OKC gets low marks in recent study on sprawl

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

This area is building up regardless. The traffic issue is getting and if it wasn't for the city building out there, you would just have a bunch of two lane roads service way more people than it can handle. I honestly don't see the problem with the city building 4 lane roads out in NW OKC and think this will benefit the city in the short run and the long run. This needs to be it though. There is a ton of land we can develop in and around the core and the older suburbs really need to be showed some love.

It would really be nice to see MWC, Bethany, Warr Acres and The Village put together a MAPS style package to revitalize themselves. I think Nichols Hills will have a stronger tax base to work with once the Chesapeake situation becomes stable and that land is developed to higher use. A large dense condo high-rise surrounded by an urban shopping center would do wonders for the city.

[Dubya61]

This area is building up regardless. The traffic issue is getting and if it wasn't for the city building out there, you would just have a bunch of two lane roads service way more people than it can handle.

But that's the deal. Why make it easier for people to stress the support required by the city (and incur greater maintenance costs) when you don't need to. Let those people (and me) move out there and put up with the infrastructure that existed when they chose to move out there. Or at least stop following the "if you build it (a better road) they will come (and build more houses)" ... in places it's not prudent for the city to foster growth!??!?!?!!
I say LET the area build up. I fully would encourage my kids to take on responsibilities of their own, but when they get pets they really don't plan on taking care of or sign a purchase agreement on a car they can't afford or engage in business that will involve greater responsibilities to me and my household, it's insanity to encourage it just so I can take on a greater responsibility further down the road.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

Well, we just completely disagree there.

[C_M_25]

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.

Technically they are. It is being developed for people who can afford $1MM or more for a house. It is prime real estate and is being developed in that manner. Unfortunately, they left the crappy land for the middle class.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

Couldn't agree more on this.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

Well, I partly agree with Pete on this one. Although, once traffic starts getting to be a real headache in OKC, some people might start to buying closer to their workplace, but do know that the majority of people will still continue to live where they think the best options are for them. I know plenty of people who commute across Dallas. They live in North Dallas and commute to downtown or far south Dallas every day.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

They won't be cow pastures for long and if we can encourage more development in our core to infill as much as we can, again, I think this will have benefited us in nearly every way possible.

[Dubya61]

They won't be cow pastures for long and if we can encourage more development in our core to infill as much as we can, again, I think this will have benefited us in nearly every way possible.

I believe the costs outweigh the benefits.

[Plutonic Panda]

^

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.

Well, is getting to that point. Traffic is really starting to get worse and worse everyday. It isn't what traffic is for you in Cali, or people in Atlanta, Houston, or Dallas, but is getting bad. I-35 to Norman comes to a crawl every rush hour and is pretty packed the majority of the day regardless. I was in pretty heavy traffic just now coming on I-44 all the way from Kirkpatrick to I240 and I240 had pretty consistent heavy traffic, but it was more in pockets. Kirpatrick was a breeze, minimal traffic. I've yet experience any traffic issues on the crosstown but I know traffic backs up on I-40 west quite often. Traffic in Edmond is also becoming a nightmare in a lot of areas, I've actually been riding my bike from Covell and Coltrane for miles just to avoid it. Traffic on I-35 north of I40 isn't really anything major.

Anyhow, I do agree needs to slow down it's sprawl and develop the suburbs it already has instead of expanding or creating new ones.

[Plutonic Panda]

I believe the costs outweigh the benefits.

The money is already there to widen them, it was part of the go bond package. I suppose I can agree with you however that all that money(800 million) could've done wonders for revitalizing the inner core, but again, down the road, this should help that area develop without much of a headache and if we start to explode with growth, we can make sure that with PlanOKC, we get our inner core developed and infill a good chunk of the city before we really worry about expanding much.

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

Now, this is really sad. As I pointed out in another thread, and got bashed for it, Edmond is moving away from the big nice houses(THERE ARE SOME STILL BEING BUILT!!!), and developing more tract housing and apartments that you know, are going to completely deteriorate, in less than 10 years. It sucks, and the new Bungalow housing on 2nd and I-35 already has large cracks in the houses, and it isn't even 2 years old. smh

[Rover]

I think there are many reasons that neighborhoods of smaller, cheaper homes become rundown and undesirable. For one thing, the preferences of people change. The smaller older homes built in the 50s and 60s generally had more bedrooms to accommodate the desire for families with more kids. These were young families that couldn't afford much. So, getting 3 or 4 bedrooms in a 1,200 square foot house was a bonus. There wasn't as much demand for larger closets and storage. The scale of the rooms made lower ceilings fully acceptable. Technology of heating, cooling, etc. required less mechanical closet space, etc. Etc., etc., etc. And not to mention, basic style preferences changed each decade.

As preferences changed, you can see the progressions in the various neighborhoods. When people can't find what they want they go where they can. Some people like the idea of having new structures with new appliances and new technologies and don't want the time and trouble to remodel something that they might have to spend months and months to find. All this meant new neighborhoods reflecting those changes were built. This continues today. It isn't just about sprawl because somebody built a new street. It isn't because suburbanites are stupid or even insensitive to environmental and other issues. It just means they can afford to get close to exactly what they want, so they do. And, when what they have quit meeting their needs and wants, they move.

These same cycles happen in urban dense areas too. I can go to NYC and show you many, many areas of NYC that have gone through similar cycles of desirability and liveliness.

[Plutonic Panda]

I think there are many reasons that neighborhoods of smaller, cheaper homes become rundown and undesirable. For one thing, the preferences of people change. The smaller older homes built in the 50s and 60s generally had more bedrooms to accommodate the desire for families with more kids. These were young families that couldn't afford much. So, getting 3 or 4 bedrooms in a 1,200 square foot house was a bonus. There wasn't as much demand for larger closets and storage. The scale of the rooms made lower ceilings fully acceptable. Technology of heating, cooling, etc. required less mechanical closet space, etc. Etc., etc., etc. And not to mention, basic style preferences changed each decade.

As preferences changed, you can see the progressions in the various neighborhoods. When people can't find what they want they go where they can. Some people like the idea of having new structures with new appliances and new technologies and don't want the time and trouble to remodel something that they might have to spend months and months to find. All this meant new neighborhoods reflecting those changes were built. This continues today. It isn't just about sprawl because somebody built a new street. It isn't because suburbanites are stupid or even insensitive to environmental and other issues. It just means they can afford to get close to exactly what they want, so they do. And, when what they have quit meeting their needs and wants, they move.

These same cycles happen in urban dense areas too. I can go to NYC and show you many, many areas of NYC that have gone through similar cycles of desirability and liveliness.

Very reasonable and well thought out post. Thanks.

[Urbanized]

Well, we just completely disagree there.

That is because you don't believe in the well-documented concept of induced demand. A flat-earther, if you will.

[Just the facts]

With this in mind, I wish planners would build the newer neighborhoods to standards that will keep them desirable in 20-30 years.

We're trying to, but dammed if we don't get fought with at every step along the way.

Links to TND and New Urban Neighborhoods

[traxx]

I If you choose to live on a dead street I suggest you read up on the problems related to what has become known as Cul-de-sac kids. It isn't pretty.

I would like to read up on these problems but when I do a search of Cul-de-sac kids, all I get is a series of children's books. Please point me to where I may find out more or post some links. Is this a study or a book or is there some knowledge base on the internet?

[Plutonic Panda]

That is because you don't believe in the well-documented concept of induced demand. A flat-earther, if you will.

Because if we widened I-35 to 10 lanes from lanes with new fly-over interchanges it would fill up immediately. Also, why isn't Kilpatrick turnpike clogged up if induced demand was always true? Why isn't Shields or Classen crawling? Rush hour doesn't count either, even though I-40 crosstown carries traffic with no problem even during rush hour, which also disproves induced demand. I'm sorry man, I just don't see the people rushing to drive on highways just because they are widened.

I believe JTF responded to me giving me an example of someone wanting to get a hot dog and that they would settle for a lesser quality if a congested 6 lane highway was there instead of a new 8-10 lane freeway. I don't remember exactly how he phrased it, but I saw couple problems with it.... number one, first and foremost, we shouldn't be making it harder for people to travel and secondly if someone wants a good hot dog, they're going to travel by whatever means necessary to get it, whether it is an 8 lane arterial road, 12 lane highway or a 2 lane road, 6 lane highway.

So, I honestly don't see how induced demand is true. Now if you take a congested highway like I-35 south to Norman and just add one lane each way, will that solve traffic problems? Hell no! It will still be congested. But if you fixed the service and added (the) service roads all the way to Norman, widen it to 8 lanes(I want to say 10, but might be premature) add one HOV lane each way(which essentially make it 10 lanes) that would do wonders and eventually it would become congested again, but that would be due to growth, not induced demand.

Also, if we opted to build a commuter rail, upgrade our bus network, add "high-speed" light-rail(50-80mph) and a street car, all of that can work together to make the city an easier city to travel in. Even a 50 lane highway wouldn't solve anything if all of the components aren't there to help it, and I think in our biggest case, our interchanges are really what screws up traffic.

Replace every interchange in OKC with this, it doesn't have to be five stack(seeing as there are HOV lanes)



(yes that is Dallas and yes there is traffic on that, but the city has 7 million people and that highway is under construction)

a four stack interchange with service roads that are able to pass through the interchange as well. You probably wouldn't even have to widen the highways for some time if just that was done, but ODOT insists on using these outdated crappy hybrid interchanges -_____-

Also, for those who don't already know, Dallas has quite a bit of six lane highway running through-out the metro and they flow fine, especially in North Dallas....so six lane highways can handle quite a bit of traffic, more than some think, it is just how they're built and how people drive(slowing down to 40 mph just because you see a curve causes a butterfly effect and it doesn't take very many people to do it, I honestly think that is what causes a lot of our highway to become congested; well, that and our interchanges).

[Plutonic Panda]

We're trying to, but dammed if we don't get fought with at every step along the way.

Links to TND and New Urban Neighborhoods

You can build neighborhoods with the cul-de-sacs you dread and the "cookie cutter" subdivisions you hate as well to last. It's about the way they're built and the materials they use. When you do this matchstick construction, even a new urbanist neighborhood would deteriorate in 10 years.

[Just the facts]

I would like to read up on these problems but when I do a search of Cul-de-sac kids, all I get is a series of children's books. Please point me to where I may find out more or post some links. Is this a study or a book or is there some knowledge base on the internet?

The book Suburban Nation has a chapter on it, however, there are tons of research papers written about it, they just don't call them by that name (but they probably should). Look up stats related to drug use, teen pregnancy, teen suicide, obesity, diabetes, teen unemployment, road rage, etc... As sprawls increases so do these items and are the result of social isolation, inactivity, and an auto-dependent environment - not unlike the relationships between tuberculosis and unsanitary conditions in Paris. We really are affected by our environment.

[Plutonic Panda]

Interesting read: Growing Traffic Threatens Sydney | Newgeography.com

[Plutonic Panda]

Also an interesting graph regarding the growth of suburbia



http://www.newgeography.com/content/...tion-estimates

[PWitty]

Also an interesting graph regarding the growth of suburbia



Special Report: 2013 Metropolitan Area Population Estimates | Newgeography.com

I saw that same article, and almost posted the same thing. While the inner city/urban populations of most of the 52 largest metros (1 million+) are increasing, most suburban counties outside of those same 52 metro areas are increasing as well. There seems to be a lot of people who think/believe that in the end only one (urban/suburban) will survive. I feel like that is clearly not the case based off of this study and several others I have seen like it. The real victims of recent domestic migration trends are the outlying rural areas throughout the lower 48, not the suburban areas outside major core cities.

[Plutonic Panda]

I saw that same article, and almost posted the same thing. While the inner city/urban populations of most of the 52 largest metros (1 million+) are increasing, most suburban counties outside of those same 52 metro areas are increasing as well. There seems to be a lot of people who think/believe that in the end only one (urban/suburban) will survive. I feel like that is clearly not the case based off of this study and several others I have seen like it. The real victims of recent domestic migration trends are the outlying rural areas throughout the lower 48, not the suburban areas outside major core cities.

Yeah, this study does kind of paint a negative picture, but I think the largest cities in the US are what makes up this loss and if you took those three cities out, the graph would look much different.

[Just the facts]

That chart is great but all it really shows is where the vacant housing stock is located. Even if those people wanted to move to a central city the housing simply isn't there yet. Just look at OKC. Downtown housing has the highest occupancy rate in the whole metro. Units fill up as fast as they can build them.

[Plutonic Panda]

That chart is great but all it really shows is where the vacant housing stock is located. Even if those people wanted to move to a central city the housing simply isn't there yet. Just look at OKC. Downtown housing has the highest occupancy rate in the whole metro. Units fill up as fast as they can build them.

Well, that is party true with the exception of the Maywood, but I think that is because they are over charging. I also hope we don't end up over building in downtown either, so I hope you're right and people keep buying.