Maps 4 Neighborhoods

[GaryOKC6]

This is something that the Chamber is working on. Home - Project for Public Spaces

[bchris02]

Look, I'm all for bettering neighborhoods, but that means picking and choosing which neighborhoods are worthy of investment, and it means changing the rules those communities have played by since they started developing.

To me, the only real way you could make the PC North area viable long-term is to completely re-imagine Rockwell Avenue between Hefner and 122nd. The development at both intersections would need to come down and be replaced with more density, higher quality development, and a major anchor business that is completely lacking in the community. What does OKC need to invest to make that happen? If you think $10M is going to do it, you're sorely mistaken. I'd guess we'd be looking at a lot closer to $200M ($100M for each intersection) just to get things started. You'd need private money to make a major impact as well.

I was just at the Crest this afternoon and was thinking about this. The Warwick Crossing shopping center has become very blighted. While Crest itself is always busy, the rest of the shopping center is very distressed. Lots of vacancies and the property and the parking lot hasn't been kept up very well. Across Rockwell there is another abandoned building that looks like it was once a grocery store (Food Lion maybe?).

While I think the homes in that area are still decent, its the aging shopping centers and apartment complexes really bringing down the area. Question is, what is the solution? What can the city do to salvage these areas? The city cannot force the owners of the shopping centers or apartment complexes to rehabilitate their property. This problem seems to be a little worse in OKC than in other cities that I've lived and visited, at least from my own experience (Note: I am not saying that it is MUCH worse here or that it doesn't happen elsewhere because it does). How do other cities handle the situation of suburban blight and what could OKC learn from what works elsewhere?

One thing that I think really hurts OKC in terms of these aging shopping centers goes back to Wal-Mart and what they have done to the grocery/retail situation in this city. In other cities, developers can easily sign somebody like Kroger, Tom Thumb, H-E-B, etc on as an anchor and thus make it easier to redevelop some of these blighted 80s strip malls. That's more difficult to do in OKC due to lack of retail competition in this market so you have abandoned or distressed strip malls all over that have little chance of redevelopment. The rumored Supercenter at N Rockwell and Memorial could be even more bad news for the retail at both the 122nd and the Hefner Road intersections with Rockwell.

One thing is the PC North area isn't in the dire straights the area south of NW Expressway is yet, but if there isn't an intervention soon, it will become that way.

[ljbab728]

One thing is the PC North area isn't in the dire straights the area south of NW Expressway is yet, but if there isn't an intervention soon, it will become that way.

I live and work just South of NW Expressway in the Meridian - Rockwell area and it is definitely not in dire straits. I'm not counting Lyrewood because that is an issue all on it's own.

[mkjeeves]

Question is, what is the solution? What can the city do to salvage these areas? The city cannot force the owners of the shopping centers or apartment complexes to rehabilitate their property. This problem seems to be a little worse in OKC than in other cities that I've lived and visited, at least from my own experience (Note: I am not saying that it is MUCH worse here or that it doesn't happen elsewhere because it does). How do other cities handle the situation of suburban blight and what could OKC learn from what works elsewhere?

The below misses the mark somewhat in that it's not only "poor people" who live in these areas in OKC. It's poor people, middle class and some wealthy, AKA the majority of the citizens of OKC. But the idea should be the same. A square for each hamlet? With masstrans connections? We're planning on more of the latter anyway, it only makes sense it would be considered with neighborhood redevelopment. Maybe start with the ones that need the most help. If an area isn't broken, don't fix it.

Retrofitting suburbia’s abundant and underused commercial properties and parking lots with a mix of uses, including apartments that support walking and public transit, does not displace anyone and can connect the suburban poor to jobs, schools, parks and affordable housing and transportation.

Converting old suburban properties like parking lots into mixed-use residential spaces close to public transit does not displace anyone and connects the poor to opportunities.

Is this happening? Over the past year, our database of suburban retrofits has grown to over 800 examples. Many of them – Jackson Medical Mall in Jackson, Miss., Collinwood Recreation Center in Cleveland, Ohio, and Austin Community College in Austin, Texas – are designed to introduce lower-income populations to career, health, and educational opportunities in refashioned suburban wastelands like run-down shopping centers. Other organizations are building on top of parking lots to encourage small suburban downtown hubs or retrofitting park-n-rides into transit-oriented housing developments.

^That's JTF's retrofitting suburbia people. I dislike the term for OKC, it's more realistic and productive to think of our Neighborhoods as what they are, neighborhoods where the vast majority of the citizens of OKC live, work, shop and go about their daily lives. A MAPS 4 Neighborhoods could fund a program whereby these kinds of things can happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate...n-parking-lots

As far as bonds for fixing streets, we need to do that anyway, not in place of other efforts.

[Teo9969]

Economies are really quite simple…to be successful you need the following:

1. The ability to export a good/service in which they have a competitive advantage over a considerable amount of competitors in order to draw outside resources into the economy.
2. The ability to draw outside resources into the economy via "tourism"
3. The ability to create efficiencies within the economy that result in more disposable capital.

The PC North area has none of that.

#1 is usually relegated to a whole municipality or larger entity (state/province/country). In OKC it is Oil. So if you get a big enough fish in your backyard, the net effect is probably supremely helpful (I'm sure Exxon moving significant number of jobs to The Woodlands will be a massive boon for the Houston-suburb). Likewise if MidFirst or some other big company moved their offices to Rockwell and Hefner, believe that the area would see a massive spike in quality-of-life and property value.

#2 The only draw to that area of NW OKC is PC North. Maybe if the PC North area enveloped Lake Hefner, it would have that to fall back on, but traffic to Hefner is probably a net loss for economic activity in the PC North area. That area is my stomping grounds, and I wouldn't be surprised if I spend a grand total of 24 hours for the rest of my life (I'm 27) in that area of town since my parents no longer live there. Contrast that to where I live now…even if I sold my home, I'd still hit up Western Avenue and Belle Isle, and Classen Curve if I lived in another area of the city.

#3 This is where you would have to start…and the only way to do that is to increase density and make sure that the influx of residents and businesses that come in diversify your current base.

PC North relies on Blue Stem, Warwick, Lansbrook, and several other nice residential areas maintaing their status as great places to live throughout the city

The problem is that they're not…because Deer Creek and Edmond offer so much more for not much more money.

[mkjeeves]

From a recent thread...Paycom is in the general area, along with several other employers.

Of course the energy business impacts OKC but I think that is much more psychological than real.

This is the latest list of largest employers and the 3 energy companies only comprise 4% of the total shown here.

Surprised Paycom isn't on this list but I'm sure they soon will be.

[Teo9969]

And is it predominantly serving the area? Where do its employees live? What amenities has it attracted to the area?

I'd be welling to bet a lot of money that if Paycom were located on Hefner and Rockwell that the economic impact in the PC North area would be substantially larger than it is right now.

[Teo9969]

Also, I did forget Francis Tuttle (And Brown Mackie for that matter), which is actually probably the biggest draw and positive in the district over against PC North. At least F.T. has a more legitimate chance to really bring in people from outside to spend their money in the area.

[Teo9969]

But at any rate…once the high school in any given suburban area starts to fall off, the rest of the area will follow. The high school is the #1 reason people chose this area over countless other suburban areas that were likely cheaper and closer to more established amenities.

The enemy of these suburban areas is not only downtown. It's the newer, shinier, "better" suburban areas that only cost a bit more and people are willing to reach for…at which point the money in the newer, shinier, "better" area starts to flee further, because generally people don't want others who are less fortunate than themselves to come into their neighborhoods and "bring down the value".

How can something truly great ever be built if people keep cutting off their nose to spite their face?

[mkjeeves]

Farmers, Express. Lots of stuff relatively close.

No, most of the people who work there don't live there. Just like most of the people who work at Devon don't live downtown. They could live in the neighborhood. With improvements under Maps 4 Neighborhoods it could be more attractive than living at Deer Creek and improve. That's the point. And that people do live there now. OKC citizens even.

What's in Deer Creek? Schools, some newer homes and that's about it the last time I looked, but it's been awhile.

[Urbanized]

Yeah, the enemy of existing suburban areas is not downtown. In fact, as we have seen over the past decade, a reviving downtown actually stabilizes and enhances the quality of life and value of existing suburban areas, especially those close to the heart of the city. Witness the viability and climbing values in places like Plaza/Gatewood/CTP and surrounding areas, or what is now happening along Uptown23, Western and beyond. The JFK neighborhood is poised to be a comeback story. NE 23rd is showing signs of life. The same momentum is also likely to happen soon to corridors such as May Avenue and Capitol Hill.

These areas were once hit very hard by a centrifugal movement of people away from a rotting urban core, and the places THEY moved to are now struggling because the upwardly mobile have since moved on, yet again. And again. The new places had newer houses, newer schools, more/newer entertainment/dining/shopping options...

No, the enemy of existing suburban areas is the NEXT suburban area being planned a few miles down the same road. Those places steal people and resources from ALL of the other places in town. The FRINGE and beyond are the enemies of a healthy city.

[mkjeeves]

Or course downtown isn't the enemy of the neighborhoods. Most of us realized the importance, voted to spend money to revitalize it. It has led to gentrifying adjoining areas.

Now it's time to work on other parts of the city where most of the people live, where most of the jobs are, where most of the city funding comes from. The neighborhoods are not the enemy of downtown. What's good for the neighborhoods is good for all of OKC.

[bradh]

I'm one of the enemies here, as we just left the Hefner/MacArthur area to the NW 150th/MacArthur area. Did we really want to leave where we were? No, but when one of our best friends who teaches at Hefner MS tells us to "get out" we had to think about it. Let me throw in a couple of thoughts:

First, I don't see the Deer Creek area ever getting passed up by "the next great suburb" like bchris stated. At some point there is a threshold that people dont want to pass as far as being a certain distance from "the action." I grew up in Katy, what was a small town 30 miles from downtown Houston. There used to be somewhat of a break from Houston to Katy, but that no longer exists. The city of Katy is growing west, to points where I can't fathom why people would want to spend that much windshield time in their lives, but the quality of the community hasn't really diminished. Tons of families there are second and third generations. They take pride in making sure the community stays desirable. Maybe what hurts Deer Creek in this is that it's not it's own city, but from what I gather families are really supportive of that school, and where there is pride in at least one thing that helps.

Second, the PC area reminds me a whole lot of Spring Branch area of west Houston. When I was in High School (late 90s) there was one of the schools that was in a very affluent area, one in a hood, another in an area that was probably a bit more decayed than PC North now, and another that was old money mixed in with some lower income crap development. In the last decade plus, BP built a headquarters there, other O&G players followed, and the entire area (and Spring Branch ISD) is firmly within what is called the Energy Corridor. That's one of the things that Teo referenced that could help the area. Unfortunately, Farmers, Paycom, et al were built I think too far north to really help boost the PC North area. In Spring Branch, you have residences going for triple what they went for 15 years ago, it's ridiculous. Friends are moving in to the areas of Spring Branch that we called ghettos around 2000. I don't know if PC North will ever get that far, but if it does, and something happens that allows a bounce back, the bones are without a doubt there.

As much as we talk of moving downtown when we get older when our girl goes off to college, we both could totally see ourselves in an older Blue Stem home too.

[Teo9969]

Yeah, the enemy of existing suburban areas is not downtown. In fact, as we have seen over the past decade, a reviving downtown actually stabilizes and enhances the quality of life and value of existing suburban areas, especially those close to the heart of the city. Witness the viability and climbing values in places like Plaza/Gatewood/CTP and surrounding areas, or what is now happening along Uptown23, Western and beyond. The JFK neighborhood is poised to be a comeback story. NE 23rd is showing signs of life. The same momentum is also likely to happen soon to corridors such as May Avenue and Capitol Hill.

These areas were once hit very hard by a centrifugal movement of people away from a rotting urban core, and the places THEY moved to are now struggling because the upwardly mobile have since moved on, yet again. And again. The new places had newer houses, newer schools, more/newer entertainment/dining/shopping options...

No, the enemy of existing suburban areas is the NEXT suburban area being planned a few miles down the same road. Those places steal people and resources from ALL of the other places in town. The FRINGE and beyond are the enemies of a healthy city.

Downtown proper, no. The inner-loop, yes. People who would have otherwise normally invested in a home in the PC North area, now have an option to invest somewhere South and East of the May and NW Expressway because of how quickly everything is improving. Homes can be comparable per square foot, and the difference is that many homes on the NW side are 1. On the decline 2. Stagnant in value and 3. Far away from amenities that are continuing to develop in the core, particularly as it pertains to entertainment.

Even 5 years ago, I'm not sure that your average OKC citizen really understood the value of living closer in, even if they're not living in downtown proper. Now it is a legitimate pull against people who might have otherwise chosen a more suburban lifestyle. @ 32nd and Villa, you frequently have better options, especially if you don't have kids or don't have to worry about their school district. Anybody who bought specifically for the district is white-flighting it.

[OSUFan]

I have zero issues with spending money on "neighborhoods". I just would like to have even the vaguest idea of what that means in a practical sense. Are we talking street beautification? How do we pick what neighborhoods receive MAPs money?

I just read this stuff and I don't see any kind of real plan or communication of what is actually needed. We can't communicate what we need, we just know we need money because too much is being spent elsewhere. To me it just sound like a bunch of flowery language without any kind of semblance of actual foundation or realistic implementation.

Hey if you want to spend money in my neighborhood I would vote for it. However, I have zero interest in voting MAPs money for neighborhood improvements in Putnam City. I'm guessing the people in Putnam City feel the same way towards me.

[Urban Pioneer]

Typically, MAPS is branded with easy to identify major public improvements. I agree that this seems esoteric from a campaign perspective. It is possible that the brand might stand on it's own feet and people would vote for it even with esoteric goals if it did not encounter organized opposition.

Again, I suspect that an argument will be made by officials that many of these goals described by this group will be addressed in the upcoming GO Bond initiative.

On a personal note, I love the idea of place making, suburban "downtown" type density nodes, beautification, trees, and so forth. I also think that it is awesome that this is somewhat "grassroots" and that these folks are endeavoring to use the same sorts of strategies that we used to get the streetcar firmly planted in MAPS 3.

The close timing of these two votes however and the ambiguity of their goals for the general public does make it a tough nut to crack. Undoubtedly, it will influence the game plan and there is a broad appreciation that more needs to be done beyond the true urban core center of this city.

[bchris02]

Does anybody think OKC's very large land area compared to its population is somewhat responsible for the "disposable sprawl" problem? If OKC had less land to work with, would there be more initiative to preserve existing suburbia and to keep it desirable?

[Urbanized]

Of course. It's simple math. That's why doing a MAPS project that is suburban in focus would be incredibly challenging. To make an appreciable impact throughout the entire city you would have to tax/spend several times the amount of MAPS so far, which ostensibly already serves the entire community. That's why major corridor/transit improvement probably makes the most sense if concentrating on the suburbs next time around. At least you might be able to make enough of an impact to get the ball rolling on private redevelopment of connected areas.

[hoya]

Does anybody think OKC's very large land area compared to its population is somewhat responsible for the "disposable sprawl" problem? If OKC had less land to work with, would there be more initiative to preserve existing suburbia and to keep it desirable?

Definitely.

The problem is that you can't get real improvements in a 650 square mile area without spending way way more money than we're going to have. That's why we need to concentrate on "shared" spaces like downtown. Creating a system of sidewalks and bike trails throughout the inner loop sounds like a pretty good idea. Make it easier to get around the city without a car. But you can't beautify all the way up to NW 250th and Council. You'll go broke and make no difference at all.

[Filthy]

But you can't beautify all the way up to NW 250th and Council. You'll go broke and make no difference at all.

Exactly. The cutoff definitely needs to be NW 206th and Council. Taking it past NW 234th at all would be a significant waste of funds.

[krisb]

One way forward would be to identify commercial nodes or corridors that are in close proximity to neighborhoods. Those corridors could receive MAPS funding for walkability and beautification infrastructure. A primary focus could be connecting people to special places throughout the city. Another focus could be in completing the city's bike, trails, and sidewalks master plans.

[LakeEffect]

One way forward would be to identify commercial nodes or corridors that are in close proximity to neighborhoods. Those corridors could receive MAPS funding for walkability and beautification infrastructure. A primary focus could be connecting people to special places throughout the city. Another focus could be in completing the city's bike, trails, and sidewalks master plans.

In other words, implementing the public portions of planokc? Big Ideas

[hoya]

Everything we do in MAPS should be a stepping stone to creating the city we wish we had. Nothing in "the city I wish we had" involves having suburbs that stretch to Guthrie and Okarche.

[mkjeeves]

In other words, implementing the public portions of planokc? Big Ideas

I wondered when (if) someone was going to mention PlanOKC.

What we are talking about is fleshed out there. Needs commitment from the city and funding, especially as it relates to the areas being discussed, and not just our newly fair haired child.

[mkjeeves]

Everything we do in MAPS should be a stepping stone to creating the city we wish we had. Nothing in "the city I wish we had" involves having suburbs that stretch to Guthrie and Okarche.

For some perspective on areas mentioned in this thread already, the distance from City Hall to Lantana Apartments is about the same as the distance from Wall Street to upper Manhattan. PC North may not be all that much farther. I'd have to pull out a map and check.