The Canton ( formerly Residences at Classen Curve)

[Dob Hooligan]

I think being carless is viable for the single and/or childless person who is healthy enough to walk a lot and reside in a "live, work, play" area. I also think that is no more than 15-20% of the population at any given time. I don't think this part of the country is going to have the density to make carless living work for a larger percentage of the population for 100, or more, years.

[Teo9969]

I'll skip going intoreasons why one might determine car ownership and driving lowers quality of life (not for all, but, yes, for some).

What I will say is that it's a shame that t the very best part of our metropolitan area for no car ownership also having a dearth of housing is incredibly unfortunate. As it is now, there is not a single place in this metro area where not owning a car would be an obvious choice. It would be great if we could at least offer that to a very small amount of people by having some density in this specific area.

[Teo9969]

And for those that don't immediately know what makes this area so prime for such walkability: it comes down to having 2 grocery stores within 5 blocks of your residence. You have to live close to food for walkability to feel sustainable.

[Urbanized]

First off, a city being home to BOTH car-oriented suburbs AND dense, walkable areas that don’t always require auto transit are not mutually exclusive. Folks keep talking about this like it’s an either/or.

Also, walkability and great transit should without question be something that every city ASPIRES to. The benefits to health, to long-term municipal budgets, to the economy and to the environment are inarguable. But it’s not like you can just flip a switch. The automobile-driven unraveling of cities from within has gone on for nearly a century. It will likely take generations for cities like OKC to find more balance, but we absolutely should be seeking it.

I just personally get irritated when people equate automobile ownership with freedom. Can an automobile provide one aspect of freedom (the ability to hop into your vehicle at will and drive pretty much anywhere you want)? Of course it does. That part is accurate. But when it is your ONLY choice, an absolutely compulsory - and relatively expensive - type of existence, that is about as far from freedom as you can get.

And again, people can certainly live in a walkable area, where one can walk (or ride a bike) to work, walk to the doctor, walk to the dentist, take advantage of delivery services, frequent nearby dining and entertainment options, all without choosing to drive and yet STILL own and drive a car when they want to or need to. These things are ALSO not mutually exclusive.

And every trip that person makes on foot or on a bicycle instead of being forced to drive keeps their car off the road and benefits everyone else.

[Dob Hooligan]

First off, a city being home to BOTH car-oriented suburbs AND dense, walkable areas that don’t always require auto transit are not mutually exclusive. Folks keep talking about this like it’s an either/or.

Also, walkability and great transit should without question be something that every city ASPIRES to. The benefits to health, to long-term municipal budgets, to the economy and to the environment are inarguable. But it’s not like you can just flip a switch. The automobile-driven unraveling of cities from within has gone on for nearly a century. It will likely take generations for cities like OKC to find more balance, but we absolutely should be seeking it.

I just personally get irritated when people equate automobile ownership with freedom. Can an automobile provide one aspect of freedom (the ability to hop into your vehicle at will and drive pretty much anywhere you want)? Of course it does. That part is accurate. But when it is your ONLY choice, an absolutely compulsory - and relatively expensive - type of existence, that is about as far from freedom as you can get.

And again, people can certainly live in a walkable area, where one can walk (or ride a bike) to work, walk to the doctor, walk to the dentist, take advantage of delivery services, frequent nearby dining and entertainment options, all without choosing to drive and yet STILL own and drive a car when they want to or need to. These things are ALSO not mutually exclusive.

And every trip that person makes on foot or on a bicycle instead of being forced to drive keeps their car off the road and benefits everyone else.

Seems to me that auto ownership is a cost of increased mobility, and not necessarily a burden. Just as living in any dwelling has a cost. A luxury apartment in NH is more expensive than living at the YMCA, yet both are costs of living.

[OkieBerto]

First off, a city being home to BOTH car-oriented suburbs AND dense, walkable areas that don’t always require auto transit are not mutually exclusive. Folks keep talking about this like it’s an either/or.

Also, walkability and great transit should without question be something that every city ASPIRES to. The benefits to health, to long-term municipal budgets, to the economy and to the environment are inarguable. But it’s not like you can just flip a switch. The automobile-driven unraveling of cities from within has gone on for nearly a century. It will likely take generations for cities like OKC to find more balance, but we absolutely should be seeking it.

I just personally get irritated when people equate automobile ownership with freedom. Can an automobile provide one aspect of freedom (the ability to hop into your vehicle at will and drive pretty much anywhere you want)? Of course it does. That part is accurate. But when it is your ONLY choice, an absolutely compulsory - and relatively expensive - type of existence, that is about as far from freedom as you can get.

And again, people can certainly live in a walkable area, where one can walk (or ride a bike) to work, walk to the doctor, walk to the dentist, take advantage of delivery services, frequent nearby dining and entertainment options, all without choosing to drive and yet STILL own and drive a car when they want to or need to. These things are ALSO not mutually exclusive.

And every trip that person makes on foot or on a bicycle instead of being forced to drive keeps their car off the road and benefits everyone else.

^^^^^^This 100%

[Pete]

Freedom is the choice of having a car or not having a car.

It would be nice if OKC offered more (any?) places to live that provided such a choice.

[PhiAlpha]

Having the option not to drive is great. Living in downtown Tulsa I had enough restaurants, bodega type stores, coffee shops etc nearby that I could walk or scooter to that I would often realize that I hadn’t even been downstairs to my parking garage in over a week or two. I wouldn’t ever have given up the car but it was nice being able to go weeks without needing to drive anywhere.

[soonerguru]

I think being carless is viable for the single and/or childless person who is healthy enough to walk a lot and reside in a "live, work, play" area. I also think that is no more than 15-20% of the population at any given time. I don't think this part of the country is going to have the density to make carless living work for a larger percentage of the population for 100, or more, years.

This is a defeatist perspective and the definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This isn't an argument about the pros and cons of not having a car. Drive all you want. Yes, in other cities people have families and don't own a car. It's entirely possible to do it.

No one is telling anyone to give up their automobile. Great cities have areas in which it is possible to live without a car. Let's be a better city than we are. It's very possible for OKC to pull off in a few areas. As others have pointed out, some areas lack only a few services to make this type of life possible.

Yes, we can do it in OKC in certain areas, and no it will not take 100 years.

[bamarsha]

My original question was in response to "not wanting a car at all". That is what I would have a hard time wrapping my head around. I guess I just do too much of a variety of things (though it certainly doesn't seem that way anymore). I understand not using your car much, but still having one to use. However, not having a car at all would greatly limit your employment options (unless remote work continues, though this seems to be slowly trending down, maybe to hybird level at most). Also, shopping for a family, not sure I want to carry 30 bags full of groceries for a good distance, or eating at the same 10 restaurants all the time. I understand some walking is good for you, but not when the heat index is 120ºF or wind chill is -20ºF. It's thing like this is what I was asking about... "not wanting a car at all". Are the housing options really that affordable in these areas that a grocery store or restaurant job can support you?

[Pete]

I've lived within walking distance of a grocery store, and you don't carry 10 bags, you merely walk over when you need something.

You can also Uber or ride your bike to anywhere you want to go, so it's not like you still can't go to any restaurant or store you want.

[Teo9969]

You also have Embark on Western, so you could easily have employment anywhere downtown or all the way up to Mercy.

[Teo9969]

I've lived within walking distance of a grocery store, and you don't carry 10 bags, you merely walk over when you need something.

You can also Uber or ride your bike to anywhere you want to go, so it's not like you still can't go to any restaurant or store you want.

There are also tools to make walking 5 blocks with a lot of groceries much more manageable. We just don't ever see them here because it's so uncommon.

[OkieBerto]

I think being carless is viable for the single and/or childless person who is healthy enough to walk a lot and reside in a "live, work, play" area. I also think that is no more than 15-20% of the population at any given time. I don't think this part of the country is going to have the density to make carless living work for a larger percentage of the population for 100, or more, years.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but the last part ignores the current economy and what developers are creating as we speak. Most of the more significant developments have Live/work spaces, understanding that office work will die off. Oak even downsized its office building, realizing it was not viable. However, they built many apartments right next to their retail and restaurants. Also, car makers are raising the prices of their vehicles without a consumer base to buy them.

[Dob Hooligan]

I've lived within walking distance of a grocery store, and you don't carry 10 bags, you merely walk over when you need something.

You can also Uber or ride your bike to anywhere you want to go, so it's not like you still can't go to any restaurant or store you want.

Yes, Pete....but...you OWN a car. You are single, healthy and own a car. I freely admit it is possible for those who are of a station in life such as yourself.

I'm in my 60s. I work in a blue collar business that will never have a work from home component. My "Stay at home wife" at the time and I have raised 2 kids. Kids who went to different schools and had different activities. Seems like as kids get older the schools get farther away from each other. Elementary is closer to home than Middle School and High Schools is farther still. It is not easy to have a church of your faith and doctrine within walking distance.

In the 1990s we lived in Mid Town, I worked near the Fairgrounds; went to church in The Village; schools were in Mesta Park, then West Nichols Hills, then Sheperd Mall. Doctors, counselors and tutors were all over town.

That is life experience than makes me question how utopian a car-less life would be in Oklahoma City.

[cinnamonjock]

I've walked to the grocery store many times. Easiest way to do it is to take your child so you can load up the stroller with your bags

[Pete]

Yes, Pete....but...you OWN a car. You are single, healthy and own a car. I freely admit it is possible for those who are of a station in life such as yourself.

I'm in my 60s. I work in a blue collar business that will never have a work from home component. My "Stay at home wife" at the time and I have raised 2 kids. Kids who went to different schools and had different activities. Seems like as kids get older the schools get farther away from each other. Elementary is closer to home than Middle School and High Schools is farther still. It is not easy to have a church of your faith and doctrine within walking distance.

In the 1990s we lived in Mid Town, I worked near the Fairgrounds; went to church in The Village; schools were in Mesta Park, then West Nichols Hills, then Sheperd Mall. Doctors, counselors and tutors were all over town.

That is life experience than makes me question how utopian a car-less life would be in Oklahoma City.

Absolutely nobody is saying you shouldn't own a car.

People are merely advocating to have that as an option in OKC.

[OKCTalker]

There’s been no mention here (that I’ve seen) of a motor scooter. In addition to owning a car and bicycle, I ride my scooter whenever possible. It reduces mileage on my car, it’s a lot of fun, and I see/smell/hear things better than in the car. I’m frequently asked where I bought it and how much it costs, many times by those who appear to have economic challenges. I don’t ride on highways, at night or in the rain, and I take the car when buying large items, but for 95% of my needs it fits the bill.

[dankrutka]

My original question was in response to "not wanting a car at all". That is what I would have a hard time wrapping my head around. I guess I just do too much of a variety of things (though it certainly doesn't seem that way anymore). I understand not using your car much, but still having one to use. However, not having a car at all would greatly limit your employment options (unless remote work continues, though this seems to be slowly trending down, maybe to hybird level at most). Also, shopping for a family, not sure I want to carry 30 bags full of groceries for a good distance, or eating at the same 10 restaurants all the time. I understand some walking is good for you, but not when the heat index is 120ºF or wind chill is -20ºF. It's thing like this is what I was asking about... "not wanting a car at all". Are the housing options really that affordable in these areas that a grocery store or restaurant job can support you?

Many of your assumptions are grounded in a car-centric view of the world. Again, I don't own a car. Admittedly, my wife does and I use it about once a month, but it's usually for long distance trips. First, not owning a car in a car-centric city requires planning. You seek and live in the most walkable neighborhood that is near your work. If your work is in a car-centric sprawl then it, of course, would be harder. My job is 7 blocks from where I live. I spend 95% of my life within two square miles. I bike and walk almost everywhere. I never get tired of the restaurant, bar, or entertainment options. There's enough within a couple blocks that there are places I only go to 1-2 times a year. I am regular at other places and get to know workers and others in the area. This is one of the biggest perks of living in a walkable place—you get to know people and they get to know you. Here's some other responses to your concerns:

- Groceries: As Pete stated, getting 30 bags of groceries is a product of sprawl. Historically, most people only got groceries for the next day or two because there's a grocery store or bodega in a walkable neighborhood. The Homeland on 16th is probably the best option for many in OKC. However, this problem is largely solved with grocery delivery services.
- Temperatures: I've never had any problem with temperatures from 20 degrees to 105 degrees, or rain or snow. You just dress/plan for it. It's really not a big deal. Even when the whether is bad, there is still something so enjoyable about biking. I love it.
- Housing: My apartment is in the prime entertainment district in my city. My rent is high... but you have to factor in how many areas in which I save money. I have no car insurance, require no gas, have no lawn to maintain, have no repairs I have to pay for. While rent is higher, everything else is lower.

We don't have kids or pets. That definitely makes it easier to live in a walkable neighborhood, but if we did have either, there are condos that I would move to a couple blocks away. Again, no one is saying everyone has to live this way, but I believe every city should strive to make it a possible option for anyone who wants it.

[BoulderSooner]

Historically, most people only got groceries for the next day or two because there's a grocery store or bodega in a walkable neighborhood. .

historically when and where ..

because that was NEVER the case in most of the United States

[TheTravellers]

historically when and where ..

because that was NEVER the case in most of the United States

Didn't tons of cities have shops/small grocery or general stores every few (for varying definitions of few) blocks in tons of neighborhoods at some point in the past (50+ years ago? Driving around Milwaukee when we lived there, we saw a lot of bars every 5 blocks or so that looked like they could've been stores in the past, just as one example.

[dankrutka]

historically when and where ..

because that was NEVER the case in most of the United States

Prior to WWII in much of the U.S.

[BoulderSooner]

Prior to WWII in much of the U.S.

the huge majority of the US is and was rural ..

that hasn't changed .. and the % of people that lived in rural USA was higher back then

[dankrutka]

the huge majority of the US is and was rural ..

that hasn't changed .. and the % of people that lived in rural USA was higher back then

No, it wasn't a "huge majority." The majority of people lived in "urban" areas in the U.S. by 1920, but even smaller towns had main streets that people visited a local grocer fairly frequently. Anyway, while we wait for your full report on food sourcing demographics over U.S. history, let's just agree that a lot of people living in walkable communities got groceries from a local, neighborhood grocer. It was pretty common, which was the main point.

[TheTravellers]

the huge majority of the US is and was rural ..

that hasn't changed .. and the % of people that lived in rural USA was higher back then

Goalpost moving? Aren't we talking about cities, not the entire US as a whole?