What happened to NW OKC?

[mkjeeves]

I understand the issue completely. It isn't true for most of the area we are talking about. The area we are talking about is 90% of the revenue generation for OKC.

Cut my particular area out, just south of Bethany, along with all the businesses just south of Bethany, and Bethany would gladly take on the revenue and the management. That probably makes a lot more sense than having it managed by OKC anyway. It would be 7 miles closer.

I get the ideas. The simple minded 'let it rot and pour it all into downtown' isn't the answer.

New Urbanism is as much about connected centers of activity than one central place of activity.

[bchris02]

Well for starts maybe the apartments should be demolished. As with 122nd and Penn, it seems like every time a ton of apartment complexes get built in one concentrated area that area goes downhill.

[Just the facts]

I understand the issue completely. It isn't true for most of the area we are talking about. The area we are talking about is 90% of the revenue generation for OKC.

.

Maybe so but it is 93% of the cost. It is hard to have good school system when so much of the available money goes to build new schools on the fringe. Go look at the millions spent on a new subdivision and ask yourself how nice existing parts of town would be if those resources had been spent there instead.

[mkjeeves]

.

Maybe so but it is 93% of the cost. It is hard to have good school system when so much of the available money goes to build new schools on the fringe.

Again. Define the fringe of OKC and provide a cite specific to OKC finances that shows the area we are talking about is not affordable with the taxes that are generated by the same area.

We've been talking generally about close in NW OKC, Bethany, Warr Acres, PC school areas. post war building etc. Stick with that and back up your assertions with some facts. Are those areas in your definition of fringe that do not generate enough taxes to pay for their upkeep?

[Just the facts]

If the area we are talking about generate the revenue to pay for their upkeep then why do you think they are becoming run down?

[mkjeeves]

If the area we are talking about generate the revenue to pay for their upkeep then why do you think they are becoming run down?

That's been well covered up thread, the ease of sprawling further out, including commuting from new homes even far outside the city limits and into other city limits like Edmond and Guthrie. The willingness to spend our extra dollars generated in my part of the city to revitalize other parts of the city like downtown. That money wasn't generated downtown, it was surplus generated by the rest of OKC.

And has been pointed out, the area is not in Detroit type decline. It has seen improvements, new commercial areas from MacArthur to Council, the ATT plant has some new tenants and parts have been recently upgraded for office space. I have three new houses across the street from my house in the post war neighborhood and I just spent $40K remodeling mine in the last few years. We saw fit to afford Maps for kids and there is a new middle school to replace the older one at Council Grove and others in the neighborhood have been upgraded.

Now, how about the facts I asked you for?

[RadicalModerate]

Well for starts maybe the apartments should be demolished. As with 122nd and Penn, it seems like every time a ton of apartment complexes get built in one concentrated area that area goes downhill.

Re-reading this post reminded me of the day at least a couple of decades ago when I was driving east on 122nd and saw that the entire area to to the north--in the vicinity of Penn, that had previously been pristine countryside--was now covered by concrete slabs sprouting plumbng "trees" . . . my first thought was, "dang! that don't look right" but then--since I was a carpenter (actually a framer and cornice guy) by trade it started to look like potential dollar signs. Interestingly, not long ago, The Village razed a ton of apartments that might have been raised at about the same time. I'm not sure, because back then I lived way out in Eastern Oklahoma County.

[mkjeeves]

Re-reading this post reminded me of the day at least a couple of decades ago when I was driving east on 122nd and saw that the entire area to to the north--in the vicinity of Penn, that had previously been pristine countryside--was now covered by concrete slabs sprouting plumbng "trees" . . . my first thought was, "dang! that don't look right" but then--since I was a carpenter (actually a framer and cornice guy) by trade it started to look like potential dollar signs. Interestingly, not long ago, The Village razed a ton of apartments that might have been raised at about the same time. I'm not sure, because back then I lived way out in Eastern Oklahoma County.

When my grandparents bought their house at 32nd and Shartel it was the north fringe of OKC.

[RadicalModerate]

In hindsight, in order to achieve the desired urban density that some dream about, I suppose that The Planners back then should have erected a giant wall--or iron curtain--up around 36th Street, so that the dreaded sprawl could be avoided and a lot more high rises (like the ones that Lucy and Desi and The Honeymooners lived in) could have been built. Somehow I don't think that Heritage Hills, Crown Heights and Mesta Park would have the same "charm" they have today if that plan would have been implemented, but . . . =)

[mkjeeves]

if

Yeah. JTF used that word upthread too and I started to mention that it's a little late. We did. Can't put it back in the bottle nor pretend we didn't. The better course than this nonsense that we're going to abandon everything at the 'fringe',

(10th street and out? 23rd street and out? 36th street and out? 236th street and out?)

would be to determine the best way to preserve the huge investments we have made in buildings, housing and supporting infrastructure and steward them into connected areas of centralized activity and checking compounding the problem as best as can be done. That does not mean put everyone and all the commerce downtown. That means more people doing as I do, living, working, shopping in the same general area with connections to other areas and to do that closer to town with existing areas than to continue to sprawl more and more. That means putting jobs where the people live and shop.

It would be better to project 180 tenth street from downtown out and encourage redevelopment along that entire corridor and as a connector between areas than ignore it and continue to build farther out.

[Just the facts]

Building a wall doesn't help. Even walled villages in medieval England eventually spilled outside the walls. The trick is to build places that people don't want to abandon in droves.

[Just the facts]

So the debate is how we retro-fit suburbia? That is interesting topic but the jury is still out on how to do it and if doing it is cost effective. I don't think it is and I suspect we will eventually pull a Detroit and start plowing it under.

You might find this interesting.

[Dubya61]

So the debate is how we retro-fit suburbia? That is interesting topic but the jury is still out on how to do it and if doing it is cost effective. I don't think it is and I suspect we will eventually pull a Detroit and start plowing it under.

You might find this interesting.

I'm certainly less experienced in this debate than you, JTF, but I think that Moore will take the lead on retrofitting suburbia. Starting with their new central park, Moore has the chance to embrace urbanism in the suburbs. Of course, Moore HAS to. They can't sprawl any further. They HAVE to make the most of their limited acreage. It's entirely possible and very likely that it won't meet the desired standards (I STILL love Sid's recommendations for how Moore can make the most of their new central park), but it won't take long before Moore really discovers that it can't grow more tax revenue -- it'll have to earn them. Although Choctaw's not in the same boat, it's on the verge of a very good chance that will probably turn into a learning opportunity (you know, what-doesn't-kill-you-makes-you-stronger-type of learning opportunity) with their new WalMart city center. Obviously it's not going to be right on the center of the target of where it could be, but their new ... what? City Center could develop into an urbanism oasis regardless of WalMart. It was suggested in another thread and dissed and shot down in another, but I think OKC should de-annex a lot. The fear is that we will become a land-locked city, but then won't we eventually learn that we really only have so much acreage that we can earn taxes on and we must make the most of them? If we can just sit it out and not make any bigger mistakes, OKC could survive and retrofit suburbia without I.M. Pei-style plowing it under. In my little ideal world, Moore and Choctaw proceed and see what they've got. With a little (or a lot, depending on how far off the mark they go) demolition, it'll become what it should. Again, Moore has no real choice. Isn't that what OKC and their OKC-city-limit-suburbs could do? Plant a seed of urbanism where there's a chance to do so logically and let people and private developers do the heavy lifting of making it work. It'd take a good hard look at OKC. Maybe somewhere around the AT&T plant, attempt to encourage a REAL lifestyle center -- not a huge one, but one that can set an example. Maybe do something with Shepherd Mall and urbanize it a bit. None of these should detract from any efforts to make the CBD a beacon of what we want OKC to be for urbanism, but siphon of just a little of the assets and effort to some of these areas. Then, in a few years when we are looking at Deep Deuce, MidTown and SOSA or eve HubCap Alley and Capitol Hill and saying, "Wow, Those are FANTASTIC -- now what?", you'd have a fledgling urban center at the AT&T Lifestyle center to direct your efforts to.

JTF: You've had some GREAT ideas for Midwest City and the Heritage Parks Mall area. Give us one more. Let's say you had a low-order clone that needed a project. You don't want to give him too many assets that you need to revitalize the CBD, but you're willing to give him some just to busy him productively elsewhere. Where are you going to put him inside the OKC City Limits to start preaching and proselytizing and maybe converting and selling ideas to developers to make that spot better for OKC? Is it in the as-yet-undefined NW OKC? Does he need to go to the Farmer's Market and help out? or does CaptDave have that covered? Does he start his mission in Captiol Hill? I-240 corridor? Does he just go to the belly of the beast and solve Crossroads Mall? I'm curious where you'd put your fictional missionary.

Or am I so miserably off the mark that we need to just bull-doze it all? I'm not baiting you. I'm giving you an easy way out.

[Just the facts]

Good stuff Dubya61. In my opinion the greatest opportunity at revitalization in metro OKC is Del City. They are at 100% build out and their only viable solution is to densify. Like you said, the easy money from "growth" is over for them. New developments in Del City will have to generate more tax dollars than they consume and the only way to do that is increase density.

[mkjeeves]

So the debate is how we retro-fit suburbia? That is interesting topic but the jury is still out on how to do it and if doing it is cost effective. I don't think it is and I suspect we will eventually pull a Detroit and start plowing it under.

You might find this interesting.

Yeah that too. Here's some what if for you. What would it have been like if we could have twisted CHK's arm to drop a building every few miles instead of all in one place (which isn't downtown, I might add). We both know most of what gets done over there isn't face to face.

[Plutonic Panda]

JTF, just to understand, you want to do away with suburbia entirely? I like urbanism and it certainly has its place. But, in every great city I think there should be great suburbs that provide people with options. I love the suburbs because I have a nice open yard I can look out of, a nice big house, the overall environment seems more open and I think it is more relaxing to me. Now, I know there are benefits to living in an urban environment, but I like a city with options.

[Just the facts]

CHK missed s huge opportunity to build a place that was really special. For some reason they chose not to. The same thing happened near Tinker. They chose office buildings surrounded by a sea of parking when they had the foundation for one heck of a mixed use environment. The same now goes for UNP.

Meanwhile, they broke ground last week in Alpharetta on a $600 million mixed use project called Pioneer Sq. If only the people in OKC with money weren't stuck in 1960.

[Just the facts]

JTF, just to understand, you want to do away with suburbia entirely? I like urbanism and it certainly has its place. But, in every great city I think there should be great suburbs that provide people with options. I love the suburbs because I have a nice open yard I can look out of, a nice big house, the overall environment seems more open and I think it is more relaxing to me. Now, I know there are benefits to living in an urban environment, but I like a city with options.

That's great and you should be able to live that way, but you should also have a neighborhood urban cluster you can walk to that supports all your daily living essentials. Having a yard shouldn't also require you to own a car.

[mkjeeves]

We might as well what-if about Devon too. They built a giant new central location for jobs in the middle of an area that has no housing and no real shopping. The work force either has to commute, abandon what is already built and/or build something else all over again. That's great for people who want to do that and not so much for everyone else.

[LandRunOkie]

People's job dictate their housing much more than the other way around. There is plenty of housing in the downtown area. Devon Tower didn't kill the suburbs, they just got old.

[mkjeeves]

People's job dictate their housing much more than the other way around.

yep. I think we are in agreement about how important that is.

There is plenty of housing in the downtown area. Devon Tower didn't kill the suburbs, they just got old.

Nope, they didn't kill the burbs. Most of the Devon jobs were already downtown. Most of their employees commuted before and will continue to commute as long as they can afford to.

It's a missed opportunity to do something different. Instead, we will do what we are going to do with those jobs downtown.

[Just the facts]

I suspect that over time many Devon employees will be moving either downtown or in one of the downtown ajacent neighboroods (DD, Midtown, Bricktown, SOSA, C2S) as more housing comes on-line. With the addition of the streetcar and regional rail the urban core of OKC will become the most desirable location to live in the entire state.

[mkjeeves]

I suspect that over time many Devon employees will be moving either downtown or in one of the downtown ajacent neighboroods (DD, Midtown, Bricktown, SOSA, C2S) as more housing comes on-line. With the addition of the streetcar and regional rail the urban core of OKC will become the most desirable location to live in the entire state.

That's what I just said in post 69.

[Just the facts]

That's what I just said in post 69.

If a person sees no problem with sprawl, what difference does it make to them if new housing is built at the existing core or at the suburban fringe?

[Plutonic Panda]

That's great and you should be able to live that way, but you should also have a neighborhood urban cluster you can walk to that supports all your daily living essentials. Having a yard shouldn't also require you to own a car.

Okay I thought you were completely against living the way period. I understand what your talking about now.