Expansion of OKC and the Metro in the next 20 years

[Teo9969]

I agree, people don't need to have a reason. If they want it and can afford it, then go for it.

Under current development standards on the fringe, they actually can't afford it. *WE* can afford it for them. That's the part being missed in this discussion. Just because a person buys a $350k house on 175th/MacArthur does not mean that the house cost $350k. It cost a lot more than that in "planning" developments, paving and maintaing streets, running and maintaining utilities/electric/gas, land usage, environmental stress, increased inefficiency of decentralized amenities and civil services, etc.

Sprawl is based far more in government subsidy than it is in the free market.

[Teo9969]

Still finding this discussion (and more generally, this entire topic) to be fascinating. I moved to the Putnam City North area back in the late 90's when I got an apartment at Britton & McCarthur, right next to Lake Hefner. Federally subsidized housing destroyed the area in which I was living and I fled to 122nd & Rockwell and a gated condo complex and then bought a house out past NW 178th.

I had to look up the definition of "gentrification" and it turns out to be a phenomena that I'm aware of without knowing the proper term. My question would be, where do all of the lower income people go when this happens? They don't just disappear, they move somewhere else and that area likely suffers. It seems that for every area that is gentrified, another suffers for it. Is it just a cycle that goes on and on with different neighborhoods being gentrified, eventually degrading and then being gentrified again? Do the poor and non-poor just periodically (over decades) change places?

I really should get some reading material on community planning. This is really interesting stuff!

I really like the idea of "new urbanism" influenced development so long as it remains completely voluntary. I do have a problem with social engineers trying to force people, who would prefer to live in a more suburban setting, to live in urban areas.

The solution to the problem you posited lies way outside of development practice and more on the development of society as a whole. As a society, the goal should be to reach a point where lower income residents do not bring down the value of a neighborhood.

But the answer to your question lies in history. Look at the rest of the cities in the world. The center has always been (one of) the strongest/richest area of the city and the poor have always lived (generally) on the outskirts. What we've created in the United States is actually somewhat mind-blowing in how it opposes historical precedent and was only made possible on the scale that it was because of a very unique set of circumstances in the world at the time. Cities could never have developed as such as recently as the early-mid 20th century.

[Plutonic Panda]

When has anyone in Oklahoma ever been forced to live in an Urban setting???

Protesting any new highway proposal, road widenings, and criticizing any suburban development is something a lot of urbanist are notorious for and in a way, that is attempting to force people to live in an urban area closer to the core.

[Plutonic Panda]

Under current development standards on the fringe, they actually can't afford it. *WE* can afford it for them. That's the part being missed in this discussion. Just because a person buys a $350k house on 175th/MacArthur does not mean that the house cost $350k. It cost a lot more than that in "planning" developments, paving and maintaing streets, running and maintaining utilities/electric/gas, land usage, environmental stress, increased inefficiency of decentralized amenities and civil services, etc.

Sprawl is based far more in government subsidy than it is in the free market.

Well, people are choosing to sprawl out. No one is forcing that. People are choosing that on their own free will because the majority prefer it at this time.

Dallas is a great example. They are building a great mass transit system while still choosing to build massive freeways, and guess what... people are choosing their cars over DART and the other mass transit options Dallas offers and is constantly improving.

[Zuplar]

Under current development standards on the fringe, they actually can't afford it. *WE* can afford it for them. That's the part being missed in this discussion. Just because a person buys a $350k house on 175th/MacArthur does not mean that the house cost $350k. It cost a lot more than that in "planning" developments, paving and maintaing streets, running and maintaining utilities/electric/gas, land usage, environmental stress, increased inefficiency of decentralized amenities and civil services, etc.

Sprawl is based far more in government subsidy than it is in the free market.

The irony there is place that same house in a more 'urban' setting and the price could double. People will go where the cheap land is.

[adaniel]

Dallas is a great example. They are building a great mass transit system while still choosing to build massive freeways, and guess what... people are choosing their cars over DART and the other mass transit options Dallas offers and is constantly improving.

No, Dallas is building massive TOLLWAYS that are starting to generate quite a bit of opposition right now. And you are being quite charitable in calling DART rail "great."

In any event, there are lots of cities out there...more than just one city for OKC to emulate. Nobody should be holding Dallas or Houston as models of good planning IMO.

As far as what people are choosing...last time I checked cities are collectively growing faster than their suburbs at the current moment. So there's that.

[Plutonic Panda]

No, Dallas is building massive TOLLWAYS that are starting to generate quite a bit of opposition right now. And you are being quite charitable in calling DART rail "great."

In any event, there are lots of cities out there...more than just one city for OKC to emulate. Nobody should be holding Dallas or Houston as models of good planning IMO.

As far as what people are choosing...last time I checked cities are collectively growing faster than their suburbs at the current moment. So there's that.

DART rail is great and is being expanded. There is one controversial project that Dallas is proposing which is the Trinity River Toll and get this, I actually oppose that.

Dallas is a great model for city planning, imo, but I think OKC should set its own way. We don't need to copy anyone in planning our city as a whole.

We can have a great urban, dense urban core served by an amazing mass transit system, but I will still support multi-billion dollar highway being built out in the suburbs fed by six-lane streets. This is not an either or issue. Someone living in NW OKC should most certainly be able to have the same services as someone in downtown, but substitute the mass transit for 6 lane roads and 10 lane highways.

I'm am aware that cities have passed suburbs in growth, but we'll see how long that lasts. Suburbs aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and that is said for a lot of cities. I was in Jacksonville and New Orleans, both cities with great urban areas, and they still have huge highway under construction and big suburban investments. It's more than just Texas cities. As I've also stated, even London has suburbs with new suburban development taking place.

[Teo9969]

The irony there is place that same house in a more 'urban' setting and the price could double. People will go where the cheap land is.

The price could double based on supply/demand, free market economics, not at all because of infrastructure and the need for municipal resources.

[Plutonic Panda]

The price could double based on supply/demand, free market economics, not at all because of infrastructure and the need for municipal resources.

Yeah, and it's the infrastructure where the new-urbanist try to prohibit suburban growth.

People will go will cheap land is, but there's more to it than that for a lot of people.

[Teo9969]

Well, people are choosing to sprawl out. No one is forcing that. People are choosing that on their own free will because the majority prefer it at this time.

Dallas is a great example. They are building a great mass transit system while still choosing to build massive freeways, and guess what... people are choosing their cars over DART and the other mass transit options Dallas offers and is constantly improving.

1. We're not forcing it, we're subsidizing it.

2. It's not a great mass transit system because you cannot have a great mass transit system in a sprawled city. It's functional and does well for what it is, but the system doesn't have hundreds of thousands of riders per day because it doesn't service hundreds of thousands of riders. Why does it not service hundreds of thousands of riders in a metro of more than 6 million? Because you can't service low density development with public transit. See the OKC bus system.

[Plutonic Panda]

1. We're not forcing it, we're subsidizing it.

2. It's not a great mass transit system because you cannot have a great mass transit system in a sprawled city. It's functional and does well for what it is, but the system doesn't have hundreds of thousands of riders per day because it doesn't service hundreds of thousands of riders. Why does it not service hundreds of thousands of riders in a metro of more than 6 million? Because you can't service low density development with public transit. See the OKC bus system.

Well, first off even mass transit is subsidized. We used federal funds for the street car, did we not?

Also, I was speaking giving the core mass transit and the suburbs wide highway and roads. The suburbs can also be served by light-rail and a bus or two to the downtown areas, but the core will get well served bus service, street car, light-rail, subways, bike lanes, etc.

[Teo9969]

Yeah, and it's the infrastructure where the new-urbanist try to prohibit suburban growth.

People will go will cheap land is, but there's more to it than that for a lot of people.

The question is why are the new-urbanists the only one's trying to prohibit this growth. If I live in suburbia in Lansbrook at MacArthur and Britton Road, why do I want to encourage people to sprawl just to lessen the value of not just my property, but the entire community I'm involved with? Why do I want to pay the high taxes I already pay to subsidize even more sprawl? Where is the end? The connecting of Tulsa and OKC via Suburban Sprawl? How do you all think Warr Acres is feeling about right now? Bethany?

Again, the point is that the people using the services are not the one's paying for it. This is not cheap land. This is subsidized land.

[AP]

Why do you still not understand that Cities can not afford to keep building the way we have for decades? Everyone understands that you love this stuff but cities can't afford it. It is time for cities to become more responsible in the way the plan and develop, and if that leads to a more urban setting than what you like, I'm sorry. But you can't always get what you want. It's silly that people are still having to be convinced of facts.

[Plutonic Panda]

The question is why are the new-urbanists the only one's trying to prohibit this growth. If I live in suburbia in Lansbrook at MacArthur and Britton Road, why do I want to encourage people to sprawl just to lessen the value of not just my property, but the entire community I'm involved with? Why do I want to pay the high taxes I already pay to subsidize even more sprawl? Where is the end? The connecting of Tulsa and OKC via Suburban Sprawl? How do you all think Warr Acres is feeling about right now? Bethany?

Again, the point is that the people using the services are not the one's paying for it. This is not cheap land. This is subsidized land.

I understand what you're saying.

I wasn't saying it was strictly new-urbanist, but a large majority of them are.

[Plutonic Panda]

Why do you still not understand that Cities can not afford to keep building the way we have for decades? Everyone understands that you love this stuff but cities can't afford it. It is time for cities to become more responsible in the way the plan and develop, and if that leads to a more urban setting than what you like, I'm sorry. But you can't always get what you want. It's silly that people are still having to be convinced of facts.

So as cars get more fuel efficient, new materials come out for road surfaces that are cheaper and last longer, what's to say it can't be done?

[AP]

So as cars get more fuel efficient, new materials come out for road surfaces that are cheaper and last longer, what's to say it can't be done?

Where are these resources you keep dreaming about? We needed them a long time ago.

[Teo9969]

So as cars get more fuel efficient, new materials come out for road surfaces that are cheaper and last longer, what's to say it can't be done?

Tell you what, when it is done, I'll be fine with it. In the meantime, let's charge the impact fees necessary. So when houses on NW 150th and Council sell for $425k instead of $350k, then we'll all be happy because free-market capitalism is finally working.

[Plutonic Panda]

Tell you what, when it is done, I'll be fine with it. In the meantime, let's charge the impact fees necessary. So when houses on NW 150th and Council sell for $425k instead of $350k, then we'll all be happy because free-market capitalism is finally working.

if that's what they're worth than why aren't they selling for that much? Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, I really don't know.

[Plutonic Panda]

Where are these resources you keep dreaming about? We needed them a long time ago.

Well, the cars, as you know, are becoming more fuel efficient and more eco friendly as we introduce new fuel types to help off-set pollution. Look at hydrogen fuel cell, it releases water vapor.

HowStuffWorks "How Fuel Cells Work"

As for the road and highway surfacing, there are new composite materials being tested.

I'll search for the article about the composite cement. I saw it on Popular Science a few years back.

[hoya]

If I had my choice, I would live in a huge castle in an enchanted forest with my pet dragon.

Now I seriously cannot afford that, but if the government wanted to subsidize that way of life (and they would have to subsidize it a lot), then I might be able to afford it. They could build a castle for me, plant a forest around it, build some huts and move renaissance fair-loving midgets in there, and buy me a trained Komodo dragon. Unfortunately, the government seems to think that would be a waste of money. Thanks, Obama!

If we spend billions in public money on building bigger highways to connect places that are currently empty fields with our downtowns, then of course people are going to move out there. You're giving them access to incredibly cheap land, and giving them a state-funded connection to their front door. If you stop doing that, then they will stop moving out there. It's wasteful and inefficient.

For a city with our population, there's no reason we should have people building homes on NW 206th and Rockwell, and yet we do.

If the government was giving free land downtown to any developer who wanted to build a 30 story condo tower, gave them massive tax credits, and had been doing so for the past 60 years, is there any question that our downtown would have a lot more towers?

[Teo9969]

if that's what they're worth than why aren't they selling for that much? Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, I really don't know.

Because they're not worth that much, but that's what they should actually cost.

Developers know that people aren't going to pay 20% more for those homes in this market.

[soonerguru]

Protesting any new highway proposal, road widenings, and criticizing any suburban development is something a lot of urbanist are notorious for and in a way, that is attempting to force people to live in an urban area closer to the core.

Then I'm all for it!



But seriously, I was advocating for more affordable alternatives in the inner core, and then I was quickly corrected by people suggesting we have a horde of available housing in the inner city. Wut?

[corwin1968]

If we spend billions in public money on building bigger highways to connect places that are currently empty fields with our downtowns, then of course people are going to move out there. You're giving them access to incredibly cheap land, and giving them a state-funded connection to their front door. If you stop doing that, then they will stop moving out there. It's wasteful and inefficient.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. People aren't following the highways, the highways are following the people. This public money you mention is just that, money taken from the public in the form of taxes and fees and it's spent on what the public wants......access to a nice house and yard in the suburbs. Your scenario is uncomfortably close to the "elites" deciding how to plan a community which then "forces" the people to live in a certain place. Sort of like I mentioned in my previous post.

[soonerguru]

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. People aren't following the highways, the highways are following the people. This public money you mention is just that, money taken from the public in the form of taxes and fees and it's spent on what the public wants......access to a nice house and yard in the suburbs. Your scenario is uncomfortably close to the "elites" deciding how to plan a community which then "forces" the people to live in a certain place. Sort of like I mentioned in my previous post.

You need to read some history on the development of the highway system and how it affected American life. Of course once suburbs were built, houses were made bigger, two car garages became the norm, that appealed to people in the post-World War II era. Right or wrong, this lifestyle was subsidized and continues to be subsidized. This isn't an "elitist" statement.

It has not been all bad for America. It has also not been all good. Allowing our cities to rot from the center, decentralizing and spreading out services to far-flung areas, and spreading blight to larger areas of our cities have not been good.

This isn't an "urban versus suburbs" discussion. The discussion is on how to improve our inner city, how to expand that improvement to yesterday's forgotten suburbs, and how to provide choice to people in how they live, regardless of lifestyle choice. Also, please be careful when you start discussing "forcing" people how and where to live. As you'll note from reading this board (if you read it as closely as you say), there are people clamoring to have an alternative to the suburban lifestyle that are struggling to find options. In many ways, they have been "forced" to accept the lifestyle your prefer.

And as to taxation, those of us who are living in the city have been "forced" to subsidize inefficient distribution of city services to areas such as 178th and May. This has caused us to have stretched city budgets, which often means dismal city services like our poor transit system.

[bchris02]

This isn't an "urban versus suburbs" discussion. The discussion is on how to improve our inner city, how to expand that improvement to yesterday's forgotten suburbs, and how to provide choice to people in how they live, regardless of lifestyle choice. Also, please be careful when you start discussing "forcing" people how and where to live. As you'll note from reading this board (if you read it as closely as you say), there are people clamoring to have an alternative to the suburban lifestyle that are struggling to find options. In many ways, they have been "forced" to accept the lifestyle your prefer.

Well to be fair, comparing OKC with its peers, the lack of living options in the core today can be tied to developers being afraid to bet on downtown OKC during the 2000s. That is all changing in a huge way but its going to take some time to catch up. The city widening Penn from two to four lanes between 150th and 178th has little to do with the lack of housing options in the urban core.