Glimcher

[Urbanized]

Some people in OKC can't have nice things.

Because NIMBYism doesn't happen in other cities?

[Plutonic Panda]

PluPan, the resistance mostly revolves around the proposed multi-family development as opposed to the retail.

Resistance to apartment development is not uncommon when it closely adjoins affluent single-family housing. In addition to traffic concerns the unspoken (and sometimes even spoken) concern is that an influx of renters renters will drive down neighborhood property values. In this case I think that assertion will be easy enough to counter.

That makes sense, but I wouldn't think these apartments would be that cheap. I wonder what pricing is going to be.

[Spartan]

Because NIMBYism doesn't happen in other cities?

It does for awful developments. There is a cultural element in OKC that wishes to retain parking lots and wide open vistas.

[Urbanized]

That makes sense, but I wouldn't think these apartments would be that cheap. I wonder what pricing is going to be.

That's why I say it will be easy to counter. These apartments will likely be at the upper end of the spectrum for rentals.

[Rover]

Some people in OKC can't have nice things.

What is this supposed to even mean?

[Rover]

It does for awful developments. There is a cultural element in OKC that wishes to retain parking lots and wide open vistas.

This is a rediculous remark and insulting. This stuff happens in every city and you know it..or should know it. These kind of insults totally lack context.

[Spartan]

No they don't. Every city has its struggle, and this is an absolute red herring as we all know, but your neighbor has still concocted a masterpiece for the ages. What we have is someone who is college educated (presumably) and cultured, wasting their time and money on torts that claim 4 stories of multifamily is like NYC. The only word for that is breathtaking.

By the way this is a neighbor that you're borderline defending so far... since you have an apartment in Chelsea, you should bring them some neighborly cookies and explain to them what NYC is really like and conversely what every other Midwestern city is like.

All of the non-oil cities in the Midwest are building up right now. This is a fact.

[Rover]

In no way am I defending or supporting this INDIVIDUAL. BTW, being college educated does not equal being cultured, or even being wise...and sometimes just means you have test skills, not judgement. This INDIVIDUAL does not represent a neighborhood, a group or anyone but themselves and perhaps a radical sliver.

I also disagree that these kinds of lawsuits don't happen elsewhere. They do.

Judgement without considering context or facts is wrong regardless of from which viewpoint it comes.

[Spartan]

My argument isn't about lawsuits but the specialness of this one. We'll see if it's thrown out or not. That will test its legitimacy as a harbinger of locality.

[Zorba]

There are NIMBY lawsuits in every city. In fact, many of people complaining about NIMBY in this thread have been the NIMBY people in other threads/topics. Just when it is something you don't like it is common sense, but when it is something someone else doesn't like, it is NIMBY.

NIMBY lawsuits can also force concessions that improve the development, so they can serve a purpose.

[catch22]

There are NIMBY lawsuits in every city. In fact, many of people complaining about NIMBY in this thread have been the NIMBY people in other threads/topics. Just when it is something you don't like it is common sense, but when it is something someone else doesn't like, it is NIMBY.

NIMBY lawsuits can also force concessions that improve the development, so they can serve a purpose.

NIMBY isn't only about opposing development, it is about opposing ALL development.

OKCTalk is not guilty of that in any case I can think of. In fact, this site is quite supportive of all development. Even suburban developments aren't completely opposed here. Many projects receive constructive criticism, even if it is unsolicited. Of course, individual members may not like a certain development, but I don't think any here have filed lawsuits against, or threatened anything against.

The Friends for a Better Boulevard movement didn't even threaten to kill the Boulevard, but simply pushed and lobbied to make sure it was a "better" boulevard. That movement was almost unanimously supported by OKCTalk members, but I don't think it would even classify as NIMBY even under the most liberal interpretation.

[ljbab728]

Of course, individual members may not like a certain development, but I don't think any here have filed lawsuits against, or threatened anything against.

Actually I believe that has happened before but it was a number of years ago and is certainly rare. I'm thinking specifically about Tom Elmore and the I40 relocation.

[Zorba]

NIMBY isn't only about opposing development, it is about opposing ALL development.

OKCTalk is not guilty of that in any case I can think of. In fact, this site is quite supportive of all development. Even suburban developments aren't completely opposed here. Many projects receive constructive criticism, even if it is unsolicited. Of course, individual members may not like a certain development, but I don't think any here have filed lawsuits against, or threatened anything against.

The Friends for a Better Boulevard movement didn't even threaten to kill the Boulevard, but simply pushed and lobbied to make sure it was a "better" boulevard. That movement was almost unanimously supported by OKCTalk members, but I don't think it would even classify as NIMBY even under the most liberal interpretation.

Yeah, if you define NIMBY as being against all development, I'd agree there is basically no one on this forum on that side of the issue. But many people on here are against the "wrong" development in the "wrong" locations, which I think is completely fine, until you insult other people because they have different definitions of wrong development and location.

[bchris02]

I think reasons for opposing a development need to be taken into account. People opposed things like 499 Sheridan because it involved the demolition of an entire block of historic structures. Various projects in the urban core get opposed because they work against what is the vision for downtown.

Glimcher on the other hand, is a quality development that is being opposed simply because the nearby neighborhood doesn't want change. It's nothing more than that. The development is going to go on top of a grassy lot and surface parking for a building that was demolished long ago, NOT a historic landmark like the Bus Station or Hotel Black. On top of this, OKC really needs a Glimcher-like development. Most other cities have had these types of developments for 10-15 years (which is what makes me laugh at so many comparing it to NYC). For a city as suburban-oriented as OKC, this city still doesn't offer "modern" suburban shopping and living and if Glimcher is built, it will be a huge step in the right direction.

[bchris02]

I have heard a rumor that they are re-evaluating whether or not to proceed with this development because of the cost of the lawsuit and even if they do win, the reputation they will have in the neighborhood due to the NIMBY opposition. I want to repeat this is just a RUMOR that may not have any substance behind it. Can anybody confirm or deny this?

[Pete]

Cost of a silly, frivolous lawsuit for a project that will be in the tens of millions?

Doesn't even make sense and I've heard they are still signing leases and have made good progress.

[betts]

The neighborhood is Glenbrook. It holds nowhere near the power, purchasing or otherwise, of Nichols Hills. Everyone I know who lives in Nichols Hills wants to see the area developed. They all think it will only increase property values, and they need the Plaza sales tax revenues.

[HangryHippo]

Pete, when is work actually supposed to commence on the new portion of this project?

[Pete]

I don't think they are far off from starting.

[David]

I have heard a rumor that they are re-evaluating whether or not to proceed with this development because of the cost of the lawsuit and even if they do win, the reputation they will have in the neighborhood due to the NIMBY opposition. I want to repeat this is just a RUMOR that may not have any substance behind it. Can anybody confirm or deny this?

My immediate thought: sounds like a rumor started by the people behind the lawsuit as an attempt to build the momentum of their cause.

[HangryHippo]

I don't think they are far off from starting.

Do you think the lawsuit will delay the start?

[Pete]

No.

The lawsuit only pertains to the proposed apartments.

[HangryHippo]

No.

The lawsuit only pertains to the proposed apartments.

The apartments in the Triangle or the townhouse/brownstone looking apartments that were closer to the cemetery?

[Pete]

The 500 apartments proposed just east of the shopping center.

The property on the west side of Grand -- the former Kensington Apartments -- will be high-end condos and already has sufficient zoning, so they can be built any time.

[Rover]

I have heard a rumor that they are re-evaluating whether or not to proceed with this development because of the cost of the lawsuit and even if they do win, the reputation they will have in the neighborhood due to the NIMBY opposition. I want to repeat this is just a RUMOR that may not have any substance behind it. Can anybody confirm or deny this?

You try to make it sound as if all of Glenbrook is against it. You throw out "NIMBY" to characterize the whole area rather than a very limited opposition. And, you must greatly overestimate the cost of the legal action. I guess if someone says something, whether true or not, it is now "rumored".