Cumberland Court

[Filthy]

I live in Del City, in an older neighborhood. I have never been a victim of any kind of crime there. No home invasions, no auto burglaries, nothing. Our neighborhood has had zero problems. Other neighborhoods in Del City, not so much. You don't need gates to live in a safe place.

Thank you for your input. As well as bringing to light a grammatical error that I have carried with me, my entire adult life.

[adaniel]

If you would like to link to one of those articles, or point me in that direction I would like to see what statistics were used and what control/variables were stated.

An interesting if not lengthy study done by USF about this:

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/vi...84&context=etd

Some tidbits, emphasis mine:

More specifically, this study was driven by two research questions: first, whether community gating leads to decreased, equivalent, or increased property crime victimization risk compared to non-gated communities. Second, whether community gating exhibits an interactive effect with other forms of guardianship. Analyses suggested that community gating does not appear to decrease victimization risk based on the current data. Generally speaking, results for community gating were statistically indistinguishable from zero, indicating that there was no efficacious guardianship effect. This conclusion is tempered by the findings for theft and fraudulent use of personal information, in which respondents living in gated communities exhibited an increased likelihood of victimization.

and

For example, smaller households in gated communities may exhibit higher likelihoods of theft/fraud victimization as a product of the community’s ambience. Romig (2005) observed that gated communities often popularize a false sense of security among residents. This belief is in part due to the physical, monolithic presence of the gate, which is expected to protect residents and their belongings. In addition, the gated community often promotes a sense of exclusion from the outside, where the internal workings of the community are relatively unaltered by outside forces. As a result, residents in gated communities may incorrectly assume that their homes are safe and subsequently become lackadaisical about protecting their personal information physically as well as digitally

So, although you might consider it a real estate tactic, or throwing away your wallet to your HOA. I consider it a piece of mind.

And to be honest, that's fine. We all do things that help us sleep at night that may seem nonsensical to others. Just understand that it is more of a mental placebo more than anything.

[Richard at Remax]

You need peace of mind in order to live in Nichols Hills (I think that's what you're trying to say)? Do you think it's filthy or something?



No, but somebody proposed one at 63rd and Western, right behind Nichols Hills Plaza. You don't think that's a big deal?

No I don't think it's a big deal at all. This will be a small concentrated area. That being said to some buyers having an opportunity to live in Nichols Hills, in a new modern home, walking distance to all these great places, AND have it be gated, creates a very desirable situation for a lot of people, like it or not.

Also there is a big difference between a guard gate where every visitor has to stop and check in VS a coded gate where many outsiders can have access at any time. Just wanted to point that out.

[TheTravellers]

There are also the psychological factors of gated communites - they enhance separation, inequality, and divide society even more than it already is, along with other undesirable consequences.

Imprisoned by the Walls Built to Keep 'the Others' Out - latimes

http://www.gammathetaupsilon.org/the...1/article2.pdf

[Spartan]

No I don't think it's a big deal at all. This will be a small concentrated area. That being said to some buyers having an opportunity to live in Nichols Hills, in a new modern home, walking distance to all these great places, AND have it be gated, creates a very desirable situation for a lot of people, like it or not.

Also there is a big difference between a guard gate where every visitor has to stop and check in VS a coded gate where many outsiders can have access at any time. Just wanted to point that out.

This is really crazy for me. We don't care because it's just a small concentrated area in the grand scheme of things.

Every mistake OKC has made was just in small concentrated areas here and there. Really that's all downtown is. That's also all that 63rd/Western is.

And it's not a small concentrated area. Cumberland Drive is part of the neighborhood fabric around 63rd and Western which is actually a very important area. It's sort of becoming OKC's "Uptown."

There are two ways this can go: 1, public and private sectors can work together to improve this area and transform it into a walkable urban node with Classen Curve, the Triangle, Glimcher, Chesapeake's HQ, NH Plaza, and more. This could be a great district, a lot like Upper Kirby in Houston. OR 2, myopia prevails and we go out of our way to disconnect these pieces, and keep this area locked in an identity crisis and underwhelming condition.

Does anyone have a vision for this area? If not, therein lies the problem. People in this town want to make big public investments in this area, including a streetcar all the way up Classen. I may get involved to make sure that doesn't happen if there is no vision for this area. The south side could put a transit system to better use anyway. I see no reason to invest in a part of town where residents hide behind gates and cul de sacs.

Also when this project goes belly up here's what we'll have - an entire street of urban prairie, with a cul de sac blocking off Western Avenue. This will make for a difficult failed project rescue. At least Rainey Williams didn't cul de sac Walker while he was at it.

[Urbanized]

I'm not sure if this was meant for me, as I can't ever remember doing such. Like....ever. So, I'm actually pretty taken aback by the overall tone of the statement itself. I know sometimes its tough to keep on track, and only discuss the topic at hand, but there is no need to fabricate an issue that does not exist. I will do my best to keep that in mind if ever quoting you again, to make sure that even if I quote your post word for word, that I should not do so in such a manor that could be interpreted in a negative light.

You quoted something I said, made bold a portion of it, and said "that's an interesting caveat for sure..." So I will ask again, what makes the quoted/bold caveat interesting?

[Filthy]

An interesting if not lengthy study done by USF about this:

http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/vi...84&context=etd

Some tidbits, emphasis mine:

and

And to be honest, that's fine. We all do things that help us sleep at night that may seem nonsensical to others. Just understand that it is more of a mental placebo more than anything.

Thanks for providing the link. It took me this entire time to read the study in full, and try to digest. There is a ton of information there. A lot of different variables used, and conclusions met. It seems as if a lot of it is open to interpretation as the variables used do more to emphasize: race, financial stability, demographics, education level, and family size as the main determining factors of being "victimized" vs. comparing victimization of "gated vs. non gated" in comparable neighborhoods that are proximal to one another. The entire study was a nation wide study, using tons of different variables that somewhat convoluted a clear picture. In my eyes, its comparable to (ON A MUCH LARGER SCALE) taking Oak Tree in Edmond as a gated community, and then using some random crack head apartment complex down on SW 29th that just happens to have a gate, so now they're using an average of the crime statistics of the two...and publishing that as fact.

Their Variables- a.) Oak Tree Country Club gated community had 0 murders in last 10 years. b.) Random crack head apartment on SW29th had 8 murders in last 10 years.
Their Conclusion- Gated communities have an average 4 murders every 10 years

That really doesn't tell me anything. Because of different demographics making up the landscape of a city the crime results vary. This is evident on any crime tracker map you pull up for any given city. I would think that a more accurate way of getting an accurate feel, would be to run the same tests/variables, and only compare those variables within a certain section of a given city or pre determined quadrant. 2 to 4 square mile sections? I don't know. As I understood/interpreted it, the only real definitive statistic that really showed in favor of higher victimization in gated communities, was in regards to financial/identify theft as it pertains to someone having their digital personal information stolen. (Online protective behaviors.)

So, basically its saying...that if you are a well educated white family of 4+ living within a gated community in a affluent/suburban area, that you are much less likely to be victimized than a non white, low income, uneducated family living in a gated community of a not so great/urban area. <---- Which pretty much goes without saying.

Either way, I am not disputing/disagreeing with the information provided, and appreciate the input. I have however printed off this study, and will be taking it with me March 1, to show Sgt. Skalla, and pose the question as to why their data contradicts this, and or why there would be inconsistencies in our area specifically.

[Filthy]

I think suburban living can be a valid choice, depending on circumstances.

You quoted something I said, made bold a portion of it, and said "that's an interesting caveat for sure..." So I will ask again, what makes the quoted/bold caveat interesting?

It was interesting in the fact, that you felt the need to include it at all. I mean, obviously it was not by accident. But It was just something that struck me as a disingenuous and/or backhanded comment. I guess I found it to be more humorous than anything. Clearly it would have been better not to mention it at all, and I apologize for bringing it to your attention.

[Jeepnokc]

We live in a gated community which started as a non gated community until we voted to install gate. Before installing the gate, we had a lot of people that would drive through the neighborhood just looking. This causes additional wear and tear on the road which we pay for as well as increasing the danger tour kids riding bikes. Since the gate, we don't have all the looky loos driving through. The only crime we have had is one house was burglarized which incidentally was the house that is closest to the main road just inside the gate. We have had one vehicle stolen but through the camera system at gate, we were able to determine it was an employee of the guy who lived here and thus, had the code to get in.

Gates are a pain in the ass, expensive and do give a false sense of security as someone truly bent on committing a crime will still get in but they do prevent opportunity crime and provide for more privacy in your neighborhood. My experience with criminals (extensive as have been practicing criminal law for 18 years) is that most criminals are looking for the easy target with quick undetected entry and getaway and a gate does deter that somewhat.

What is attractive about Cumberland Drive is the closing of one end of Western to keep people from just driving through and thus, decreasing traffic on the street in front of the residence.

[Spartan]

What is attractive about Cumberland Drive is the closing of one end of Western to keep people from just driving through and thus, decreasing traffic on the street in front of the residence.

If you don't want to live near Western Avenue, you shouldn't build near Western Avenue. It doesn't give me confidence that an intelligent person is developing this property.

[Richard at Remax]

He didn't say anyone doesn't want to live near western just that there will be no through street.

[Just the facts]

I live in a downtown apartment building that requires a keyfob to enter. Is that considered a gated community? Also, last week someone stole the lights off my bike while it was parked in a secure parking garage.

[jerrywall]

I live in a downtown apartment building that requires a keyfob to enter. Is that considered a gated community? Also, last week someone stole the lights off my bike while it was parked in a secure parking garage.

That's a good point. There's a far cry from the dreaded "gated communities" which at the extreme can include schools, shops, post offices, restaurants, and residential all behind gates, and simply gated neighborhoods or streets. And this talk about "throwing your money" at HOAs? Lots of ungated neighborhoods (mine included) have HOAs with yearly fees and dues. Mine go towards the pool, the parks, common area maintenance, signage, stylistic lighting, street maintenance, and more. I'm good with it. Knew about it when I moved in.

Are folks that live in apartment buildings which require a key or passcode to enter the build merely cutting themselves off from others and living an exclusionary lifestyle too? Are they just "thumping their chest"?

I think there's a bigger question on "who owns the street" in this case. Who paid for the street to be built, and maintained all these years? Closing off one end, and then gating it, doesn't that take city property and essentially grant it to a private group? Will the city continue to maintain it, or does it now have to be maintained by the neighborhood?

[Spartan]

He didn't say anyone doesn't want to live near western just that there will be no through street.

What is your point? Of course there will be no through street because they are bulldozing an entire block and closing it off from Western. That's what we're debating.

[Richard at Remax]

Wow, ok. this is what you said "If you don't want to live near Western Avenue, you shouldn't build near Western Avenue. It doesn't give me confidence that an intelligent person is developing this property."

My point is you made up something out of thin air about people not wanting to live near western shouldn't build near western. Which is not the case at all. Cutting off access doesn't mean you don't want to live near Western.

[traxx]

Boy, this thread went off the rails quick.

[shawnw]

I, too, live in an apartment building downtown with fob access. You don't need a fob to access the retail locations, anyone can do that. You do need fob access for parking and residential areas. This kind of thing would apply to just about any residential building in manhattan, etc. I think this is more related to having a locked gate on your property vs a gate blocking a public street. The residential building is private property with no expectation of public access aside from the street level. A street user would expect to be able to use a public street, unless Cumberland is a private drive, which I didn't think it was.

[Spartan]

Wow, ok. this is what you said "If you don't want to live near Western Avenue, you shouldn't build near Western Avenue. It doesn't give me confidence that an intelligent person is developing this property."

My point is you made up something out of thin air about people not wanting to live near western shouldn't build near western. Which is not the case at all. Cutting off access doesn't mean you don't want to live near Western.

Again, what is your point? Then why would you go out of your way to block off Western?

[Richard at Remax]

I'm actually not even trying to make a point, I was pointing out that your statement made no sense. The developers want a gated community that is one way in one way out. Maybe they figured out if they have a private gate they could get $50k more per lot. I don't know why they don't have the access off western, maybe the city said they couldn't have a gate there off a pretty busy street. Maybe that's why the only access is off Avondale. All that being said I love that area and I would love to live in this development. Having a gate there wouldn't not interrupt any of the things I would like to do.

[Spartan]

How does it not interrupt things? It's a gate and a cul de sac. You do not pass.

Dont claim you're not making a point. You're being a senseless idiot and I have no idea why you're arguing with me. You're clearly making a point.

My point (that elicited your uh reaction) was that if you don't want to live around the hustle and bustle of 63rd and Western, don't move there. That's what this gate is about. The gate and cul de sac belongs out in Edmond, not on the block behind a walkable retail town center in OKC's emerging "uptown" area.

This is the same as that stupid lawsuit against Glimcher. There is an urban / suburban identity crisis under way here. There are actually people who want to keep this area from getting too highly sophisticated. A funny thing about life is some people really just can't have nice things. I'd say that's a good thing and we should embrace a higher level of sophistication. OKC can be better than this.

People living in condos on Avondale will be cut off from Western. Having to go a block (or two bc the Plaza will be congested) out of the way won't affect motorists as much as pedestrians. If you live on Avondale and want to go to a business in Western, it would be nice to be able to walk. You can't just close public streets that serve a purpose in the street grid.

[ljbab728]

You're being a senseless idiot and I have no idea why you're arguing with me.

Spartan, you are saying some very good things, but please chill.

[Urbanized]

It was interesting in the fact, that you felt the need to include it at all. I mean, obviously it was not by accident. But It was just something that struck me as a disingenuous and/or backhanded comment. I guess I found it to be more humorous than anything. Clearly it would have been better not to mention it at all, and I apologize for bringing it to your attention.

Again, what is your point? I would say precisely the same thing about downtown living, small town living, rural living. They can all be valid choices, depending on circumstances. If you look through the body of my posts on this board I am very consistent about this. I have never been a hardline urban living only proponent. I rarely pass judgment on people's lifestyle choices. I'm not a fan of poorly-designed suburban environments, but then again I'm no fan of poorly-designed URBAN environments, either.

Seems like you're just looking for an argument. And as long as you're suggesting I'm being disingenuous (translation: liar), I would say that trolling for comments that don't agree with your worldview, then calling people out for making them, and THEN backing out and suggesting you never meant to argue is the DEFINITION of disingenuous.

[Richard at Remax]

So I am a senseless idiot now?

I will admit that I am an idiot in one regard. after rereading the article again they aren't even building a gate. the street will be open and they are just capping it off at one end. So no sense even bringing up a gate anymore.

The street will remain open, though, Say said.

“We’re not building a private, gated community,” he said. “We’re improving what’s out there. We’re taking something that’s not pretty and making it really beautiful.”

Now if you want to bring up access to people on Avondale to western I can understand that point. The article in the Oklahoman says there will be a pedestrian access to western on Cumberland as well. Regardless, there are 11 other vehicle access points between Wilshire and 63rd to get there. I would say that is a pretty healthy. I don't know how this guy bought these properties under the radar to effectively but I wouldn't expect that to happen again on any of the other streets.

I understand your point and I am not going to call you names over it, but there is a high interest level for this development. Our office has been getting calls about it already. You might think it is bad design and doom and gloom but I feel that It will be highly successful and add nothing but positives to the area.

So just to wrap that up there will no car access to Cumberland from western, no gate to access Cumberland off Avondale, but there will be pedestrian access to/from western on Cumberland. So what's all the fuss about?

[jerrywall]

I still bring up my earlier question, which I'm hoping someone will know. At what point is it acceptable for someone to turn a public street private? Does the city get compensated for that? And does the city maintain the street going forward after that, or is it something the HOA then pays for.

[sooner88]

I still bring up my earlier question, which I'm hoping someone will know. At what point is it acceptable for someone to turn a public street private? Does the city get compensated for that? And does the city maintain the street going forward after that, or is it something the HOA then pays for.

It's still a public street, right? I would assume that the city of NH will still maintain Cumberland as normal. Just like the residents will still use the trash services, get water, be policed by NH, etc.