. It provided government backed loans for people to buy suburban houses while at the same time tearing down inner city neighborhoods (many of which were victims of the industrial city) and putting a freeze on the natural conversion of single family homes to higher density row houses at the urban core. I know people won't like hearing it but Mesta Park and Heritage Hills should have give way to higher density row houses 40/50 years ago. To move this mass of people from home to work the interstate highway system was created. The rest is history but it resulted in urban/rural transect being destroyed, and with it 10,000 years of development best practices.

So the question for new urbanist is, how do we rebuild the transect? Not only do we have to rebuild the high density inner city and intermediate commercial clusters, we need to simultaneously slow development of the rural fringe. CaptDave says he doesn’t see us bulldozing suburbia, but I actually do. In fact, Detroit is already doing it, along with several other cities in the rust belt. Detroit isn’t trying to rebuild suburbia as they attempt to reverse their population loss; they are plowing it under so they can re-grow as a leaner more efficient city. As the cost of getting from point A to point B increasing people are going to stop living that far away. The concept of 'drive til you qualify' went out the window when gasoline hit $3/gal.

We are already seeing the beginning of this trend here in Florida where far flung subdivisions are already giving way to waste lands. $500,000 homes are turning into $1,000 per month rentals with lawn maintenance being almost non-existent. Some of it already resembles 3rd world countries with ratty kids playing in ditches, cars parked in the yards, and people doing major automotive repair in the driveway. Of course, they have to keep the car running because the really could become stranded at home (think about that for a minute).

[CaptDave]

Don't get me wrong JTF, I think it would be nice to eventually let some far flung suburbs disappear and return the land back to agricultural or other more sustainable and financially responsible uses. I don't think it is practical at this time in most places. It might be worth considering in places such as you describe but only if as much material as possible is salvaged and reused. Otherwise, it would be another monumental waste of resources to destroy perfectly good homes.

The suburbs are always going to exist and that is fine; but we should do whatever we can to encourage redevelopment within the sprawl rings. Instead of blindly approving everything proposed by suburban developers, we should discourage greenfield development by not extending city public works infrastructure any farther. We may even consider removing infrastructure in locations it was put "planning" for development but in reality does nothing than perpetuate the Ponzi scheme. Once the sprawl rings have been filled in again with traditional development, only then should we start looking to extend the urban area farther away from the core.

[Just the facts]

CD - you are right, the suburbs will not go totally away, they will become the new slums. Squating is already becoming a problem here in Jax.

[BoulderSooner]

relatively cheap gasoline could be here long term with the correct national energy policy

[Just the facts]

relatively cheap gasoline could be here long term with the correct national energy policy

No it won't. It doesn't matter how much oil will drill for. We could be getting it Jed Clampett style by shooting holes in the ground with a shotgun and just watch it bubble up. Our problem with gasoline is 3 fold. 1) Refining capacity. We simply can't create enough gasoline to drive prices down with a subset problem that a lot of our refining capacity is built around a type of crude oil that is no longer available and refiners aren't making a profit at current prices; 2) International Market for Gasoline - historically oil has been sold on the international market but gasoline was sold on regional markets. Gasoline is now moving to an international market where everyone around the world will be buying from the same supply. 3) We already pay $3.50/gallon. The market already knows we will pay $3.50/gallon so what incentive would the refiners, speculators, and gas stations have for lowering the price?

As for the right energy policy - if you are placing your hope in the federal government good luck. Besides, let's say gasoline went to $1 gallon. That would just increase driving, using up any increase in production, which will lead to higher prices, and we will be right back here in 5 years. Then what, get a righter right energy policy?

[CaptDave]

Some thoughts from Seattle on growth and developing wider choices of lifestyle.

http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/20.../?key=25782607

[CaptDave]

Pretty much sums things up.....

[Spartan]

I just got a pre-release version of Speck's new book from a coworker today... My fun reading for this fall. I haven't been this excited about a book in a while..

[OKCisOK4me]

I just got a pre-release version of Speck's new book from a coworker today... My fun reading for this fall. I haven't been this excited about a book in a while..

If you put salt on a slug it will melt.

[Just the facts]

I just finished the 5th chapter of The Geography of Nowhere and Howard Kuntstler, I salute you. It is not often that an author writes exactly what I think but can't put into words myself.

[Just the facts]

Thought I would pass on another movie that was recommended to me by MikeOKC (thanks Mike). The first 20 minutes or so are all global warming but if you can suffer through that the rest is pretty good. While not directly related to new urbanism, it does a good job of stressing sustainability in economics - which is directly related to new urbanism. I also found the term "progress trap" very interesting. Ever since watching the movie Jurassic Park when they used the line "You were so busy see if you could do it, you never considered if you should do it" it has been something that I kept in the back of my mind. Can we sprawl all over the prairie? Yes we can. Should we do it? No we shouldn't - for about 10,000 reasons.

It is available on NetFlix instant view.

Surviving progress

[Dubya61]

The Gazette is announcing that Jeff Speck will have a book signing event at the Full Circle Bookstore, Thursday, March 7, at 5:30 p.m.

Jeff Speck Book Signing