Expansion of OKC and the Metro in the next 20 years

[Teo9969]

Isn't is a part of historical route 66?

It is. 66 Bowl, etc.

I love that we just completely ignore that. It's a grand part of American history draping right through the middle of our city and we….ignore it?

I've met Europeans who specifically came over to travel Route 66 …

[Plutonic Panda]

Even the portions that are interstate stands I44 are Route 66. Turning it into a 6 lane freeway doesn't ignore that.

[bradh]

Dude, no one travels Route 66 to feel like they are traveling on a freeway. Even driving through the old route in Tucumcari (one of that last great remaining stretches of the original road since it was only bypassed in the early 80s) is a great step back into time. The original route was already bypassed, leave what is there be for what it was.

[bchris02]

Dude, no one travels Route 66 to feel like they are traveling on a freeway. Even driving through the old route in Tucumcari (one of that last great remaining stretches of the original road since it was only bypassed in the early 80s) is a great step back into time. The original route was already bypassed, leave what is there be for what it was.

I agree with this. I-40 runs parallel to old Route 66 going out west but if you want to do a real Route 66 tour, you take the old road, not the freeway. I wish OKC would capitalize on that more and spruce up 39th St.

[soonerguru]

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.

I agree. And that would be a preposterous statement to make, but it's quite similar to the statement made by corwin when he suggested "social engineers" were trying to take away his God-given right to live in the suburbs. And there are many more reasons that have led us to where we are. But it is very true that spending money in less dense areas to support that lifestyle has consequences: budgets are finite. We have had poor roads throughout our city. We have a substandard public transportation system. We have challenges hiring and paying enough police and fire personnel. OKC has done well with what it has to work with overall but there are choices that have to be made, and there are still far too many populous areas in the city core that lack quality bus service or sidewalks.

[soonerguru]

The free market is starting to respond to the desire of some OKC residents to live downtown. A decade ago you would never have developments like the Metropolitan and the Steelyard. Huge public investments will be coming online in the coming decade such as the streetcar, central park, and new convention center, all of which should spur a wave of private investment. This is all great stuff. The core is coming back and its just getting started.

However, if a homebuilder wants to build a subdivision at 178th and Western, why should they be prohibited from doing so? OKC needs to be thankful that it has so much affluent suburban real estate within its city limits and therefore can collect the tax revenue from it.

Do you have reading comprehension problems? No one has suggested people be "prohibited" from building. They've said we should stop subsidizing it.

[soonerguru]

I agree with this. I-40 runs parallel to old Route 66 going out west but if you want to do a real Route 66 tour, you take the old road, not the freeway. I wish OKC would capitalize on that more and spruce up 39th St.

Talk to Bethany and Warr Acres about "sprucing up 39th." Most of the ratty areas are in their purview.

[hoya]

Some people need to call a doctor, because their hard-ons for the interstate have lasted way longer than they should.

[bchris02]

I agree. And that would be a preposterous statement to make, but it's quite similar to the statement made by corwin when he suggested "social engineers" were trying to take away his God-given right to live in the suburbs. And there are many more reasons that have led us to where we are. But it is very true that spending money in less dense areas to support that lifestyle have consequences: budgets are finite. We have had poor roads throughout our city. We have a substandard public transportation system. We have challenges hiring and paying enough police and fire personnel. OKC has done well with what it has to work with overall but there are choices that have to be made, and there are still far too many populous areas in the city core that lack quality bus service or sidewalks.

I agree with the last sentence especially. Certain neighborhoods in OKC lack sidewalks but given their age they should have them. I can definitely understand subdivisions built during the golden age of the suburb lacking sidewalks, but areas like Classen Ten Penn and Uptown should logically have them yet some streets do not.

[Plutonic Panda]

Dude, no one travels Route 66 to feel like they are traveling on a freeway. Even driving through the old route in Tucumcari (one of that last great remaining stretches of the original road since it was only bypassed in the early 80s) is a great step back into time. The original route was already bypassed, leave what is there be for what it was.

That's fine. Half of Route 66 is already gone anyways. There's still plenty to travel on.

Sorry but I don't think much of it. If it were me, I'd then 39th Expressway into a highway with interstate standards. But I'm not in control of that and end of story.

[Plutonic Panda]

Do you have reading comprehension problems? No one has suggested people be "prohibited" from building. They've said we should stop subsidizing it.

subsidize, subsidize, subsidize!!!!!! What a word. How is mass transit paid for! Oh, and by subsidize you mean pay for, which is why we have a government, to build our roads and pay for them. Let's call it subsidizing!!!

[Plutonic Panda]

Talk to Bethany and Warr Acres about "sprucing up 39th." Most of the ratty areas are in their purview.

Or we can talk to ODOT about turning it into a freeway. Sure is funny how many different excuses few will come up with to protest a highway.

[Plutonic Panda]

Some people need to call a doctor, because their hard-ons for the interstate have lasted way longer than they should.

The same could be said for the pro mass transit crowd as well.

[HOT ROD]

You bring up a good point about the schools. I don't think anyone would disagree that OKCPS needs some work, as with any urban school district.

At the same time, I look at cities that are outstripping their suburban areas in terms of growth (Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis, New Orleans, DC, among others) and none of them strike me as having vastly superior school systems to OKC. What's their "special sauce" that allows them to step around this issue?

Those cities have large amounts of growth in residents that are not families or are upper crust to not 'depend' upon the inner city public schools. Seattle has a very large population of young people residing in the inner core - these people are unmarried and/or childless for the most part. They are students or professionals just starting out. They're not dependent upon the schools system, as Seattle's School District is just about the same population size as Oklahoma City's (both city districts are the largest in their state) despite Seattle having far more residents in the Seattle district vs. OKC.

If OKC wants to model this, then the city should focus on attracting young urban professionals to the core (who clearly want to live in the core and typically wait on having family) in addition to the current focus on empty nesters. What does this mean?

Downtown OKC needs = Large supply of High Quality Rental properties! High Quality/Paying Office Jobs! Service Industry (ie retail) commensurate to the Office/Commercial Core! A high degree of entertainment options (including dance clubs. lol).

By the way, this is what Downtown Seattle offers (Live, Work, Play) despite having not so great schools nearby.

[Plutonic Panda]

Any rate I'm going to chime on out of this thread. I want both the core and suburbs to do well and I want options for all.

This doesn't have to be an either or scenario.

I will say the core of the city is the brain and heart. Whenever I have visitors, we take them downtown. As it stands, downtown is going to change so much in the future and it's for the better!

I'm out before people start to think I'm trolling because I've made my point on my view of highways and such.

[soonerguru]

subsidize, subsidize, subsidize!!!!!! What a word. How is mass transit paid for! Oh, and by subsidize you mean pay for, which is why we have a government, to build our roads and pay for them. Let's call it subsidizing!!!

Hey, we don't disagree here. I want more services subsidized for the more urbanized part of the city, because simple economics makes this a better investment. People should feel free to move half way to Kingfisher if they want. They should be able to build the most spectacular faux-Tuscany manor they want. But at some point, it doesn't make sense for most of us to be paying for it. Urban growth boundaries are a good idea.

[Teo9969]

Any rate I'm going to chime on out of this thread. I want both the core and suburbs to do well and I want options for all.

This doesn't have to be an either or scenario.

I will say the core of the city is the brain and heart. Whenever I have visitors, we take them downtown. As it stands, downtown is going to change so much in the future and it's for the better!

I'm out before people start to think I'm trolling because I've made my point on my view of highways and such.

If your point is that you like highways and suburban development, you've definitely made a point. If your point is that you hold a particular belief, you've definitely made your point.

If your point is that we are making a good investment as a community, you have unequivocally failed. Next time the subject comes up, maybe you'll find a way to do such thing. You've failed to produce a rebuttal to the claim that our mode of developing the suburbs hurts not the core, but the existing suburbs the most. This, in essence, makes you anti-suburb and pro waste.

[soonerguru]

Because Portland, duh! (in response to bchris02...Teo snuck one in there before me)

The driving factor is schools, period. You want to curb rampant growth of the fringe, do all you can to help fix OKCPS. I'm not gonna lie, after looking in the core (and experiencing what soonerguru already has laid out about lack of reasonable housing...sorry Classen Ten-Pen isn't really up my alley so don't throw that at me), we're building within OKC city limits but one mile north of Kilpatrick. We love the core and spend a large amount of our free time down there, but in the end, with two cars (could MAYBE shed one if we moved downtown), a large dog and kid, a 1000 sq ft condo/townhome or century old house that requires more maintenance than these two working parents are willing to deal with. Was a tough decision and one that honestly we may have days we regret, but we're comfortable with it.

I agree about "fixing" the schools. Huge factor. That takes money too, though. Dammit.

What I was speaking to is the rapid increase in land / real estate values in the core. How would you feel about, say, a 1,300 sq foot condo that is affordable in the inner city? Maybe even with a tiny yard for the grill? Or at least a balcony? And something you could buy for about $200k? It would be tempting, no?

But the real estate speculation is so great that there's not really an organic rise in values. It's almost like OKC is already Portland, with a dense urban core, and not the city we see with vast empty lots. The prices are rising very fast and there's little variety to the inner-city housing stock. I'm excited about the big rental megaplexes but that's all we're getting right now. Does every developer have to clear millions to make a project work?

[bradh]

At 200k hell yeah. At the 300k plus we were finding? Not so much

[Geographer]

Oh, and as for 39th, this isn't going to earn me an medals with you, but I'd turn that into a freeway with interstate standards continuing I-44 and connecting it with Kirkpatrick. I assumed that was the plan anyways due to the extremely large setbacks.

That would be so pretty...plowing right through downtown Bethany.

[Urbanized]

Nah...you'd have to remove downtown Bethany entirely. Problem solved!

[bchris02]

NW 39th St has the potential to be an amazing corridor but not as a freeway. Even if ODOT had unlimited money and resources I don't see the benefit of converting that thoroughfare to Interstate standards. What would OKC gain from such a conversion that would be worth the loss of all the businesses currently located there as well as the loss of downtown Bethany? I would love to see 39th St improved and spruced up but converting to an Interstate just wouldn't make sense.

[bradh]

If Bethany wasn't dry it would help lol. I see why the Flat Tire Burgers there failed, went in there one night with the wife to grab a burger and beer, and when half of that equation was missing we left.

[bchris02]

Do you have reading comprehension problems? No one has suggested people be "prohibited" from building. They've said we should stop subsidizing it.

There have been several in this thread and others state there should be urban growth boundaries in an attempt to restrict sprawl. That I strongly disagree with. As for subsidizing sprawl, its the city's job to provide services where the people live, whether thats the CBD or 192nd and Portland. Perhaps a de-annexation movement should be started as that would prevent the city of OKC from being required to provide services to development farther and farther out. As long as something is in the city limits, the city is obligated to provide city services.

[Canoe]

What I was speaking to is the rapid increase in land / real estate values in the core. How would you feel about, say, a 1,300 sq foot condo that is affordable in the inner city? Maybe even with a tiny yard for the grill? Or at least a balcony? And something you could buy for about $200k? It would be tempting, no?

I can/could build you a 1300 s.f. house in HHE for 225k give or take with a yard and a garage and the best downtown elementary school, no balcony. Were you serious about the quoted text above?