Re-urbanizing Downtown

[Plutonic Panda]

I lived in midtown for 4 years. In that time I NEVER found it to be difficult to go pick up something. I find people who make such claims to obviously have never lived in this area, just going off their own conclusions, which are wrong btw. If you want an easy big-box oriented lifestyle you will not find that in any urban area, period. And it's already been pointed out it's not that far of a drive to any other stores outside the core. Whole Foods and Sprouts were exactly 9 and 12 minutes from my place. CVS, Homeland, and Wal Mart were within 10, really not the end of the world. For comparison's sake, its a 15 minute walk from my friends co-op in Chelsea, NYC to the crappy little Duane Reade where they do their grocery shopping.

I am not so sure that a large scale grocery store is right around the corner for this area. I look at Uptown/Downtown Dallas, which combined has something like 75K people, and they are just now getting a Whole Foods. There's been a sad little Albertsons on the north side of Uptown, it was at best a half-step up from the 18th St Homeland. Most people I know in Uptown simply drove into other nearby districts or into Highland Park. Another poster pointed out the same thing in Denver. The point being, most big box grocery stores don't have urban environments completely figured out yet.

Why would you expect a city that you criticize for being too car oriented to have grocery stores with a walkable district?

[hoya]

As far as re-urbanizing our downtown, we have an awful lot of work to do. The fact is, we are almost (not entirely) building a downtown from scratch. There are some old historic buildings there, but there are many more empty spaces. Half the buildings that are in use are of bad urban design. And when we started out we had virtually no one living downtown.

We aren't going to be New York City, but nevertheless, my dream would be to have a walkable, urbanized downtown that extends over a large enough area that sheer distance, not blight, makes it difficult to walk from one end to the other. Let's say it stretched from the river up to 13th, and from I-235 to Penn, with some extensions east of 235 into the HSC, and south of the river to Capitol Hill, Wheeler Park, and Stockyards City. This is obviously a 30 or 40+ year project. We'd need dozens of neighborhoods the size of Deep Deuce.

To get that type of density, we are going to have to have a lot of things in place. Each of these neighborhood areas would need a combination of housing, restaurants, entertainment, schools, jobs, transportation, etc. Each step along the way will give us a more urban downtown. I don't think we can just jump there like JTF wants. If we said "no more parking garages ever" in downtown OKC, we'd have no new skyscrapers ever. People would build elsewhere. But huge parking garages will become less important if we get more urban neighborhoods in the immediate area. People will still generally want to park, but if in 2025 I live in the Wheeler District and can take the streetcar to my job at Devon, then I really don't need a parking space downtown.

It's important to get good mass transit running throughout this city. Right now you don't have an effective option to get downtown unless you drive. As much as it irritates me to see comments on Newsok by some guy with a mullet about how he can't park within 10 feet of Zio's for free on a Friday night, it can be very crowded and I understand the frustration of people who aren't used to it. Good mass transit would let some of those people park in Moore or Midwest City, and leave their cars behind. I know a park and ride system isn't the ideal solution, but it's significantly better than what we have now.

[Urbanized]

Great post, hoya.

[Jim Kyle]

Good mass transit is absolutely essential. Without it, all other efforts are doomed to failure. Deterioriation of the original CBD, which in turn led to the Urban Renewal fiasco, can be traced directly to the loss of the street-car network during the late 1940s!

Today's Oklahoman has a photo that almost brought tears to my eyes, of the view looking west from Main and Broadway in December of 1937. There's no chance at all that I will live to see the like of that again, and only a slim chance that it will ever come to pass in this city -- but it shows quite clearly what we threw away in the search for a "better" bottom line...

[bchris02]

If I may add to the already great last several posts, just the sheer lack of copious amounts of residential downtown is causing much of the re-urbanization conversation to be incorrectly framed. THE best investment downtown right now, is in my opinion, in dense residential. I can't imagine a better use of funds.

Completely agree with this, which is why I am strongly in support of the Clayco project, even if it means a hefty TIF incentive. It will be the biggest downtown residential project to date. The amenities many would like to see here will come when the rooftops are in place. Certain things such as a 24-hour diner or coffee shop that many wish OKC had cannot be supported by people driving in from the burbs. They depend on dense neighborhood population. Deep Deuce has become that kind of neighborhood and Midtown is getting there. Within a few years they should be major progress on the west side of the CBD with the Clayco, Hall, and 21c Hotel developments along with Film Row. Each development and redevelopment is another step towards a re-urbanized downtown OKC.

Here are downtown OKC's population statistics compared to peer cities and a few larger and smaller that get brought up frequently on this site. Wonder why OKC feels more or less vibrant than these places? Well these numbers are key.

Denver: 80,369
Austin: 64,843
Louisville: 59,789
Indianapolis: 50,349
Richmond: 49,702
Wichita: 39,274
Memphis: 33,418
Charlotte: 33,140
Oklahoma City: 27,868
Tulsa: 26,073
Jacksonville: 24,743
Kansas City: 22,122
Birmingham: 20,786
Little Rock: 18,392

[CuatrodeMayo]

Jane Jacobs was right | Better! Cities & Towns Online

[Just the facts]

If I may add to the already great last several posts, just the sheer lack of copious amounts of residential downtown is causing much of the re-urbanization conversation to be incorrectly framed. THE best investment downtown right now, is in my opinion, in dense residential. I can't imagine a better use of funds.

We've got to be able to flip the model from focusing on bringing people to downtown to taking care of those who live, work, and recreate downtown and are also joined daily by throngs of downtown workers, tourists, and visitors.

I have been thinking the exact same thing and I think it goes back to what I am going to call the "right-wing mentality" for lack of a better term. What I mean by that is the people of OKC seem to think the way to prosperity is to incentives business. When this model is applied to downtown we see incentives for parking garages, jobs, retail, etc... but we got it backwards. The focus should be on incentivizing people, and then let businesses follow them back downtown. This is how urban sprawl works and you can only see how successful that has been. If we got 20,000 people living within 1 mile of MBG the whole downtown retail, grocery store, jobs ,etc debate would just evaporate because businesses would by falling all over each other to provide services to these people.

[bchris02]

I'm very sympathetic to what their proposal is trying to accomplish. I do not believe however that requiring the project to be more urban-friendly is a deal breaker. I think it is simply a matter of publishing form based requirements. Something that most of those cities above us on that list have done.

At some point we will do it. But do we do it now or later? I say, do it now. The demand and desire is at the highest it's ever been.

The only way I see the Clayco project getting any better is for the residential to front the park rather than the commercial, but that's highly unlikely. Other than that, I don't see anything wrong with it from an urban perspective. The Hines project is another matter. I agree with you there needs to be higher standards in place. The ironic thing is the standards are there now but variances are granted for almost anything.

[HOT ROD]

If only OKC could build a plaza like this:


pillars by matteroffact, Jeifangbei CBD Chongqing China on Flickr

[HOT ROD]

Jeifangbei Skyline from lookout



Chongqing X by Captain Young, on Flickr

[bchris02]

OKC needs to do it's riverfront like this.



...with plenty of Plazas like this



....and do it within 5 years!

<sarcasm>

[Jim Kyle]

THE best investment downtown right now, is in my opinion, in dense residential. I can't imagine a better use of funds.

Based partly on a reading of history, and partly on personal experience, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this, Sid.

At the time that photo was made, more than 75 years ago, downtown was a vibrant place. It was still that way when I lived, briefly, in what's now called "Uptown" (300 block of NW 13) some nine years later. At that time, people did live downtown -- but the vast majority of those who lived within a one-mile radius of Main and Broadway were NOT people at the economic level required to support an active CBD. They were, for the most part, folk who could not afford to move out to the suburbs. That early sprawl on the part of the middle and upper class demographic began much earlier, and created what we now know as the Mesta district.

Most of the downtown residential in existence then was destroyed as "blight," and I can testify that much of it deserved that label. Significant parts of those pictured buildings' upper stories could only be compared to NYC tenements. Fully residential areas adjacent to the CBD were, almost all of them, as poorly built and maintained as were Mason's areas in the unit block NW 9, before he brought them back to life.

What kept downtown going all those years was the well-developed mass transit system. In fact, that system is what made OKC itself, not just downtown, grow. Anton Classen and John Shartel built it, starting in 1903, and Classen did so primarily to enable access to his residential developments -- now known as the entire northwest quadrant of OKC.

When their successors decided that the tracks got in the way, and replaced the trolleys and interurbans with buses that never followed reliable schedules, business moved away to get closer to the people with money. Plaza Court was the first suburban shopping center. Midtown (originally known as Uptown) around the Tower theater followed some 20 years later. And an abandoned downtown reached death's door.

Expensive downtown residential, with rents (or payments) in the four-figure range, cannot revive it. Revival needs masses of people, from all walks of life. And most of those people, now, live far from the CBD. That doesn't mean, however, that they don't or won't care for its condition, given good reasons to do so.

The genie cannot be put back in the bottle, Sid. Not everyone is enamored of what some see as the "crowded and impersonal" lifestyle of urban living, and I fear that not enough folk DO prefer it to maintain a truly urban CBD. However, provide the rest of the population a convenient way to participate, and you have some possibility of success.

Safe and reliable mass transit offers such a solution -- but not if it's restricted to a circle less than two miles in diameter. It must carry folk from NW 50 and Classen, NW 10 and MacArthur, NE 23 and MLK, SW 25 and Robinson, SE 15 and High, and all the other "outlying" areas to be successful -- and that won't happen overnight, if ever...

[bchris02]

^^^ I think both Sid and Jim Kyle are right on this. Dense residential is needed, but it can't be all four-figure condos and apartments. The middle class needs to get a piece of the pie for it to truly be successful. Right now there simply aren't a lot of options in downtown OKC. Question is, is the demand there? Do most people in OKC prefer the quiet suburban life and if so, are there enough people who would want an urban alternative to support housing on a much larger scale than what the city is currently seeing built?

[Urbanized]

It's funny that the perception of those who have never experienced working/living downtown is that it is "crowded and impersonal". I have lived in the distant suburbs (far, far north Edmond and also Norman), in apartments in the far northwest part of OKC, in the closer-in, older suburbs near Nichols Hills, in Gatewood, and finally downtown. I have worked in northwest office buildings and elsewhere, but for most of the past 20 years have worked in some capacity downtown.

When living in the suburbs I generally knew few if any of my neighbors. Like most people I parked in the drive or pulled into a garage and then shut out the would behind me. I stayed indoors or in my back yard, and if I wanted to interact with friends I jumped into the car and drove to visit them.

The closer I moved to downtown, the more casual interactions I had, owing to the more personal (as opposed to impersonal) nature of the built environment. Porches, sidewalks, streets, storefronts, all built to facilitate rather than restrict personal interaction.

And as for work, when I worked up north I was either inside the office, or in my car. ALWAYS in my car. Driving to work. Driving home from work. Driving to meet clients. Driving to lunch.

Working downtown I walk to and from many of these places, and if can almost NEVER do so without running into at least one (or a dozen) people I know. I walk to lunch, I walk to appointments, I walk to the doctor, and nearly always I am presented with a brief opportunity or two to solidify a personal or business relationship with a few words or at the very least a smile and a wave.

Living/working downtown is the closest thing you can find to living in a small town...without actually living in a small town. People who think downtown is impersonal have no idea what they are talking about.

[Jim Kyle]

Living/working downtown is the closest thing you can find to living in a small town...without actually living in a small town. People who think downtown is impersonal have no idea what they are talking about.

It all depends on individual personal experience. As it happens, most of my childhood was spent in a town with population of 5,666 per the 1930 census -- and it proclaimed that count proudly on its "City Limits" signs along Route 66. That qualifies pretty well as a "small town" although Elk City today is much larger than that.

While my father knew lots of folk there, my mother and I had almost no interaction at all. We never knew the names of any of our neighbors. I walked to school, about a half-mile away, starting at the age of six, and got to know a few classmates -- but not very many, because I was being pushed along, skipping a semester at a time. Not until we moved to OKC for a year and a half and I entered Linwood's grade three at the age of seven, did I begin to acquire a few friends (at least one of whom I correspond with to this day).

In contrast, once we moved to OKC for keeps in mid-1946, settling near NW 20 and May, we almost immediately fitted into a pattern of vibrant neighborhood activity. We knew all of those immediately surrounding us, visited across the lawns, and watched out for each other.

The impersonality, or lack of it, is in my opinion determined mostly by the individual and much less by the surroundings. At present, my wife and I are probably the senior members of our neighborhood (which was way out in the boonies when we moved here in 1982). We visit occasionally with our immediate neighbors and two families across the street, but we're somewhat stand-offish with everyone else on the block simply because we tend to keep to ourselves. Thirty years ago, this neighborhood had spontaneous block parties. I don't recall even one, though, in the past couple of decades. Both houses adjoining ours have had multiple owners; at least four for the one on the north, and even more for the one on the south. In times gone by, you seldom encountered that degree of transience in small towns; it's almost typical of urban areas, though.

I feel closer to more of the regulars in this forum, and several others in which I participate, than I do to the people living within a block or two of my home.

It's a hugely complicated equation, involving individual personalities, experience, and economics, on both the macro and micro scales. Reminds me of Mencken's observation that for every problem, there's a simple and obvious solution -- which is always wrong.

[Urbanized]

...I feel closer to more of the regulars in this forum, and several others in which I participate, than I do to the people living within a block or two of my home.

It's a hugely complicated equation, involving individual personalities, experience, and economics, on both the macro and micro scales. Reminds me of Mencken's observation that for every problem, there's a simple and obvious solution -- which is always wrong.

There was an interesting book published on this topic a number of years ago: http://www.amazon.com/Bowling-Alone-.../dp/0743203046

And yet Jim, I'll bet only a very few of the people who live downtown feel way you describe feeling in the first paragraph quoted above. During the charettes for the Wheeler District, someone made an interesting comment: they stated that today's generation that is forsaking their parents' suburban leanings and who are repopulating downtown and other areas are doing so for one reason; they crave COMMUNITY. Unfortunately, the same type of experience simply isn't available in the suburbs as we currently know them. I apologize for not remembering the source of the statement, but thought it was a great observation.

[bchris02]

I would have to agree with Urbanized on this. In 2014, suburbia is about you (and your family) living in your own bubble while downtown is more about being part of a community. The days of the suburban GI-bill subdivisions in which everyone knew their neighbors are long gone.

[Just the facts]

I would have to agree with Urbanized on this. In 2014, suburbia is about you (and your family) living in your own bubble while downtown is more about being part of a community. The days of the suburban GI-bill subdivisions in which everyone knew their neighbors are long gone.

I might add, those early days of everyone knowing each other in a subdivision was the result of those very same people moving out of urban areas where they really did know everyone because they lived/worked/shopped in close proximity to each other. When they moved to suburbia they tried to replicate that social interaction with country clubs, civic groups, bbq gatherings, the Welcome Wagon, etc... but eventually the isolating nature of suburbia won out and the first generation of cul-de-sac kids had no idea of the social interaction they missed out on so they didn't try to replicate it - and became even more isolated. This trend really continued up until Friends and Seinfeld were created, which showed that living in an urban area could actually be fun and full of community. People sometimes greatly under-estimate the power of television (for good and bad).

[Mr. Cotter]

I think It has way, way less to do with moving from downtown together, than that.

Most of my time living with my parents, from age 8 to 18, was in a suburb of Dallas. We were the second house in the neighborhood. The first several years were very communal. I could still drive through that neighborhood, and tell you the family name of the original owner of most of the houses. We had block parties, we all spent time at the park (that everyone walked to), everyone had kids that went to the same school, etc. The neighborhood was close because the shared experience of being in a new neighborhood. As families moved on, we knew the second and third owners less and less. The block parties stopped, the kids at the park belonged to the new, younger families. We all put in a collective effort to know each other at first, and then we didn't. In dense neighborhoods, you don't have to try as hard.

[Plutonic Panda]

It's funny that the perception of those who have never experienced working/living downtown is that it is "crowded and impersonal". I have lived in the distant suburbs (far, far north Edmond and also Norman), in apartments in the far northwest part of OKC, in the closer-in, older suburbs near Nichols Hills, in Gatewood, and finally downtown. I have worked in northwest office buildings and elsewhere, but for most of the past 20 years have worked in some capacity downtown.

When living in the suburbs I generally knew few if any of my neighbors. Like most people I parked in the drive or pulled into a garage and then shut out the would behind me. I stayed indoors or in my back yard, and if I wanted to interact with friends I jumped into the car and drove to visit them.

The closer I moved to downtown, the more casual interactions I had, owing to the more personal (as opposed to impersonal) nature of the built environment. Porches, sidewalks, streets, storefronts, all built to facilitate rather than restrict personal interaction.

And as for work, when I worked up north I was either inside the office, or in my car. ALWAYS in my car. Driving to work. Driving home from work. Driving to meet clients. Driving to lunch.

Working downtown I walk to and from many of these places, and if can almost NEVER do so without running into at least one (or a dozen) people I know. I walk to lunch, I walk to appointments, I walk to the doctor, and nearly always I am presented with a brief opportunity or two to solidify a personal or business relationship with a few words or at the very least a smile and a wave.

Living/working downtown is the closest thing you can find to living in a small town...without actually living in a small town. People who think downtown is impersonal have no idea what they are talking about.

How true is that for much larger downtowns such as NYC or San Fran?

[bchris02]

How true is that for much larger downtowns such as NYC or San Fran?

I friend I used to have who lived in NYC would tell me that certain parts, such as Brooklyn or Staten Island, have a community experience. Other places like Manhattan don't as much.

[Urbanized]

Depends on which part of Manhattan. The Financial District? It's largely a ghost town at night and on weekends, just like OKC's downtown. Midtown is fairly quiet too. You probably fall into routines where you see the same people at certain lunch counters, bar/grill, library, bookstore, or other places you frequent. You probably see people you interact with professionally, crossing paths on the sidewalk, etc., but there are TONS of people, so it is probably far less pronounced than in OKC.

The Village? SoHo? Other true NEIGHBORHOODS in Manhattan? I'm sure you see people you know all of the time.

[LocoAko]

I have been thinking the exact same thing and I think it goes back to what I am going to call the "right-wing mentality" for lack of a better term. What I mean by that is the people of OKC seem to think the way to prosperity is to incentives business. When this model is applied to downtown we see incentives for parking garages, jobs, retail, etc... but we got it backwards. The focus should be on incentivizing people, and then let businesses follow them back downtown. This is how urban sprawl works and you can only see how successful that has been. If we got 20,000 people living within 1 mile of MBG the whole downtown retail, grocery store, jobs ,etc debate would just evaporate because businesses would by falling all over each other to provide services to these people.

I just rewatched "Urbanized" last night for the 3rd or 4th time and the obviousness of focusing on people above all else has never seemed clearer or more important to me. It is amazing what some other cities have done around the world (thinking specifically about the Mayor of Bogota, perhaps my favorite person in the movie).

[Just the facts]

I just rewatched "Urbanized" last night for the 3rd or 4th time and the obviousness of focusing on people above all else has never seemed clearer or more important to me. It is amazing what some other cities have done around the world (thinking specifically about the Mayor of Bogota, perhaps my favorite person in the movie).

That is one of my favorite documentaries and while this is my favorite subject - I had to watch that program no less than 5 time before I finally got "it". It is one of those programs that revels an increasingly deeper understanding the more you watch it.

Here is the full movie for anyone wanting to watch it:

[Snowman]

That is one of my favorite documentaries and while this is my favorite subject - I had to watch that program no less than 5 time before I finally got "it". It is one of those programs that revels an increasingly deeper understanding the more you watch it.

Here is the full movie for anyone wanting to watch it:

If you have Netflix, they have it and in HD.