High Density Living: Norman Edition

[king183]

One of the hot button developments was an apartment complex at NW 36th and Tecumseh.
It looks like its being opposed by virtually everyone living in that part of town.

Just so everyone is clear: That complex and the debate surrounding it is separate from the high density issue (the proposed complex isn't high density).

[venture]

Just so everyone is clear: That complex and the debate surrounding it is separate from the high density issue (the proposed complex isn't high density).

Exactly. We are talking high density developments in this thread that Norman doesn't have yet. Let's try not to muddy the discussion that has already been hashed out in other threads. They aren't related.

[Just the facts]

I think Norman has to be careful in where they allow these developments. The main objective though should be to establish density in core areas. I would say that Downtown Norman should have priority right now and later the campus area. If anything, permit high density/high rise condos/apartments in downtown and then use it as a launching pad for street car transit system from there to campus. Once Downtown has had time to fill out and redevelop fully, then look at adding additional areas.

Sounds good to me. Of course, this is going to require the medium density single family homes around downtown to give way to higher density uses, but that is the way urban development is supposed to work.

[ou48A]

Just so everyone is clear: That complex and the debate surrounding it is separate from the high density issue (the proposed complex isn't high density).

Please explain? I have been told that the developers were pushing the idea that it was of a higher density, thinking that it might help sell the project to certain people who might have influence in the approval process.
Thanks

[Questor]

I think the complex that has been proposed on Tecumseh (proposed as "medium density") is important to this discussion from the standpoint that, at least right now, there is no plan whatsoever when it comes to density in Norman. As far as I can tell there is nothing to stop someone from loading up high density right next to low density anywhere in the city, assuming the developer has or could get the proper zoning. So the reason the Tecumseh development is significant is that it highlights it is possible that Norman, without proper planning, could end up with a dead core full of single story businesses and sprawling home additions, and strange Franken-suburbs of high and low density convoluted development all around the periphery if we're not careful. Basically a backwards plan if that happens, or if everything is just a big mess of multiple types of density everywhere then no plan at all.

Along these same lines, I think that many home owners are already thinking exactly this, and the comment they are making, which I think has been misconstrued in this thread, is really that they don't want clusters of development and they don't want a bunch of single story low density houses butting up against a multi-story tower of people, with large numbers of windows peering into their backyards and into their private lives. It's not a "liberal" issue, it's an "anyone who owns a home in Norman" issue. The city council needs to address this because it is going to grow into the #1 hot button of homeowners here; they are going to come for the council with proverbial pitchforks and torches if they don't consider it adequately. What you are seeing at various planning meetings... people of wildly different economic and political backgrounds banding together against this issue... isn't a strange anomaly but is in fact a strong indicator of the widespread opposition to what is going on, or what is feared to be happening in Norman. When the average "normal" person takes notice it is going to get much more heated and only worse for city politicians. Hopefully they are realizing this and will give an issue of this magnitude the proper deliberation and planning that it deserves.

[venture]

Questor...good points and I pretty much agree with you.

Side comment. OMG use periods. LOL That first sentence in the second paragraph was rough.

[king183]

I don't think anyone said this was a "liberal issue," though I did say that liberals from the core of Norman have been the most outspoken against it at the community discussions. That just seems odd to me, personally. They also are making different points from Questor. They are fearful that Norman is going to become too big: besides the person who said she didn't want Norman to become like NYC, there were others who said they didn't want the population increase they believe will come with high density; they didn't want more bars they assume will come with high density; they didn't want more traffic they assume will accompany high density; and they wanted to keep Norman "family friendly."

Further, what I'm hearing at these discussions is not a fear of "Franken suburbs," but a fear of high density in the places its most logical to be (i.e., downtown Norman or near campus). In fact, at these meetings there have been repeated suggestions by opponents of these HD developments that, if we do build high density, then it should go out "on the edges of the city"-- that is, nearer the single story homes, which would create the Franken suburb referred to earlier.

It sounds like more people need to attend these discussions to get their points out there.

[soonerliberal]

Norman seems to be a very unique situation when it comes to demographics and planning.

First, the demographics are all over the place. Norman west of I-35 is very much a traditional suburb in that it has high-middle to upper class housing and income levels and a significant amount of commuters to the larger city to the north. East Norman is a mix of middle income suburban community with a suburban college town feel. Central Norman is all over the place - diverse incomes, demographics, and cultures. Not to mention... there is also very much a college town feel in the central area.

Because of the diversity of the city, there are a million different interests that are competing, not always along political and ideological lines. West Normanites, conservative or liberal, are more likely to be interested in the fastest route to drive to work. Central Normanites might be more inclined to support rail due to the proximity to Downtown, not because of their ideology.

I am of the opinion that higher density that is done right can be very valuable to the community as a whole. I would love to see the area from Campus Corner to Downtown become much denser with developments similar to the athletic dorms on Jenkins or Level in OKC. As I have mentioned before, I believe the demographics and desire are there to make it work, but unlike the University, city developments are much more bureaucratic in nature.

[Just the facts]

... they didn't want more traffic they assume will accompany high density...

ROFLMAO. Do they not understand where traffic comes from? The average household starts their car 13 times a day. They start their car to get from where they live to the places they need to go. If the places they live and the places they need to go are closer together they don't need a car for that, they can walk. The less people need to drive the less traffic there is. Why is that hard to figure out?

But alas, Norman is suburb so it is little surprise that the average citizen has a suburban state of mind. So they go about widening roads that make it easier to drive, which leads to more sprawl, so the traffic returns to the previous state of congestion, and the process repeats.

[ou48A]

I think the complex that has been proposed on Tecumseh (proposed as "medium density") is important to this discussion from the standpoint that, at least right now, there is no plan whatsoever when it comes to density in Norman. As far as I can tell there is nothing to stop someone from loading up high density right next to low density anywhere in the city, assuming the developer has or could get the proper zoning. So the reason the Tecumseh development is significant is that it highlights it is possible that Norman, without proper planning, could end up with a dead core full of single story businesses and sprawling home additions, and strange Franken-suburbs of high and low density convoluted development all around the periphery if we're not careful. Basically a backwards plan if that happens, or if everything is just a big mess of multiple types of density everywhere then no plan at all.

Along these same lines, I think that many home owners are already thinking exactly this, and the comment they are making, which I think has been misconstrued in this thread, is really that they don't want clusters of development and they don't want a bunch of single story low density houses butting up against a multi-story tower of people, with large numbers of windows peering into their backyards and into their private lives. It's not a "liberal" issue, it's an "anyone who owns a home in Norman" issue. The city council needs to address this because it is going to grow into the #1 hot button of homeowners here; they are going to come for the council with proverbial pitchforks and torches if they don't consider it adequately. What you are seeing at various planning meetings... people of wildly different economic and political backgrounds banding together against this issue... isn't a strange anomaly but is in fact a strong indicator of the widespread opposition to what is going on, or what is feared to be happening in Norman. When the average "normal" person takes notice it is going to get much more heated and only worse for city politicians. Hopefully they are realizing this and will give an issue of this magnitude the proper deliberation and planning that it deserves.

Thanks Questor. I had not heard the term “medium density” used to describe the proposed development in question.
I agree with the rest of your post. There is a place for medium / high density developments and places not to put them.
Clearly this is not going to be a business as usual deal in Norman.
The people will be in serious revolt if elected city leaders do not handle this well.

[ou48A]

The best example of newly built high density development that I have seen near a major campus is in Lubbock just east of their football stadium. It’s very nice. Nearby they are also building brand new version of campus corner that was still a work in process.
I drove all over Manhattan KS near their campus this past fall and did not see anything new that was as nice or near as big as what I saw in Lubbock.

The land south of Duck pond is about the only place where large scale development similar to what they have done in Lubbock could occur near OU. Obviously OU would need to cooperate if this land was developed similarly.

[ou48A]

Norman seems to be a very unique situation when it comes to demographics and planning.

First, the demographics are all over the place. Norman west of I-35 is very much a traditional suburb in that it has high-middle to upper class housing and income levels and a significant amount of commuters to the larger city to the north. East Norman is a mix of middle income suburban community with a suburban college town feel. Central Norman is all over the place - diverse incomes, demographics, and cultures. Not to mention... there is also very much a college town feel in the central area.

Because of the diversity of the city, there are a million different interests that are competing, not always along political and ideological lines. West Normanites, conservative or liberal, are more likely to be interested in the fastest route to drive to work. Central Normanites might be more inclined to support rail due to the proximity to Downtown, not because of their ideology.

I am of the opinion that higher density that is done right can be very valuable to the community as a whole. I would love to see the area from Campus Corner to Downtown become much denser with developments similar to the athletic dorms on Jenkins or Level in OKC. As I have mentioned before, I believe the demographics and desire are there to make it work, but unlike the University, city developments are much more bureaucratic in nature.

Your assessment of the various parts of Norman is spot on.
Parts of Norman are a true commuter suburban town while other parts are just as you describe with different needs.

There is no reason why we shouldn’t try to enhance life in various part of town based on their individual needs.

[Spartan]

I agree with that. On that desire to treat unique parts of Norman differently, I think it's important to keep higher-density apartments out of West Norman. I don't think they need that kind of unnecessary development in that area, and that density could be put to better use in Central Norman.

[king183]

The land south of Duck pond is about the only place where large scale development similar to what they have done in Lubbock could occur near OU. Obviously OU would need to cooperate if this land was developed similarly.

I think I remember reading that OU planned some medium to high density housing in that area. I don't know if that's still the plan, but it would fit in well with the redesign of that part of Lindsey.

[ou48A]

I think I remember reading that OU planned some medium to high density housing in that area. I don't know if that's still the plan, but it would fit in well with the redesign of that part of Lindsey.

At one time there was a plan to build condos in that area. I think it was about 2006.
They used the condos as a reason to demolish the old apartment housing in that area. That’s where the OU KSU football game bomber lived.

I remember trying talking my wife into buying one of these condos with no luck at all. LOL

[Questor]

I don't think anyone said this was a "liberal issue," though I did say that liberals from the core of Norman have been the most outspoken against it at the community discussions. That just seems odd to me, personally. They also are making different points from Questor. They are fearful that Norman is going to become too big: besides the person who said she didn't want Norman to become like NYC, there were others who said they didn't want the population increase they believe will come with high density; they didn't want more bars they assume will come with high density; they didn't want more traffic they assume will accompany high density; and they wanted to keep Norman "family friendly."

Further, what I'm hearing at these discussions is not a fear of "Franken suburbs," but a fear of high density in the places its most logical to be (i.e., downtown Norman or near campus). In fact, at these meetings there have been repeated suggestions by opponents of these HD developments that, if we do build high density, then it should go out "on the edges of the city"-- that is, nearer the single story homes, which would create the Franken suburb referred to earlier.

It sounds like more people need to attend these discussions to get their points out there.

This surprises me and here is why: all of these meetings have been breaking up into tables, and notes are being kept by each table's facilitator indicating what different folks at each table are saying. Also, there are video recordings of each of these meetings available on the city's website. When I look through the round-table minutes from the "location and compatibility of high density" meeting, I only see a few bullets that partain to the far-flung areas of Norman, or comments that say "no where at all." Most of the bullets seem reasonable to me, and are aligned with the types of things I and others have said in this thread. Am I misinterpreting these minutes?

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/sites/def...-%206-2812.pdf

For anyone interested, here are the videos, presentation materials, and minutes to all of the meetings so far:

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/cm/high-d...ity-discussion

I guess I find your comments more concerning than anything else. I take it you have been attending these meetings, and it concerns me that your description of what you are seeing, versus what the city is actually recording in the minutes (or at least how I am interpreting them), is so different. If you work for the city, then that concerns me even more.

Perhaps this means the city's processes it is using for this are flawed. Either that or maybe your perception is different than what is actually happening, I don't know. When I look through the minutes the common themes I keep reading are that the area around OU, Campus Corner, downtown, and UNP could support high-density, and that the quaintness of other areas of the city should be preserved. I also see discussion about rail and building-up density along a desired rail path. All of this seems reasonable to me. You're saying this isn't what is being said by the majority of people at the meetings?

Your comments are also inconsistent with what representatives from my HOA, who are attending and monitoring all meetings, have been reporting in email to the entire addition. Again, concerning.

[Questor]

Thanks Questor. I had not heard the term “medium density” used to describe the proposed development in question.
I agree with the rest of your post. There is a place for medium / high density developments and places not to put them.
Clearly this is not going to be a business as usual deal in Norman.
The people will be in serious revolt if elected city leaders do not handle this well.

My HOA says that representatives of the developer used that term when contacted by them. In reality I have no idea what "medium density" really is or if it can be quantified in any way. Honestly, sounds like weasel-words to me... trying to appeal to both the low and high density crowd via BS.

[Questor]

I think I have gotten some mailings from the OU Foundation in the recent past about the desire to build condos near the duck pond. I think this idea has just been delayed for various reasons, but is still planned. If I can find the literature I'll scan it in and post it here.

[Questor]

Questor...good points and I pretty much agree with you.

Side comment. OMG use periods. LOL That first sentence in the second paragraph was rough.

Sorry, I think I was enjoying a frosty beverage as I wrote that.

[ou48A]

I think I have gotten some mailings from the OU Foundation in the recent past about the desire to build condos near the duck pond. I think this idea has just been delayed for various reasons, but is still planned. If I can find the literature I'll scan it in and post it here.

I know I received something from the OU Foundation about these condos several years ago.
I have since thrown it away. It would be interesting to hear an update.

[king183]

This surprises me and here is why: all of these meetings have been breaking up into tables, and notes are being kept by each table's facilitator indicating what different folks at each table are saying. Also, there are video recordings of each of these meetings available on the city's website. When I look through the round-table minutes from the "location and compatibility of high density" meeting, I only see a few bullets that partain to the far-flung areas of Norman, or comments that say "no where at all." Most of the bullets seem reasonable to me, and are aligned with the types of things I and others have said in this thread. Am I misinterpreting these minutes?

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/sites/def...-%206-2812.pdf

For anyone interested, here are the videos, presentation materials, and minutes to all of the meetings so far:

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/cm/high-d...ity-discussion

I guess I find your comments more concerning than anything else. I take it you have been attending these meetings, and it concerns me that your description of what you are seeing, versus what the city is actually recording in the minutes (or at least how I am interpreting them), is so different. If you work for the city, then that concerns me even more.

Perhaps this means the city's processes it is using for this are flawed. Either that or maybe your perception is different than what is actually happening, I don't know. When I look through the minutes the common themes I keep reading are that the area around OU, Campus Corner, downtown, and UNP could support high-density, and that the quaintness of other areas of the city should be preserved. I also see discussion about rail and building-up density along a desired rail path. All of this seems reasonable to me. You're saying this isn't what is being said by the majority of people at the meetings?

Your comments are also inconsistent with what representatives from my HOA, who are attending and monitoring all meetings, have been reporting in email to the entire addition. Again, concerning.

No, I didn't say that at all. Please re-read what I wrote.

And, yes, I've attended the meetings and would say the minutes do not fully reflect the extent or nature of the opposition, nor do I really expect them to given that they are just bullets. I encourage you attend the next one and you'll see what I mean regarding the opposition.

(EDIT: And, by the way, the city isn't recording the minutes. The professional group running the meetings is, so I don't blame "the city.")

[G.Walker]

"Looks like" Richard Mckown is the one proposing high density living in Norman:

http://m.normantranscript.com/norman...tguid=RwGGEKxS

[johnpwoods]

he's not proposing it, he was just commenting on it. He isnt involved in either project that is currently on the drawing board. He is a wealth of knowledge on the topic though, and Norman would be fortunate if we had a LEVEL type/quality project come in.

[G.Walker]

he's not proposing it, he was just commenting on it. He isnt involved in either project that is currently on the drawing board. He is a wealth of knowledge on the topic though, and Norman would be fortunate if we had a LEVEL type/quality project come in.

Thanks for the clarification.

[king183]

If any of you would like an example of the delusional opposition to high density in Norman, check out this post. High density is a conspiracy to make us all use public transportation and enforce federal government desires.

http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2012...ialog-charade/