Why does OKC have such a lack of condos and townhouses?

[bradh]

Said 15 miles on Google Maps for me, but perhaps we're using different starting points (I used Century Link Center).

You know what that farm land is trending towards? Housing.

[Just the facts]

Said 15 miles on Google Maps for me, but perhaps we're using different starting points (I used Century Link Center).

You know what that farm land is trending towards? Housing.

I just picked a place downtown (baseball stadium I think) but I am happy to use your number. However, thanks to UrbanNebraska it look like Omaha is trying to target more of their growth towards downtown.

http://www.okctalk.com/other-communi...nt-update.html

Alas, population density is just one factor, and really not even the biggest. OKCs main problem is that we don't have anything for condos to coalesce around. The canal had one waterfront condo and it sold out with a premium price and then no more condos were built. As was pointed out earlier, people don't live on top of each for the fun of it. They do it for access to local attractions and amenities.

I saw the other day where the old real-estate adage of Location, Location, Location has been replaced with Access, Access, Access.

[bradh]

I'm all about the access, it's why we're looking at moving closer to downtown.

Maybe I'm missing it, but I guess I don't see amazing urban condo developments when I go to Omaha.

[Just the facts]

Maybe I'm missing it, but I guess I don't see amazing urban condo developments when I go to Omaha.

From what I gather in UrbanNebraska's posts they are renovating existing buildings or build new low/mid-rise condos. They aren't adopting the Austin style 'taller is better' approach. Downtown Omaha has just under 9,000 residents and condo sales are picking up; 152 in 2011 and 168 in 2012.

Downtown Omaha condo sales heat up again - Omaha.com

[PWitty]

The Wikipedia page for each metro area which in turn comes from the census data. You guys can argue the data all you want but if you just go look in Google Earth you can see the relative density with your own eyes. OKC is spread across a lot more area. You will be miles into rural Nebraska by the time you drive the distance from downtown to Moore. It is not even close and OKC did this by design in the '60s when they decided to annex every available parcel of land and then paved four lane roads all the way to Guthrie and Shawnee.

If you want to see how other 'great plains' cities compare just go look a Calgary and compare its geographic size to OKC. All of Calgary would fit inside the I-35/I-240/I-44 loop and it has the same population as all of metro OKC.

And if you guys think you can bump the OKC numbers up by subtracting water or carving out rural land just remember, that same game can be played in Omaha and Little Rock. Urbanized metro Omaha is only 16 miles across the longest way. Edmond to Norman is 35 miles and eastern Oklahoma County is the lowest of low density sprawl.

I don't know what Wikipedia pages you are looking at, but those urban densities aren't right. And you can't just look at each metro's Wikipedia page individually. If you just go to the "OKC Metro Area", "Omaha Metro Area", etc. pages, the numbers they pull into the information on the side is never consistent. Some Metro Area pages list CSA data, others list MSA data, and others list Urban data. You have to get the numbers from a table so the data set you're pulling from is consistent across the board. Using the numbers for each city's urban population and urban area you would get this:

OKC: 2,098 per sq. mile
Omaha: 2,673 per sq. mile
Little Rock: 1,670 per sq. mile

Edit: The disparity in your numbers is that large because the Omaha MSA isn't even a real MSA. The total area of the entire Omaha MSA is like 190 sq. miles, and 150 of that is the city of Omaha. You can't compare the density of a city to the density of a full metro area that includes the surrounding counties (which have MUCH lower densities than the actual city). You have to use the urban numbers. But I think you know that.

And your reasoning on including OKC's rural areas into it's population density is so wrong. If we're talking about the density of the urban core of the metro then why does the rural and county land even matter? If one was to compare the densities of two metros using strictly MSA numbers, then Omaha has a greater density than NYC because the population density of the entire NYC MSA is only 1,876 per sq. mile. I don't think you are going to try and tell anyone that Omaha is more dense than NYC are you?

[Spartan]

13 miles from downtown Omaha to 168th and Maple. You hit open farm land 1 mile away. I'm looking right at it with an aerial photo.

Google Earth

Omaha sprawls all the way to Lincoln almost. It's very uneven, and mostly falls along one thoroughfare. But their sprawl hasn't kept them from developing different housing modes.

[bradh]

it's unique in that it's sprawl is mostly only westward (a little south too with Papi/La Vista).

[okcpulse]

The Wikipedia page for each metro area which in turn comes from the census data. You guys can argue the data all you want but if you just go look in Google Earth you can see the relative density with your own eyes. OKC is spread across a lot more area. You will be miles into rural Nebraska by the time you drive the distance from downtown to Moore. It is not even close and OKC did this by design in the '60s when they decided to annex every available parcel of land and then paved four lane roads all the way to Guthrie and Shawnee.

If you want to see how other 'great plains' cities compare just go look a Calgary and compare its geographic size to OKC. All of Calgary would fit inside the I-35/I-240/I-44 loop and it has the same population as all of metro OKC.

And if you guys think you can bump the OKC numbers up by subtracting water or carving out rural land just remember, that same game can be played in Omaha and Little Rock. Urbanized metro Omaha is only 16 miles across the longest way. Edmond to Norman is 35 miles and eastern Oklahoma County is the lowest of low density sprawl.

Here are the correct statistics (this is why I don't rely on Wikipedia)

Omaha MSA total area: 4,407 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 196.35 per sq. mile
Little Rock MSA total area: 4,199 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 166.67 per sq. mile
Oklahoma City MSA total area: 5,582 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 224.48 per sq. mile

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

[Rover]

Damn facts always get in the way of a good spin.

[Just the facts]

Here are the correct statistics (this is why I don't rely on Wikipedia)

Omaha MSA total area: 4,407 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 196.35 per sq. mile
Little Rock MSA total area: 4,199 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 166.67 per sq. mile
Oklahoma City MSA total area: 5,582 sq. mi; Pop. Density: 224.48 per sq. mile

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Thanks for keeping me honest. I started to wonder where the heck I did find that data and it looks like I copied form the wrong data fields.

Now why can't I find a youtube of clip of the old lady in my Cousin Vinny who needs new glasses.

[catch22]

Thanks for keeping me honest. I started to wonder where the heck I did find that data and it looks like I copied form the wrong data fields.

Now why can't I find a youtube of clip of the old lady in my Cousin Vinny who needs new glasses.

Let the record show that Mr Gambini is holding up two fingers.

Your honor, please!

[josh]

OKC finally started getting the attention of real estate speculators just as we were approaching 2008. Projects that had not broken ground when the recession hit were cancelled. Had the 2008 recession happened in 2010, OKC would probably have a few downtown high-rise condo towers.

You can't continue to blame the 2008 recession in 2014. Bank have been loaning for sever years now and residential towers are being built all across the country. If they're not happening now, they probably weren't going to happen then either. That's the reality.

[bchris02]

You can't continue to blame the 2008 recession in 2014. Bank have been loaning for sever years now and residential towers are being built all across the country. If they're not happening now, they probably weren't going to happen then either. That's the reality.

I disagree. Not only lenders but developers also have not returned to anywhere close to the level of speculation that was happening prior to 2008. Residential towers are being built but today it's more likely to be supported by market realities. Little Rock hasn't had a new residential tower announced since 2008, but had three built prior. I think had the recession been delayed to 2009 or 2010, OKC would have seen a tower or two announced.

In the area of retail on the other hand, OKC was screwed pretty bad by the 2008 recession. This city was very close to getting some developments that would bring it in line with most other cities its size in terms of retail options but pretty much all of that got cancelled and was never revived.

[betts]

Warning Signs From Columbus About America?s Big Suburban Housing Glut | Streetsblog Capitol Hill

This is an interesting article that indicates we may need to be thinking about increasing this type of housing.

[Spartan]

Ha I'm friends with Angie Schmitt, yeah Cbus is a sprawls sun belt mess unlike the other two C's but it's urban core is also phenomenal. Very Austin-like.

[bchris02]

Ha I'm friends with Angie Schmitt, yeah Cbus is a sprawls sun belt mess unlike the other two C's but it's urban core is also phenomenal. Very Austin-like.

I agree. Columbus is actually becoming quite the hipster destination. It's not on a lot of people's radar yet but their core is phenomenal.

[Urban Pioneer]

Totally agree.

[Just the facts]

I caught an episode of House Hunters on HGTV the last night and the woman they were following was looking for a condo in downtown Memphis. It was amazing to see the quality of downtown condos she had to pick from. She also looked at a house in the Harbortown area (for those who know what that is).

HGTV has two version of House Hunters - the regular House Hunters which takes place here in the US and features almost exclusively suburban homes, and House Hunters International which has a mix of urban and rural (not much international suburbia) depending on the country. I have been wondering when the US version was going to start focusing on more urban settings, especially if they want to start to appeal to younger viewers and stay relevant.

[betts]

I caught an episode of House Hunters on HGTV the last night and the woman they were following was looking for a condo in downtown Memphis. It was amazing to see the quality of downtown condos she had to pick from. She also looked at a house in the Harbortown area (for those who know what that is).

HGTV has two version of House Hunters - the regular House Hunters which takes place here in the US and features almost exclusively suburban homes, and House Hunters International which has a mix of urban and rural (not much international suburbia) depending on the country. I have been wondering when the US version was going to start focusing on more urban settings, especially if they want to start to appeal to younger viewers and stay relevant.

What price point was the Memphis shopper using? I think some of OKCs problem is that we were finally getting some for sale downtown housing just as the recession hit. People who suddenly couldn't afford to buy were renting. Developers, who resemble sheep, were suddenly all in in the rental market. And they'll likely stay all in until there's a rental glut. But that hurts downtown, as for sale housing is typically better built and maintained than apartment complexes and creates more stability.

[Just the facts]

Don't quote me but I think she was looking for 2 bedrooms in the $210-$220 range. I think I have the episode recorded so I'll check and make sure.

On edit..

First condo (The Candy Factory) is listed at $210,000

Second condo (The Paper Factory) is listed at $210,000

One house in Harbortown (3 bedroom/2 bath) is listed at $208,000

[bluedogok]

Lower suburban land costs drive much of the lack of urban condo development as most builders are still suburban based. Most of the initial urban developers in Austin came from out of town/state, local developers have increased but are building smaller developments near downtown. The larger condo towers are still dominated by the out of town developers.

[OKVision4U]

There is an Atlanta based group that has several in Texas ... Houston / Dallas. The outside investment communities are what OKC could really use right now. When they hit town, they move things off "high center" in market demand.

[bchris02]

I caught an episode of House Hunters on HGTV the last night and the woman they were following was looking for a condo in downtown Memphis. It was amazing to see the quality of downtown condos she had to pick from. She also looked at a house in the Harbortown area (for those who know what that is).

HGTV has two version of House Hunters - the regular House Hunters which takes place here in the US and features almost exclusively suburban homes, and House Hunters International which has a mix of urban and rural (not much international suburbia) depending on the country. I have been wondering when the US version was going to start focusing on more urban settings, especially if they want to start to appeal to younger viewers and stay relevant.

Downtown Memphis is awesome. The city as a whole has a lot of problems and quality of life issues but downtown is cool and has various things OKC could take cues from. Their entertainment district is one of a kind (it would be due to the musical legacy the city has). Most of their historical urban bones has survived the ages unlike other cities that had urban renewal disasters. As for new development, I love Harbortown/Mud Island and think it should be a model for OKC's Core2Shore. I am also a fan of the Pyramid as it adds a unique feature to the city's skyline.

What price point was the Memphis shopper using? I think some of OKCs problem is that we were finally getting some for sale downtown housing just as the recession hit. People who suddenly couldn't afford to buy were renting. Developers, who resemble sheep, were suddenly all in in the rental market. And they'll likely stay all in until there's a rental glut. But that hurts downtown, as for sale housing is typically better built and maintained than apartment complexes and creates more stability.

This. The recession came at the worst possible time for OKC in so many ways. The city was practically ignored during most of the Bush economic boom and only as it was ending were we finally starting to get attention from large-scale developers.

[Urbanized]

It wasn't so much that people couldn't afford to buy, it was that for a time nobody - NOBODY - could get financing. And then the lending rules changed requiring developers to have a ridiculous number of buyers already in the bag before getting a construction loan, effectively ending spec condo devekopment, which had fueled the crazy growth in other markets. Meanwhile, the downtown rental market - which was easier to finance and had been terribly underserved to that point - was still underserved. Developers just took the path of least resistance.

[OKVision4U]

There should be signs all over the C2S / Bricktown / Film Row, stating " Coming Soon "....This IS the time for the boom! Why are we not seeing this?