I240 Revitalization Efforts

[Plutonic Panda]

Lets keep this highway a suburban area please and not urbanize it. Widen it to 8 lanes plus 3 lanes of service road each way with concrete, led lights, and new & better landscaping.

[Dubya61]

Lets keep this highway a suburban area please and not urbanize it. Widen it to 8 lanes plus 3 lanes of service road each way with concrete, led lights, and new & better landscaping.

It's unfortunate that you cannot see the value to new urbanism. First of all, applying new urbanism principles would not turn this area into the high-rise ghettos of Hong Kong. New urbanism has plenty of room for a suburban lifestyle and highways. Applying new urbanism principles to this area would allow many more stores to use the same plot of ground, maybe even get a store or two there that you like -- maybe a store that sells Armani suits. It would reward denser populations -- maybe even encourage a residential skyscraper that I bet you'd like. It would allow a better property tax revenue for the city which would in turn (with decent governance) allow better funding for city streets -- maybe even a 6-lane city street like you seem to appreciate in Dallas. It would allow a better semblance of neighborhood. It would allow a better lifestyle for many which could, in turn, allow them to better accumulate wealth. Maybe one of these newly wealthy OKC citizens would start up a film production business and you would be able to stay in this wonderful city AND pursue your acting career.

[Just the facts]

For those of us (like me) who are unfamiliar with how New Urbanism would apply to neighborhoods outside of the downtown core, could you give a brief description of how the problems with the I-240 corridor could be solved? Thanks!

When I get to a computer I will be happy to post some examples in addition to what Urbanized posted. Alas, the very fact that this effort is called I-240 Revitalization tells me they are trying to solve the wrong problem, Step 1 should be to literally turn their back to I-240 and cater to adjacent residential and building new higher density residential.

[Plutonic Panda]

It's unfortunate that you cannot see the value to new urbanism. First of all, applying new urbanism principles would not turn this area into the high-rise ghettos of Hong Kong. New urbanism has plenty of room for a suburban lifestyle and highways. Applying new urbanism principles to this area would allow many more stores to use the same plot of ground, maybe even get a store or two there that you like -- maybe a store that sells Armani suits. It would reward denser populations -- maybe even encourage a residential skyscraper that I bet you'd like. It would allow a better property tax revenue for the city which would in turn (with decent governance) allow better funding for city streets -- maybe even a 6-lane city street like you seem to appreciate in Dallas. It would allow a better semblance of neighborhood. It would allow a better lifestyle for many which could, in turn, allow them to better accumulate wealth. Maybe one of these newly wealthy OKC citizens would start up a film production business and you would be able to stay in this wonderful city AND pursue your acting career.

i think new urbanism is great and has its place. I'd love to see the Will Rodgers Eastside Development 100% new urbanism. I'd love to see Glimcher do 100% new urbanism. I'd love it if downtown Edmond would hire Jeff Speck to guide the downtown.

I'd also love to see I240 have some dense developments and a couple mid-high rises. I do not think I240 should retrofit into new urbanism however.

For I240, I want to see cars prioritized, the highway widened, and more wide roads there. Not everything needs to be new urbanism.

[baralheia]

As a resident of the general area being discussed, I would love to see more walkable options, but I highly disagree with totally ignoring I-240. That highway is a huge economic driver for this area and ignoring it will leave money on the table for those businesses. That said, ignoring the residential developments surrounding this corridor is a mistake, as well. I think there needs to be a good balance between quality, walkable development that serves the needs of the community and car-oriented development serving the needs of commuters and travelers along the I-240 corridor - and yes, I wholly believe they can coexist.

This area is 4 miles away from downtown but feels a lot like you're in the 'burbs. I personally would love to change that up a bit with some midrise development - the tallest building along that corridor is probably the new Hampton Inn that was finished a year or two ago - and get some more dense residential and commercial areas. There's a TON of vacant land and a fair bit of dis-used or underutilized property along this corridor that could make that happen (car dealerships, I'm looking at you)... not to mention that a few of the apartment complexes towards the west side of that corridor need a LOT of help.

As for I-240: Honestly, it isn't anywhere near capacity, and dumping money into widening it right now would be a complete waste of money. The service roads and on/off ramps definitely need some TLC and some re-engineering (especially the westbound off ramp for Shields/Santa Fe), but aside from cosmetic upgrades the highway itself is fine, and probably will be for a good while. I've never seen traffic jams on this highway that weren't caused by accidents or the I-240 and I-35 interchange (which is absolutely the worst component of that highway). Although ODOT is going to be replacing that interchange "soon" (completed by 2018/19 if I recall correctly), they're halfassing it. The new interchange will be much, much better, than the current one to be sure, but it's still not as good as it could be.

Urbanized, thank you for that link... I haven't yet had the opportunity to read it, but I will soon. And JTF, I'd love to see any examples that you may have. Thanks!

[Dubya61]

i think new urbanism is great and has its place. I'd love to see the Will Rodgers Eastside Development 100% new urbanism. I'd love to see Glimcher do 100% new urbanism. I'd love it if downtown Edmond would hire Jeff Speck to guide the downtown.

I'd also love to see I240 have some dense developments and a couple mid-high rises. I do not think I240 should retrofit into new urbanism however.

For I240, I want to see cars prioritized, the highway widened, and more wide roads there. Not everything needs to be new urbanism.

IMO, everything DOES need to be new urbanism. New urbanism is a design philosophy that promotes growth, livability and walkability. It does not aim towards the elimination of the automobile. Why do you want to see cars prioritized? What about the drivers of the cars? the sentient occupant of the cars? You know where cars need to be prioritized? in movies where cars are alive and on racetracks (which, by the way, really should be places built around people, too -- drivers and spectators -- otherwise what's the purpose?).
Why do you need more wide roads there? Is it a race track? Is it important to get more people to Crossroads Mall? the airport?

[Plutonic Panda]

we just completely disagree I guess. That's fine. It's just the kind of development I prefer. I'd rather I240 become like the Sam Rayburn Tollway through Frisco prioritizing cars in the road hat get you to your destination quickly. If you don't want that, there are tons of other walkable developments you can either drive or take DART to. That is kind of how I see I240.

I do agree the area should be more dense.

[Spartan]

In your opinion, what makes a district having excluded geography? What districts if any do you see in the south OKC besides Capitol Hill?

Well, just to bring it back to Envision 240, doing a BID here will fail for a number of reasons. What kind of services and outputs (results) does a BID produce? It's generally the umbrella of "district services" which usually relate to wayfinding, ambassadors, trash removal, landscaping, marketing, etc. There is nothing under that umbrella that they can do that will produce the same output (revitalization) that would otherwise occur with a BID elsewhere. It's true that 240 is a commercial tax-base development project, but while a BID is often a good tool for that, it's the wrong approach for what 240 is. You do marketing, branding, and on-the-ground relations in a place like Western Avenue, not the I-240 frontage road.

I don't want to see or hear any "Shop 240!" commercials anytime soon because that's just not what we have here. 240 is not going to be successful by promoting a unique, special shopping environment. It's a strip with a bunch of exits that have stores and restaurants. Let's instead do a BID along Capitol Hill SW 25th or Stockyards City (which has an active Main Street Program, very similar). I also think that S. Western Ave including Wheeler-to-240, while not very picturesque, is the commercial backbone of the southside. That's a street worth investing in, and right now lots of people walk in the grass. Similarly, I'd like to someday see a Downtown-to-Airport rail link traverse SW 29th Street, which has a lot of latent potential. 240 also might be a good fit for a BRT to service all of the apartments and retail workers along the corridor; I would think that could be a huge equity win to augment a downtown or even Capitol Hill-to-Paseo streetcar.

But you have to embrace these south side areas for what they are. 240 is what it is, just as 29th Street is what it is. I say that as a southsider myself that wants the area to thrive as a vibrant, multicultural community.

[Just the facts]

Urbanized, thank you for that link... I haven't yet had the opportunity to read it, but I will soon. And JTF, I'd love to see any examples that you may have. Thanks!

I seem to remember doing a quick and dirty land-use plan for the 240 area, if I can find it I will post it. In the mean time we can start with this.

[Buffalo Bill]

I'd rather I240 become like the Sam Rayburn Tollway through Frisco.

If that were to happen, there wouldn't be anything left to "vitalize". You'd have to doze everything within 200 feet north and south of the existing median barrier to install that kind of footprint.

[bombermwc]

I'd like to see the frontage roads get repaved. They repaved the section west of Penn up to May, which is one of the least traveled and was in the best shape comparatively, while leaving the horrible pothole-patch that is the rest of the intersections. We've seen Western Ave. repaved for a second time in 15 years too and it was in good shape.

[Spartan]

Western was getting course though. It carries the most traffi on the southside so it is probably a very high priority street.

[bombermwc]

Yeah but you have to get on/off the highway to get to it Sometimes I think I'm going off-road on those sections just before the lights (especially on the west-bound side).

[SoonerDave]

It's unfortunate that you cannot see the value to new urbanism. First of all, applying new urbanism principles would not turn this area into the high-rise ghettos of Hong Kong. New urbanism has plenty of room for a suburban lifestyle and highways. Applying new urbanism principles to this area would allow many more stores to use the same plot of ground, maybe even get a store or two there that you like -- maybe a store that sells Armani suits. It would reward denser populations -- maybe even encourage a residential skyscraper that I bet you'd like. It would allow a better property tax revenue for the city which would in turn (with decent governance) allow better funding for city streets -- maybe even a 6-lane city street like you seem to appreciate in Dallas. It would allow a better semblance of neighborhood. It would allow a better lifestyle for many which could, in turn, allow them to better accumulate wealth. Maybe one of these newly wealthy OKC citizens would start up a film production business and you would be able to stay in this wonderful city AND pursue your acting career.

There are three issues that frustrate me greatly with this.

1. It takes on this "if you don't agree, you're just stupid" moral sophomorism. It assumes that the benefits of "new urbanism" are universal, and if you don't see them, you're just uneducated/unaware. You're not entitled to have a contrary opinion.
2. It assumes everyone has this nascent desire to live an in urban or one-off urban space. I do not. I have no desire for a quasi-urban-jungle motif in our area, nor cramming people into these 800-sf residental cells that are all the rage in many of these new "urban panaceas."
3. It presumes the "we know better" notion of "well, you only think you like it here. We can make it better for you." One of the basic freedoms I love about our country is that no one is a paragon of virtue. If person A likes the urban spaces, great. Power to 'em. If person B likes suburban spaces, great. Power to 'em. But the time either side starts superimposing their preference on someone else because "it's better, trust us" is where I get my Irish up. I have *no* problem with a bit of an urban renaissance where apropos. I have a great deal of trouble with the idea that it should be imposed because someone else thinks its "better."

[Just the facts]

After driving around on OKC roads for the last 6 weeks I have come to this conclusion. Either there needs to be a massive tax increase dedicated to street maintenance OR every effort should be made in OKC to remove the automobile as the primary mode of transportation. Anyone thinking the solution lies in the middle is not living in reality. The fact is that the current tax rates aren't near enough to maintain the infrastructure, so either raise more money or get less stuff to maintain.

[SOONER8693]

there are three issues that frustrate me greatly with this.

1. It takes on this "if you don't agree, you're just stupid" moral sophomorism. It assumes that the benefits of "new urbanism" are universal, and if you don't see them, you're just uneducated/unaware. You're not entitled to have a contrary opinion.
2. It assumes everyone has this nascent desire to live an in urban or one-off urban space. I do not. I have no desire for a quasi-urban-jungle motif in our area, nor cramming people into these 800-sf residental cells that are all the rage in many of these new "urban panaceas."
3. It presumes the "we know better" notion of "well, you only think you like it here. We can make it better for you." one of the basic freedoms i love about our country is that no one is a paragon of virtue. If person a likes the urban spaces, great. Power to 'em. If person b likes suburban spaces, great. Power to 'em. But the time either side starts superimposing their preference on someone else because "it's better, trust us" is where i get my irish up. I have *no* problem with a bit of an urban renaissance where apropos. I have a great deal of trouble with the idea that it should be imposed because someone else thinks its "better."

amen!

[Just the facts]

What Soonerdave is missing though is that what he thinks is 'normal' is actually someone elses preference that was forced on all of us. The free-market small government solution is New Urbanism, which is really just Old Urbanism before the federal government got involved. It's funny (in a sad way) that many of my fellow right-wingers are so quick to look to government to provide them mobility between their house and their local shopping center. The founding fathers would be disappointed in the people supposedly carrying their banner of limited government today.

If the public is being asked to contribute to personal transit and restoration of private businesses shouldn't the most financially sustainable solution be the prefered solution? If not, why not? The so-called 'private sector' already had their chance in the 240 business area and failed, and now are asking for a bailout.

If their big idea to save the area is to repave streets and put flower beds in 10 acre parking lots, then I say No because we can't afford the tax burden that requires.

[Dubya61]

There are three issues that frustrate me greatly with this.

1. It takes on this "if you don't agree, you're just stupid" moral sophomorism. It assumes that the benefits of "new urbanism" are universal, and if you don't see them, you're just uneducated/unaware. You're not entitled to have a contrary opinion.
2. It assumes everyone has this nascent desire to live an in urban or one-off urban space. I do not. I have no desire for a quasi-urban-jungle motif in our area, nor cramming people into these 800-sf residental cells that are all the rage in many of these new "urban panaceas."
3. It presumes the "we know better" notion of "well, you only think you like it here. We can make it better for you." One of the basic freedoms I love about our country is that no one is a paragon of virtue. If person A likes the urban spaces, great. Power to 'em. If person B likes suburban spaces, great. Power to 'em. But the time either side starts superimposing their preference on someone else because "it's better, trust us" is where I get my Irish up. I have *no* problem with a bit of an urban renaissance where apropos. I have a great deal of trouble with the idea that it should be imposed because someone else thinks its "better."

Here’s a quick disclaimer: I’m not formally schooled in New Urbanism.
I’m schooled in New Urbanism through OKC Talk and a lot of investigation I’ve done from the links in the http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...m-library.html and some others.

First, if you’re frustrated with my post (mostly TO: Plutonic Panda), you took it to heart when the tone I used was not directed at you, but rather at Plutonic Panda. I would most definitely talk differently to him than I would to you. I find his willful ignorance quite frustrating. I can’t imagine that we need/want/can afford the highways in his little McWorld.
Further, I agree with you whole-heartedly. I’ve NO desire to live in a residential cell or a dense urban environment at this time and I’m quite satisfied that I have the option to not live there.
So, if the only part of my post that frustrated you was the bolded part, we’re golden. You took personally something that was not intended for you.
If, on the other hand, you are in agreement with Plutonic Panda and cannot see that the design principles of New Urbanism are NOT to make everything urban, then maybe you’re frustrated that you haven’t done any real investigation into New Urbanism, that you’re reacting to the title of the design principles rather than the principles, themselves. New Urbanism does not mandate a quasi-urban-jungle. Perhaps its the inclusion of the word "urban" in the accepted name of the line of thinking that you think you oppose that is the problem. Perhaps its the fact that "New Urbanists" get all starry-eyed (scarily so) and/or argumentative when discussing new or existing structures and how they adhere to design principles that is the problem. Perhaps its the fact that these worshiping or public shaming exhibitions mostly take place in reaction to urban structures (but that's where the "battle" is more important) is the problem -- but New Urbanism design principles apply to suburban plots, as well (it's just not as critical and easier to fix, as a rule).
I know you’re a long-time participant to OKC Talk. I like the posts I’ve read of yours and value your opinion (especially in regards to education in Oklahoma). I know you’re not the FNG here (hello – 4½K posts!) and most OKC Talkers also respect your opinion, but I’m sorry to say your frustration must stem from a bit of ignorance (note I did NOT say stupid). Perhaps your ignorance is simply because you are uninterested. I get it. There are several threads that I simply don’t comment on because of my ignorance and or lack of interest. If, on the other hand, you’re interested, you should take a look at a recent thread: http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...-suburban.html. I know you haven’t posted anything in that thread, so you might not be aware of some of that discussion. One of the most interesting posts in there was

Here are just a few of the differences between a New Urbanism suburb and a Euclidian suburb.

New Urbanism Suburb
A) Connected street network
B) Five minute pedestrian shed
C) Mass transit accessible
D) Open space consist of public square
E) Parks and water are accessible and inviting
F) Homes have uniform setback and front porches with living space at the front of the house to keep eyes on the street
G) Garages located at read of home via an alley
H) Sidewalks on both sides of street
I) Narrow streets, on-street parking, tree colonnades and other traffic calming techniques
J) Residential out structures (garage apartments/granny flats/etc)

Euclidian Suburb
A) Dendritic street network with cul-de-sacs
B) Not walkable to anywhere
C) Not transit accessible
D) Open space is useless buffers between compatible land uses
E) Private ownership of park and water frontage
F) Homes don't have front porches and living space is set at the back of the house away from the street
G) Garages are dominant feature facing the street
H) Usually no sidewalks but sometimes on one side street
I) No traffic calming (in fact, most streets are engineered for 45 mph and higher speeds)
J) Residential out structures not allowed

See? It’s not really Urban .vs. Suburbs (pay no attention to the title of the thread this was taken from). It’s New Urban design .vs. Euclidian design (or worse yet: New Urbanism design .vs. … NO design).

Urban vs. suburban is a false question.

City/Town vs. Sprawl is the real question.

A city or town can offer suburban neighborhoods with nice homes and yards, as with most parts of Oklahoma built before 1930, and a few built up until the 1940s.

The difference is that cities and towns can provide those options:
- Efficiently for better infrastructure
- Without isolating social groups and land uses
- While allowing a choice between driving/walking/biking depending on the trip or preference

Sprawl provides those options by:
- Isolating land uses to make them far away from each other
- Isolating social groups to keep income levels separated
- Taking away all transportation options other than personal car

The point is, both city and sprawl can offer high and low density options, but a spatial arrangement as a city provides both high and low density options with greater efficiency, flexibility, and adaptability.

SoonerDave, I hope I haven’t offended you.
I can’t say the same thing about Plutonic Panda.

[hoya]

I grew up in a suburb that was built in the 40s. When I was a kid, like maybe until I was 5 or 6 years old (probably around '83 or '84), there was a little corner store just two houses down. I remember walking there with my mom and getting candy, or milk, or whatever. I'm thinking there was a little old man who ran the store. Anyway it went out of business a long time ago as the neighborhood declined. What had been a nice little quiet neighborhood became kind of a dangerous place.

Newer suburbs have no option for things like the corner store. I don't think there's anything wrong at all with wanting neighborhoods to have little parks, and corner stores, and sidewalks, and places to walk to. The idea that an area should have a functional "Main Street" with stores and shops that people can easily walk to from their houses shouldn't be all that controversial. That within a 5 minute walk of my house I should be able to eat at three or four restaurants, buy groceries, do some basic shopping, and have access to a transit system that takes me around the city -- this is pretty basic normal stuff.

[hoya]

Now, honestly, I don't know that south I-240 is the best place to pick to start implementing New Urbanism. There's zero mass transportation there, and zero possibility for mass transportation. I think our targeted areas for re-urbanization should be places that will be served by the future regional transit system. That's not here. Once this type of development is more common and more accepted by people in OKC, then we might look at expanding it to other places.

[baralheia]

hoyasooner, I wouldn't say there's no mass transit available through the I-240 corridor... Though there isn't a dedicated local loop, EMBARK route 13 (S Western/I-240 Crosstown) does serve the I-240 corridor from OCCC to the Walmart at Santa Fe at 30-minute intervals.

If they want to get serious about revitalizing the I-240 corridor, one of the first things they need is to establish a Mini-Hub for EMBARK somewhere along or just south of I-240. This would then support a true local loop down here, as well as provide an interchange point for regional operations down to the Moore and/or Norman area(s) - as rail is not our only option for regional transit (nor should it be).

[SoonerDave]

Here’s a quick disclaimer: I’m not formally schooled in New Urbanism.
I’m schooled in New Urbanism through OKC Talk and a lot of investigation I’ve done from the links in the http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...m-library.html and some others.

First, if you’re frustrated with my post (mostly TO: Plutonic Panda), you took it to heart when the tone I used was not directed at you, but rather at Plutonic Panda. I would most definitely talk differently to him than I would to you. I find his willful ignorance quite frustrating. I can’t imagine that we need/want/can afford the highways in his little McWorld.
Further, I agree with you whole-heartedly. I’ve NO desire to live in a residential cell or a dense urban environment at this time and I’m quite satisfied that I have the option to not live there.
So, if the only part of my post that frustrated you was the bolded part, we’re golden. You took personally something that was not intended for you.
If, on the other hand, you are in agreement with Plutonic Panda and cannot see that the design principles of New Urbanism are NOT to make everything urban, then maybe you’re frustrated that you haven’t done any real investigation into New Urbanism, that you’re reacting to the title of the design principles rather than the principles, themselves. New Urbanism does not mandate a quasi-urban-jungle. Perhaps its the inclusion of the word "urban" in the accepted name of the line of thinking that you think you oppose that is the problem. Perhaps its the fact that "New Urbanists" get all starry-eyed (scarily so) and/or argumentative when discussing new or existing structures and how they adhere to design principles that is the problem. Perhaps its the fact that these worshiping or public shaming exhibitions mostly take place in reaction to urban structures (but that's where the "battle" is more important) is the problem -- but New Urbanism design principles apply to suburban plots, as well (it's just not as critical and easier to fix, as a rule).
I know you’re a long-time participant to OKC Talk. I like the posts I’ve read of yours and value your opinion (especially in regards to education in Oklahoma). I know you’re not the FNG here (hello – 4½K posts!) and most OKC Talkers also respect your opinion, but I’m sorry to say your frustration must stem from a bit of ignorance (note I did NOT say stupid). Perhaps your ignorance is simply because you are uninterested. I get it. There are several threads that I simply don’t comment on because of my ignorance and or lack of interest. If, on the other hand, you’re interested, you should take a look at a recent thread: http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic...-suburban.html. I know you haven’t posted anything in that thread, so you might not be aware of some of that discussion. One of the most interesting posts in there was

See? It’s not really Urban .vs. Suburbs (pay no attention to the title of the thread this was taken from). It’s New Urban design .vs. Euclidian design (or worse yet: New Urbanism design .vs. … NO design).

SoonerDave, I hope I haven’t offended you.
I can’t say the same thing about Plutonic Panda.

No problem, Dubya - we're all good. I had a lousy morning and hadn't hit the forums in a while, and that post just hit me the wrong way. It's all good.

I'm all for smarter design, making better use of things. I admit I do get set back a bit these days with the phrase of "urbanism" because I do think there's a decent subculture that really wants to reinvent the world in that image, but I realize that's not a universal notion at all. Some of the notions, like garages on back alleys, sidewalks, etc etc have been tried in a hit-and-miss fashion in various neighborhoods - in fact I remember some of it being tried down in Moore some time ago.

It's all a matter of balance. Like I said, there are no panaceas, just try as best we can to make things better. That's fine for me. Just don't try to stuff me into a 600 sq ft shoebox on the 40th floor somewhere

[Just the facts]

Why shouldn't the I-240 corridor be the best place to implement new urbanism? There are hundreds of examples from around the US where failed retail areas have been rebuilt which have gone on to be some of the most successful and sought after places to live, and generate enough tax revenue to pay for their own upkeep.

As for mass transit, I prefer neighborhood based bus service like baralheia mentioned. On the Bus System thread I posted a route map that has a bus running within 3 blocks of every house within the OKC core with 15 minute intervals and it uses the exact same number of buses used today.

[Dubya61]

On the Bus System thread I posted a route map that has a bus running within 3 blocks of every house within the OKC core with 15 minute intervals and it uses the exact same number of buses used today.

Rats. That post no longer has images. Do you still have those images saved somewhere?

[Just the facts]

Rats. That post no longer has images. Do you still have those images saved somewhere?

Keep in mind this is just a proof of concept sketch. Actual transit hubs and routes could be anywhere.