OKC gets low marks in recent study on sprawl

[hoya]

Truthfully I am not in love with those streetscapes that you guys keep posting. OKC could certainly use more landscaping and beautification but I don't get the attraction to those pictures at all.

We've developed our suburbs too far out. There are no reasons to invest in existing suburbs because a new one will be built, with a little bit bigger houses, in whatever the current architectural fashion happens to be, another 2 miles further out and it will be cheaper. My sister and her husband bought a house in a brand new neighborhood about 8 years ago. They bought one of the first houses completed. They have since moved out even further. A lady I work with lives in that same neighborhood and she talks about how it's going downhill and she wants to move out. You're talking about $175K homes that were built in like 2005 and people are already leaving the neighborhood.

We aren't providing a reason for people to stay in their old neighborhoods. There's no reason to invest in them.

What OKC needs to do is: 1) stop spreading out further, 2) build a good urban core, and 3) start beautifying the existing city. You're never going to make OKC a beautiful place if most tomorrow's money goes to places that are today's empty farmland. We should have Deep Deuce-level density all the way down to the river and then out to the fairgrounds. It should go all the way up Lincoln (except for existing historic neighborhoods), and all the way out to MLK down Reno. We need several decades of growing up, not out.

[C_M_25]

I think a lot of the problem with the area between downtown and the suburbs out past the kilpatrick loop is that a lot of the neighborhoods and the houses in them are not aesthetically pleasing. I think primarily of the village (and I apologize if I offend anybody that currently lives there, this is just my opinion). The affordable neighborhoods have small houses that all look the same. They are old, and many of them probably need some type of renovation. We do have some neighborhoods with charm, but the ones that come to my mind are incredibly expensive. The other main big issue is that the OKC city school district is a joke. The houses are nicer and cheap per square foot when you move out to the currently developing suburbia, infrastructure is currently be developed to be better suited for a lot of people. There is just too much incentive to move further out than move in. I don't know the best way to fix this though.

[bchris02]

I think a lot of the problem with the area between downtown and the suburbs out past the kilpatrick loop is that a lot of the neighborhoods and the houses in them are not aesthetically pleasing. I think primarily of the village (and I apologize if I offend anybody that currently lives there, this is just my opinion). The affordable neighborhoods have small houses that all look the same. They are old, and many of them probably need some type of renovation. We do have some neighborhoods with charm, but the ones that come to my mind are incredibly expensive. The other main big issue is that the OKC city school district is a joke. The houses are nicer and cheap per square foot when you move out to the currently developing suburbia, infrastructure is currently be developed to be better suited for a lot of people. There is just too much incentive to move further out than move in. I don't know the best way to fix this though.

Agree with this. Inner-suburbia is rotting away more and more each year. While ever city has its less than desirable areas, many areas of OKC like The Village, Bethany, Warr Acres, etc should be in much better shape than they are. Nichols Hills is the one exception to this rule. It has remained desirable despite the fact its completely surrounded by decay. While the city is becoming a much better place each year, many of these problem areas today were great as recently as twenty years ago. Question is, what can be done about it? Many older, rust belt cities like St. Louis for instance have nice, rapidly gentrifying but very expensive cores surrounded by miles of blight in all directions before getting to suburbia. That appears to be the direction OKC is headed.

[Pete]

The only reason those neighborhoods seem unattractive is because there is so many relatively inexpensive, newer homes further out.

And because OKC has built highways and 4-lane roads in these out-lying areas, there is little advantage to living closer in.

So, people are happy to pay $50K more (or so) for something newer and nicer rather than going into the neighborhoods built in the 50's and 60's and having to update everything.

[C_M_25]

The only reason those neighborhoods seem unattractive is because there is so many relatively inexpensive, newer homes further out.

And because OKC has built highways and 4-lane roads in these out-lying areas, there is little advantage to living closer in.

So, people are happy to pay $50K more (or so) for something newer and nicer rather than going into the neighborhoods built in the 50's and 60's and having to update everything.

I disagree with this. These neighborhoods would be unattractive regardless of the homes further out. The aesthetics, planning, home style, home size, and age (think remodeling) are the reasons why people vote to move further out. If there were no other housing addtions besides the ones inside the kilpatrick and no edmond/deer creek/norman/yukon, I would have rather moved to houston than stayed here (assuming, of course, everything in the inner neighborhoods are as they are now).

[PWitty]

I disagree with this. These neighborhoods would be unattractive regardless of the homes further out. The aesthetics, planning, home style, home size, and age (think remodeling) are the reasons why people vote to move further out. If there were no other housing addtions besides the ones inside the kilpatrick and no edmond/deer creek/norman/yukon, I would have rather moved to houston than stayed here (assuming, of course, everything in the inner neighborhoods are as they are now).

I'd disagree. I've watched a lot of House Hunters with my girlfriend and there are some truly horrid looking, yet OUTRAGEOUSLY expensive, homes that people buy on that show. The reason? Because the homes that are 20 minutes further out from the city are hardly any cheaper. The examples coming to mind are basically all the episodes I have seen that take place in Boston. Those homes are old, ugly, and EXPENSIVE. Yet people still buy them because the homes further out aren't any cheaper.

[bchris02]

I disagree with this. These neighborhoods would be unattractive regardless of the homes further out. The aesthetics, planning, home style, home size, and age (think remodeling) are the reasons why people vote to move further out. If there were no other housing addtions besides the ones inside the kilpatrick and no edmond/deer creek/norman/yukon, I would have rather moved to houston than stayed here (assuming, of course, everything in the inner neighborhoods are as they are now).

Completely agree. These neighborhoods are almost unredeemable unfortunately. With this in mind, I wish planners would build the newer neighborhoods to standards that will keep them desirable in 20-30 years. Unfortunately, there are too many neighborhoods even north of the Kilpatrick that I suspect will look awful in a few decades. It's the same story on the south side. Much of northern Moore used to be very nice but today is some of the most visually unappealing housing stock in the metro area.

[bchris02]

I'd disagree. I've watched a lot of House Hunters with my girlfriend and there are some truly horrid looking, yet OUTRAGEOUSLY expensive, homes that people buy on that show. The reason? Because the homes that are 20 minutes further out from the city are hardly any cheaper. The examples coming to mind are basically all the episodes I have seen that take place in Boston. Those homes are old, ugly, and EXPENSIVE. Yet people still buy them because the homes further out aren't any cheaper.

I am not sure its necessarily about price. I would have to really evaluate whether or not I was willing to live in an ugly, horrid looking neighborhood in exchange for a shorter commute time. I imagine the situation is different in Boston considering how much larger it is, but in OKC you can still live on the fringes and have a relatively short commute time compared to major cities so that means there is even less reason to choose marginal, inner suburban neighborhoods.

[Pete]

I disagree with this. These neighborhoods would be unattractive regardless of the homes further out. The aesthetics, planning, home style, home size, and age (think remodeling) are the reasons why people vote to move further out. If there were no other housing addtions besides the ones inside the kilpatrick and no edmond/deer creek/norman/yukon, I would have rather moved to houston than stayed here (assuming, of course, everything in the inner neighborhoods are as they are now).

I couldn't disagree more.

Plenty of people like older neighborhoods with the mature landscaping, bigger lots, much closer to the city, etc.

In cities where there are issues with commutes from further out and there is a big discrepancy in cost between older and new, the older homes are in very high demand. And I'm talking about the 50's/60's homes, not just the historical ones.


This is not a matter of having nice outlying areas versus revitalized neighborhoods closer in, it's about having both. OKC is absurd in the way that huge areas of the NW part of town --just a generation ago considered the best -- have now gone downhill. This is 100% due to unbridled and completely unnecessary sprawl.

[bchris02]

I guess OKC is going to simply have to grow to the point that commuting from Covell or Norman becomes more of a headache. Then revitalizing inner-suburbia will make more economic sense.

[Pete]

The reason commuting from very far distances isn't a problem is because we keep building highways and 4-lane roads.

The Kilpatrick Turnpike should never have been built, let alone in the 80's when there was virtually nothing out that far.

And we are still 4-laning streets out in the middle of cow pastures, while at the same time we can't even maintain the roads we have. The whole situation is absurd.

[C_M_25]

I couldn't disagree more.

Plenty of people like older neighborhoods with the mature landscaping, bigger lots, much closer to the city, etc.

In cities where there are issues with commutes from further out and there is a big discrepancy in cost between older and new, the older homes are in very high demand. And I'm talking about the 50's/60's homes, not just the historical ones.


This is not a matter of having nice outlying areas versus revitalized neighborhoods closer in, it's about having both. OKC is absurd in the way that huge areas of the NW part of town --just a generation ago considered the best -- have now gone downhill. This is 100% due to unbridled and completely unnecessary sprawl.

I think we are disagreeing about our own personal preferances in what we look for in a neighborhood. We probably won't see eye-to-eye on it no matter. I personally love mature neighborhoods with huge trees and mature landscaping, but unfortunately, the housing and schools where you get this are sub-par, imo.

We do agree, however, on the fact that the city is too sprawled out, they have made it too easy to live out there, and they have basically abandoned the inner neighborhoods. I think, to get a nice balance of what people want, they need to build more vertical housing downtown, spend some time/effort on revitalizing the inner neighborhoods (somehow), make it more expensive/less convenient to build outside of the kilpatrick loop. Maybe create less housing additions with 400 houses/per 180-320 acres, and create more neighborhoods with 100 houses per the same area.

[Pete]

^

The reason the schools are lousy is directly due to sprawl. PC Schools were best in the state just a generation ago.

And the housing is fine, it just needs updating. If a new 1,800 square foot house cost $300K, then updating a similar one built mid-century to your exact taste would make loads of sense, as you can buy them all day long -- in nice, well-kept neighborhoods -- for near $100K.

Or, if your commute was an hour versus 15 minutes, all the sudden those older homes are much more desirable.

Both those scenarios I described are what is common almost everywhere but OKC and a few other great plains sprawl cities.

[DoctorTaco]

I think we are disagreeing about our own personal preferances in what we look for in a neighborhood. We probably won't see eye-to-eye on it no matter. I personally love mature neighborhoods with huge trees and mature landscaping, but unfortunately, the housing and schools where you get this are sub-par, imo.

I'm not sure when the last time you looked at OKC schools, but two inner-city northside elementary schools are among the best in the Metro (Cleveland and Wilson). The downtown schoool is convenient for many people in the inner ring, and all signs are that it too will be high quality.

I think, to get a nice balance of what people want, they need to... spend some time/effort on revitalizing the inner neighborhoods (somehow)

Again I am not sure the last time you were in the inner ring, but things are revitalizing all the time. Property values in the Paseo are up to over $100/sf, homes in Gatewood are being rehabbed at an impressive clip, Blighted areas like SOSA, CTP, etc. are gaining in housing stock and amenities.

For sure we are losing the Village, Bethany, Warr Acres, and maybe those are the areas you are referring to.

Otherwise I agree with a lot of what you say, especially w/r/t discouraging sprawl, but other things you are writing leave me with the feeling that you haven't taken a serious look at inner OKC since the late 90's.

[PWitty]

I am not sure its necessarily about price. I would have to really evaluate whether or not I was willing to live in an ugly, horrid looking neighborhood in exchange for a shorter commute time. I imagine the situation is different in Boston considering how much larger it is, but in OKC you can still live on the fringes and have a relatively short commute time compared to major cities so that means there is even less reason to choose marginal, inner suburban neighborhoods.

Exactly. There is no reason to settle for older homes when newer/cheaper ones can be found further out while still keeping a reasonable commute. People in Boston buy older less aesthetically pleasing homes because moving further out isn't any cheaper unless they want to have a 90 minute commute each way.

You've been arguing for the exact opposite above. You and C_M said the sole reason people move further out is because of home style and aesthetics, not because of the availability of newer/cheaper homes further out.

[bchris02]

Exactly. There is no reason to settle for older homes when newer/cheaper ones can be found further out while still keeping a reasonable commute. People in Boston buy older less aesthetically pleasing homes because moving further out isn't any cheaper unless they want to have a 90 minute commute each way.

You've been arguing for the exact opposite above. You and C_M said the sole reason people move further out is because of home style and aesthetics, not because of the availability of newer/cheaper homes further out.

Wouldn't you prefer a much nicer home in a much nicer neighborhood in OKC being that the commute is only 5-10 minutes longer at the most? Home style and aesthetics certainly is a factor here.

[PWitty]

Wouldn't you prefer a much nicer home in a much nicer neighborhood in OKC being that the commute is only 5-10 minutes longer at the most? Home style and aesthetics certainly is a factor here.

Now you're completely changing your tune. You can't play both sides of the field. In your earlier posts the homes further out had nothing to do with your opinion of the homes closer in. My entire point was that the homes further out have EVERYTHING to do with the desirability of the homes closer in.

[Pete]

Most new homes are cookie-cutter, on small lots with no mature trees.

The older neighborhoods are actually way more appealing aesthetically, it's just that most the homes need updating and better upkeep.

But why go through that trouble when you get just buy new for a little more and not have much of a sacrifice in driving time?

[bchris02]

Now you're completely changing your tune. You can't play both sides of the field. In your earlier posts the homes further out had nothing to do with your opinion of the homes closer in. My entire point was that the homes further out have EVERYTHING to do with the desirability of the homes closer in.

Thing is both sides have a valid argument. We have a catch-22 situation. Until something changes to prevent people from moving farther out or at least make it less economical, we won't see a major effort to revitalize many of the inner-suburban neighborhoods that are currently in rapid decay.

[C_M_25]

The reason commuting from very far distances isn't a problem is because we keep building highways and 4-lane roads.

The Kilpatrick Turnpike should never have been built, let alone in the 80's when there was virtually nothing out that far.

And we are still 4-laning streets out in the middle of cow pastures, while at the same time we can't even maintain the roads we have. The whole situation is absurd.

I do agree with this 100%. I live out there, and I find that changing everything to 4-lane is overkill. I know they are planning for the future, but it is not needed. I grew up on dirt roads, so I would be perfectly fine if they milled up all paved roads north of danforth

[C_M_25]

I'm not sure when the last time you looked at OKC schools, but two inner-city northside elementary schools are among the best in the Metro (Cleveland and Wilson). The downtown schoool is convenient for many people in the inner ring, and all signs are that it too will be high quality.

I notice you only refer to elementary which is fine. I don't know if I would want my kids to be going to middle/high school in OKC districts, however.

Again I am not sure the last time you were in the inner ring, but things are revitalizing all the time. Property values in the Paseo are up to over $100/sf, homes in Gatewood are being rehabbed at an impressive clip, Blighted areas like SOSA, CTP, etc. are gaining in housing stock and amenities.

For sure we are losing the Village, Bethany, Warr Acres, and maybe those are the areas you are referring to.

Otherwise I agree with a lot of what you say, especially w/r/t discouraging sprawl, but other things you are writing leave me with the feeling that you haven't taken a serious look at inner OKC since the late 90's.

I am referring mainly to the Village, Bethany, and Warr Acres as that is where we drive through from time to time. We looked at a few houses over there, and we just were not impressed. I'm sure the other neighborhoods you mentioned are doing well w hich is great! We need more of that. We didn't look at those when we built, but, at the same time, our preferences led us a little further away from downtown and will ultimately lead us to the country as that is where we both grew up. That is why I don't like the suburbs being so far out! It makes it impossible to find land close by :P

[C_M_25]

You've been arguing for the exact opposite above. You and C_M said the sole reason people move further out is because of home style and aesthetics, not because of the availability of newer/cheaper homes further out.

To be fair, I never said that was the sole reason why people move out there. I was referring more toward my own experiences in what drove my decisions.

[C_M_25]

^
And the housing is fine, it just needs updating. If a new 1,800 square foot house cost $300K, then updating a similar one built mid-century to your exact taste would make loads of sense, as you can buy them all day long -- in nice, well-kept neighborhoods -- for near $100K.

Yet, there are those of us (especially me because I was a first time homebuyer) that want to buy a house that is ready to move in. Some people don't want to have to remodel.

[C_M_25]

What bothers me is that we may be at a point of no return. I was driving the country-side yesterday, and there are random chunks of farmland mixed in with developments. The people who have the money (developers) have bought enough land out there that it makes it impossible to want to continue to farm teh land that is currently still out there. I mean, who wants to have a farm completely surrounded by housing additions? You can't do much with that land other than farm it. People will complain about cattle, they'll complain about the noises of tractors, and that farmer won't be able to kill any creatures messing with their cattle because they can't shoot their weapons out there. They'll eventually sell, then that entire area from deer creek to edmond will be completely developed. It is pretty sad to see.

[john60]

Most new homes are cookie-cutter, on small lots with no mature trees.

The older neighborhoods are actually way more appealing aesthetically, it's just that most the homes need updating and better upkeep.

But why go through that trouble when you get just buy new for a little more and not have much of a sacrifice in driving time?

I've never understood why the city didn't encourage sprawl to the northeast rather than the northwest (or why it didn't happen organically) -- Northeast OKC is so much more scenic than Northwest OKC. I would hate living so far out northwest not necessarily because of the drive time, but because of the landscape. Jones and Deer Creek are the same distance away from downtown. One is in the middle of farmland and one has great trees/hills/etc.