OKC gets low marks in recent study on sprawl

[boitoirich]

^ Really, Rover? That's the best you got?

[Rover]

Sorry. It's been a long day.

[Just the facts]

^ Really, Rover? That's the best you got?

Sadly yes it is. I believe he is of the mindset that every facet of life happens in its own vacuum with nothing having an impact on any other part of it. I happen to believe that all activities of life are connected.

ME: Kids who can't take themselves to a park won't go to the park, which will result in a sedimentary lifestyle, which in turn can lead to obesity, which in turn can lead to diabetes.
Rover: There is no connection between being able to walk to a park and diabetes.

I'm not saying it happens to every child but Rover is saying it doesn't happen to any child.

[mkjeeves]

Wow. This is great stuff. Square street grid. 4 way stops....or is it round abouts (I'm confused which is the most urban). Buildings within 10 feet of the street. Back in angled parking. Sidewalks and bike lanes. Everyone living on top of each other. Bars on every block. Streetcars and busses. AND THEN all social and health problems are solved. Who knew.

I wonder why Hell's Kitchen comes to mind. when you're a jet...

ME: Kids who can't take themselves to a park won't go to the park, which will result in a sedimentary lifestyle, which in turn can lead to obesity, which in turn can lead to diabetes.

I lived in Albuquerque for a bit when I was a young teen. One of the things I liked best about it was I could walk or ride my bike to a number of city parks and straight out of my suburban neighborhood to the base of the mountains, and did, often. Explored all the underground culverts with my friends too. We didn't have good supervision but didn't have computers and electronic games and were limited on how much TV we could watch.

Most of the suburban places I've lived as a kid were short walking or biking distance to something approaching *wild*, undeveloped lands needing exploring.

[mkjeeves]

The first trend stats I could find. I'd bet the decline of kids on bikes has been steady since the '60s and completely unrelated to density of their neighborhood.

Bicycling is not for kids any more. The number of children who ride bicycles declined
more than 20 percent between 2000 and 2010, while the number of adults who ride
increased slightly.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...,d.cWc&cad=rja

[Just the facts]

I lived in Albuquerque for a bit when I was a young teen. One of the things I liked best about it was I could walk or ride my bike to a number of city parks and straight out of my suburban neighborhood to the base of the mountains, and did, often. Explored all the underground culverts with my friends too. We didn't have good supervision but didn't have computers and electronic games and were limited on how much TV we could watch.

Most of the suburban places I've lived as a kid were short walking or biking distance to something approaching *wild*, undeveloped lands needing exploring.

I grew up in suburbia also and just like you I rode my bike every where. The only time I watched TV was Saturday morning. But that suburbia and today's suburbia are two different things. For one, we didn't have near the traffic back then because while I lived in suburbia, most people still lived in traditional neighborhoods which didn't require as much driving. Today, the vast majority live in suburbia which requires driving to everything. Also gone are the neighborhood parks which gave way to large regional parks (just look at OKC). Due to poor planning most of what I explored as a kid has turned into people backyards because we allowed private ownership of creek/river banks and other natural features. You can't get to the cool stuff today without going through someone's backyard.

We have a park in our subdivision but my kids rarely use it. Why, first off it is 1.5 miles round trip thanks to the curvilinear roads. Second, due to the low density nature of our subdivision there is a good chance that once they got there, there wouldn't be any other kids to play with. If they wanted to play by themselves they could do that in the backyard. The next park is 3 miles away but the only way there is down a major arterial road with cars that routinely go +55 mph and no sidewalk. My oldest son is 15 and loves basketball, but he can count on his fingers the number of times he has played a pickup game of basketball with more than 2 people on a team - and that makes me sad because those are some of my best childhood memories.

[Rover]

When people lose perspective because of single minded adherence to one set of beliefs and are narrowly assigning absolute cause and effect it is intellectual dishonesty or laziness. Fitting all things into one package is simple minded. To say that the results of inactivity CONTRIBUTE to health problems is one thing. But to ignore all other effects and blame all ills on cars and sprawl is silly, at best.

[mkjeeves]

When people lose perspective because of single minded adherence to one set of beliefs and are narrowly assigning absolute cause and effect it is intellectual dishonesty or laziness. Fitting all things into one package is simple minded. To say that the results of inactivity CONTRIBUTE to health problems is one thing. But to ignore all other effects and blame all ills on cars and sprawl is silly, at best.

Well said.

[Just the facts]

When people lose perspective because of single minded adherence to one set of beliefs and are narrowly assigning absolute cause and effect it is intellectual dishonesty or laziness. Fitting all things into one package is simple minded. To say that the results of inactivity CONTRIBUTE to health problems is one thing. But to ignore all other effects and blame all ills on cars and sprawl is silly, at best.

I agree which is why I have spent the last several year re-educating myself on these subjects, and then provided that information to others so those searching for the same answers I was searching for can read and watch what I read and watched. Prior to 2008 the average person wouldn't have been able to tell JTF and Rover apart, but the near economic collapse of 2008 made me revaluate how the world works - and guess what - it doesn't work the way I thought it did. So I took a bottom up approach to re-educate myself on economics, urban development, race relations, human history, the Federal Reserve, government, transportation, religion, education, the military, and a whole host of other issues. The result of this re-education is what I am today. I have a much clearer understanding of how the world interacts with itself, why people do what they do, and the relationship between actions and reactions. I wasn't born a New Urbansit and it wasn't taught to me, and in fact, until a few years ago I didn't even know the movement existed, but when I found it did exist and that the people in it came to the same conclusions I did, then hell yes - I jumped on and I haven't looked back.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...m-library.html

Okay - personal rant over.

[C_M_25]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned. I just haven't read through everything yet. I've always wanted to get outside city limits because I really enjoy target practice. That being said, the wife and I have been paying attention to where city limits actually occurs, and I was amazed the the NE city limits extends almost out to Welston. Why oh why does OKC need that much land area? It makes no sense!

I had a friend tell me that OKC is one of the largest cities in the US as far as land area is concerned. Does anybody know if that is true?

[Just the facts]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned. I just haven't read through everything yet. I've always wanted to get outside city limits because I really enjoy target practice. That being said, the wife and I have been paying attention to where city limits actually occurs, and I was amazed the the NE city limits extends almost out to Welston. Why oh why does OKC need that much land area? It makes no sense!

I had a friend tell me that OKC is one of the largest cities in the US as far as land area is concerned. Does anybody know if that is true?

I believe OKC is the 4th largest in the lower 48 states in land area. There are several reasons why this happened and support for doing it came from a broad range of ideologies and interest. Some wanted to protect watersheds, for some it was an ego thing, others want the land for development, and the list goes on and on.

[Buffalo Bill]

I had a friend tell me that OKC is one of the largest cities in the US as far as land area is concerned. Does anybody know if that is true?

It used to be third largest, behind Jacksonville and Anchorage.

[Dubya61]

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2000 data, OKC is 3rd (1st: Anchorage, 2nd: Jax, 4th: Houston) (Pop greater than 100,000)
-- Tulsa: 29th
According to Wikipedia's list, OKC is 8th (no pop restriction) (Sitka AK, Juneau AK, Wrangell AK, Anchorage AK, Jax, Anaconda MT, Butte MT, OKC, Houston, Phoenix)
-- Tulsa: 41st
-- Norman: 47th
-- Edmond: 113th
-- El Reno: 121st
-- Lawton: 139th
-- Enid: 144th
Even throwing away the unincorporated land in Oklahoma, we suck (or soar -- depending on viewpoint) for population density!
Numbers:
OKC: 607 sq mi (no water incl)
Tulsa: 196.8 sq mi
Norman: 178.8 sq mi
Edmond: 85.1 sq mi
El Reno: 80 sq mi
Lawton: 75.1 sq mi
Enid: 74 sq mi
Just counting those cities: almost 1300 sq mi total
Wikipedia says the total sq miles in the OKC metro area (incl Shawnee, Guthrie, El Reno, Yukon, Slaughterville, Noble, etc.) is 6,359 sq mi.

[bluedogok]

I grew up in suburbia also and just like you I rode my bike every where. The only time I watched TV was Saturday morning. But that suburbia and today's suburbia are two different things. For one, we didn't have near the traffic back then because while I lived in suburbia, most people still lived in traditional neighborhoods which didn't require as much driving. Today, the vast majority live in suburbia which requires driving to everything. Also gone are the neighborhood parks which gave way to large regional parks (just look at OKC). Due to poor planning most of what I explored as a kid has turned into people backyards because we allowed private ownership of creek/river banks and other natural features. You can't get to the cool stuff today without going through someone's backyard.

We have a park in our subdivision but my kids rarely use it. Why, first off it is 1.5 miles round trip thanks to the curvilinear roads. Second, due to the low density nature of our subdivision there is a good chance that once they got there, there wouldn't be any other kids to play with. If they wanted to play by themselves they could do that in the backyard. The next park is 3 miles away but the only way there is down a major arterial road with cars that routinely go +55 mph and no sidewalk. My oldest son is 15 and loves basketball, but he can count on his fingers the number of times he has played a pickup game of basketball with more than 2 people on a team - and that makes me sad because those are some of my best childhood memories.

That isn't the case here in our neighborhood in the hinterlands off the toll road between Aurora and Centennial that was built in the late 90's but then there seems to be parks everywhere in the Denver metro area from small pocket parks to large regional ones with many facilities, it just seems to have always been a priority here. We have a small park a block away, an elementary school/park which ties to a walking trail two blocks away. Driving north out the neighborhood we pass three other parks and a high school in which the track, football field and tennis court get used like park facilities. All seem to get pretty good foot traffic, we see kids walking by all the time in front of our house to/from the closest park.

That being said we are at the point of wanting 5-10 acres outside of town, we have no desire to live in congregate housing anymore with no room for my hobbies and the storage that requires. When it comes time to start my own practice I am not locating downtown, I have been looking in an area along I-25 near a light rail station like in Lone Tree.

[Plutonic Panda]

^ Really, Rover? That's the best you got?

What else would you have him say? He is pretty much spot on... For some, it seems like there is only one useful mode of development and anything outside of that spells sprawl.

[Plutonic Panda]

Sadly yes it is. I believe he is of the mindset that every facet of life happens in its own vacuum with nothing having an impact on any other part of it. I happen to believe that all activities of life are connected.

ME: Kids who can't take themselves to a park won't go to the park, which will result in a sedimentary lifestyle, which in turn can lead to obesity, which in turn can lead to diabetes.
Rover: There is no connection between being able to walk to a park and diabetes.

I'm not saying it happens to every child but Rover is saying it doesn't happen to any child.

Bro, I lived in the suburbia nightmare you see as Dallas - I lived in this area.




I loved this area. This is great development and I see the majority of Oklahoma city suburbs being developed like this. This is why I love Dallas. The wide highways and six lane arterials enticed developers to build along them knowing there was a large traffic count but didn't have to worry about extreme traffic back-ups round-the-hour. Had parks, stores, and other areas we'd explore and I loved it. Everything I really needed was less than 2 miles away and I didn't mind walking one bit.

You are generalizing things and there is not one area in the city Edmond(not talking about Waterloo) that I know of that you can't walk to a park in less than 15 minutes. Nearly every single neighborhood in Edmond and Dallas --I've seen-- has parks as well as public swimming pools. I knew tons of people that lived in these horrid cul-de-sacs you speak of and they turned out to be just fine. Those studies you posted are a load of crap. There are tons of people in urban environments that live in extreme poverty and do drugs, get pregnant, commit an array of other crimes, it has nothing to do with living in suburbs, which are NOT isolated environments.

Further more, sprawl to me just seems like people not wanting to live right on top of each other. All of these rundown areas in OKC are due to property owners not keeping up their properties. There are tons of old suburbs in Dallas that are very nice and appealing. McKinney which was once touted by these anti-suburb/car nuts as a great example of what happens as a result of sprawl is now seeing nearly a billion dollars in new development and is being revived. There are tons of urban places that have deteriorated due to lack of community pride, just look at downtown OKC, is was a disaster. Sprawl didn't cause that; if it did, it would still be a sh*thole.

[Plutonic Panda]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned. I just haven't read through everything yet. I've always wanted to get outside city limits because I really enjoy target practice. That being said, the wife and I have been paying attention to where city limits actually occurs, and I was amazed the the NE city limits extends almost out to Welston. Why oh why does OKC need that much land area? It makes no sense!

I had a friend tell me that OKC is one of the largest cities in the US as far as land area is concerned. Does anybody know if that is true?

I think all that land will benefit OKC in the long run. If we can prevent our city becoming more sprawled out and try and encourage infill, eventually we will grow into to that land and it will help us by increasing the city populations status.

We have the potential to build smart and have a wide variety of options for people to live.

[Plutonic Panda]

According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2000 data, OKC is 3rd (1st: Anchorage, 2nd: Jax, 4th: Houston) (Pop greater than 100,000)
-- Tulsa: 29th
According to Wikipedia's list, OKC is 8th (no pop restriction) (Sitka AK, Juneau AK, Wrangell AK, Anchorage AK, Jax, Anaconda MT, Butte MT, OKC, Houston, Phoenix)
-- Tulsa: 41st
-- Norman: 47th
-- Edmond: 113th
-- El Reno: 121st
-- Lawton: 139th
-- Enid: 144th
Even throwing away the unincorporated land in Oklahoma, we suck (or soar -- depending on viewpoint) for population density!
Numbers:
OKC: 607 sq mi (no water incl)
Tulsa: 196.8 sq mi
Norman: 178.8 sq mi
Edmond: 85.1 sq mi
El Reno: 80 sq mi
Lawton: 75.1 sq mi
Enid: 74 sq mi
Just counting those cities: almost 1300 sq mi total
Wikipedia says the total sq miles in the OKC metro area (incl Shawnee, Guthrie, El Reno, Yukon, Slaughterville, Noble, etc.) is 6,359 sq mi.

Wow, we could support an extremely large population, that's interesting to see.

[bchris02]

Bro, I lived in the suburbia nightmare you see as Dallas and I lived in this area.




I loved this area. This is great development and I see the majority of Oklahoma city suburbs being developed like this. This is why I love Dallas. The wide highways and six lane arterials enticed developers to build along them knowing there was a large traffic count but didn't have to worry about extreme traffic back-ups round-the-hour. Had parks, stores, and other areas we'd explore and I loved it. Everything I really needed was less than 2 miles away and I didn't mind walking one bit.

The one thing that stands out to me about that streetview is how much better designed the roads are than a majority of the roads in suburban OKC. That road as a median with streetlights, double turn lanes to prevent traffic backups, and sidewalks. That really reminds me of where I lived in Charlotte. I could and did walk to shopping centers that were a half mile away in each direction even though it was a suburban area. Why can't major arteries in suburban OKC be designed like that?

[Plutonic Panda]

The one thing that stands out to me about that streetview is how much better designed the roads are than a majority of the roads in suburban OKC. That road as a median with streetlights, double turn lanes to prevent traffic backups, and sidewalks. That really reminds me of where I lived in Charlotte. I could and did walk to shopping centers that were a half mile away in each direction even though it was a suburban area. Why can't major arteries in suburban OKC be designed like that?

Agreed. It really nice to see. Almost all of the arterials are six lane divided with landscaping, left turn lanes at each intersection, dual left turn and right turn at major intersections, sidewalks on each side... just beautiful....

Campbell Rd. in Dallas


33rd St./Meridian in OKC




It sucks. However, I suppose Dallas has a much larger population, but Reno, May, Penn, Memorial, 33rd, 2nd(Edmond), Bryant, 15th, Meridian, and McArthur would be a start to being engineering work to plan to have these widened to six lanes, sidewalks, landscaped medians, etc. Not all have to be done at the same time, but start on a few of them and that would be a huge improvement for the city. Tons of new investments would be made as a direct result of this.

[bchris02]

Dallas being a large city doesn't really have anything to do with it. Edmond and Norman have better arteries than OKC does and they are much smaller. Charlotte's major thoroughfares look similar to Campbell Rd in Dallas. When their major arteries look like the typical OKC artery, you know you are in the ghetto. Sad thing is that OKC is STILL building roads this way.

[Plutonic Panda]

Dallas being a large city doesn't really have anything to do with it. Edmond and Norman have better arteries than OKC does and they are much smaller. Charlotte's major thoroughfares look similar to Campbell Rd in Dallas. When their major arteries look like the typical OKC artery, you know you are in the ghetto. Sad thing is that OKC is STILL building roads this way.

I couldn't agree more. It would be really nice to see some initiative for OKC to start doing their roads like Campbell Rd or the other roads in Charlotte(I've never been there so I'm taking your word). Norman is doing great work. The new development by the airport right off of I-35 is super awesome.

[Plutonic Panda]

Agreed. It really nice to see. Almost all of the arterials are six lane divided with landscaping, left turn lanes at each intersection, dual left turn and right turn at major intersections, sidewalks on each side... just beautiful....

Campbell Rd. in Dallas


33rd St./Meridian in OKC




It sucks. However, I suppose Dallas has a much larger population, but Reno, May, Penn, Memorial, 33rd, 2nd(Edmond), Bryant, 15th, Meridian, and McArthur would be a start to being engineering work to plan to have these widened to six lanes, sidewalks, landscaped medians, etc. Not all have to be done at the same time, but start on a few of them and that would be a huge improvement for the city. Tons of new investments would be made as a direct result of this.

Oh, and one other thing I think would go a long way if OKC just did this.... THE UTILITY LINES ARE BURIED!!!!!! God I hate those things. It looks so much better without em'. Please oh please bury them. I am sure what I want more, the roads widened with new highway interchanges or to see the utility lines buried first.

[boitoirich]

All of the urbanists articulating why one of these sprawl aerials are worse than the grid aerial are missing the point. The visual clicks for me because I also espouse the argument behind it, but for others an indicative photo depiction doesn't seem to be the right message.

People want nice things. They want social justice and sustainability for other communities because the concept is great, and they can recognize which photo shows that. But they want the most luxurious for themselves. The argument needs to be how Mesta Park is simply more luxurious than Kelley Pointe or Morning Woods subdivisions in Edmond. It's not even close. MidtownR properties and Deep Deuce apartments are more opulent than MacArthur Park Apartments.

You can have your cake and eat it too. It's not enough to point out what is sprawl. Get people to actually want the alternative and not just feel bad about the standard behavior.

You can have your cake and eat it too. This is a great message because (1) it's true and (2) so much of the angst about urbanism stems from misunderstanding what it is. Someone here mentioned that he did not want to live packed on top others, which is what people think when they hear density (and that is unfortunate). Yet single family detached residential is an essential part of urbanism. Built properly, SFDR neighborhoods can achieve aesthetic loveliness, connectivity, and high densities. There are some prominent examples are new urban neighborhoods in Atlanta and Calgary. There is even a suburb of Tokyo called Seijo that is predominantly SFDR, with a density approaching 40,000 people per square mile.

I think the takeaways are you can live within a range of home styles in a correctly built urban environment, and densities can be scaled to suit local needs.

[bchris02]

Here is my street in Charlotte. Median, streetlights, sidewalks, landscaping, and buried utility poles. This is virtually non-existent in OKC.