High Density Living: Norman Edition

[dankrutka]

Wow. The comments by the dissenting city council members are ridiculous:

http://newsok.com/norman-city-counci...rticle/3701143

[Just the facts]

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/

Holy crap! I guess some people are going to have to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming. The fantasy world that the guy who wrote that is living in (aka urban sprawl) was all paid for by massive debt and we can't afford to sustain it. So really, it doesn't matter what he thinks, we can't afford his world.

[soonerliberal]

Wow. The comments by the dissenting city council members are ridiculous:

http://newsok.com/norman-city-counci...rticle/3701143

This is a great FIRST step for Norman... Hopefully their silly "concerns" will be alleviated once they actually see what is proposed.

[Just the facts]

This is a great FIRST step for Norman... Hopefully their silly "concerns" will be alleviated once they actually see what is proposed.

That is what I love about all the progress being made in downtown OKC. It will be an example to the rest of the metro area.

[Questor]

I am actually for this development, but I agree with the dissenting council members... I wish the council would have kicked the decision out another 30 days. I understand that this was just medium density, but a lot of people will not. I don't see how this doesn't do anything but disenfranchise people. If the city really wants people commenting and participating in their density discussions, then they have to realize that regardless of how many units this thing really is that the perception is going to be that the city doesn't care what its constituents think and is going to do what it wants. That never leads to good outcomes....

[kevinpate]

But pandering to people who oppose A, and are simply confused that B is a different critter altogether, only opens the door to folks getting their hopes up wrongly and enhances later disappointment needlessly.

High density opponents ought to be heard on high density issues. But when they are against something else because they confuse it with high density, it is not incorrect for the elected folks to do their danged jobs and politely make it clear along the way that this is not that.

[BG918]

Are there any renderings for the Boyd Street Lofts? I assume this will be built on the vacant lot at the NW corner. I wonder if they will do parallel parking along Boyd or angled like it is further west, or any street parking at all. I assume the building will come up to the sidewalk.

[Just the facts]

It seems many of the people in Norman aren't in favor of the new high density housing. Reading the story put out today makes me realize how simple-minded some people are.

http://newsok.com/norman-residents-w...rticle/3706844

“I don't think the city is asking straightforward questions about it. I'm asking simple yes-or-no questions. Do you or do you not want these type of developments? Do you want them in your neighborhood?” Coker said.

...


“People have turned out for these meetings because they are very protective of their neighborhoods,” Councilwoman Linda Lockett said. “They don't want these type of developments to change the character of their neighborhood or the city as a whole.”

For the love of Pete, don't they realize that by spreading Norman out all over the place they are destroying whatever quality of life items they have grown to love in Norman? It is really pretty simple - Norman is going to grow so you have to decide where all those new people are going to live. They can live in 100 units per acre or in 10 units per acre. I don't understand how anyone can think the low density route is going to 'protect' Norman neighborhoods. From a simple supply and demand view single family home owners in Norman shouldn't want anymore single family homes.

[G.Walker]

This is just the minority, the majority of the people in Norman accept high-density development, but they want design restrictions implemented. Ultimately, its up to the Norman City Council to make the final decision, which I think the majority of the council is in favor of such developments, including Mayor Rosenthal. Mayor Rosenthal is very urban minded, she was actually a professor of mine in my Public Policy Analysis class when I was working on my MPA at OU a few years ago. She is really pro urban, I don't see high-density residential development in Norman having any problem being implemented.

[Just the facts]

G. Walker - I hope you're right, but that doesn't mean some people are still not extra stupid.

[ou48A]

There are parts of Norman that are well suited for this type of development but there are other parts that are not.

I believe the majority understands this and would like to see that the development is done in a ways that fit the need of different parts of town.

[BG918]

There are parts of Norman that are well suited for this type of development but there are other parts that are not.

I believe the majority understands this and would like to see that the development is done in a ways that fit the need of different parts of town.

Central Norman between Main, Elm, Constitution and Classen being the best places for such development. That is already a higher density part of town that can support additional high density, especially residential around OU with commercial in the downtown area.

[Just the facts]

It is hard to believe that something like this is currently illegal in Norman.

[Just the facts]

Where is the property rights crowd?

Silence from them as all of a sudden what someone does on their own property has an impact on them. However, tell them that building a 4 lanes road out to their country estate isn't cost effective and they will come out of the wood work. Wierd how that works.

[CaptDave]

Silence from them as all of a sudden what someone does on their own property has an impact on them. However, tell them that building a 4 lanes road out to their country estate isn't cost effective and they will come out of the wood work. Wierd how that works.

Touché - but none of those individuals will recognize the disconnect in their thinking.

[Just the facts]

Touché - but none of those individuals will recognize the disconnect in their thinking.

I posted this in the General Urban Development section but it applies here as well.

Warning: does contain graphic language 4 times.

[Questor]

It is hard to believe that something like this is currently illegal in Norman.

On the first picture, I'd love to see something like that in Norman. I think the sad reality is, though, that if that were approved... in the end... it would look nothing like that. I've seen too many things go wrong with UNP and other things around town to think anything but that. Also, I want to correct you on what you just said -- developments like this are not and have not been illegal in Norman. The city is simply not processing any requests to the planning commission until they come up with a land use plan. It remains to be seen what the outcome of that will be.

You might be surprised to learn that Norman has had some mixed use retail (of similar size and configuration to what you just posted) developed over the last few years. It's probably the reason why some are opposed to anything new... it's only a few years old and it already looks like crap, there is very little survivable retail on the first floor, and it seems like it attracts nothing but transient college students. That's just a sad reality. The development in question includes a second identical structure to the south, multiple stand-alone condos behind it, and another row of slightly different units behind that. I don't remember the number of units off the top of my head.

Blah.jpg


I think the key to the high density meetings at city hall is having a real and honest discussion about the crap they let builders get away with in this town, and a promise at limiting that nonsense for developments like this.

Regarding your second photo... I don't understand. I see a single, stand-alone big box that is three stories. It doesn't appear to me to have any mix of retail... looks like it is all residential to me. At best this would be medium density according to how the city categorizes things. These types of developments are still moving forward and were not frozen as part of the high density discussions. Anyway, I Google'd "Scott Court" from the image and it is basically campus lodging, which can be a large complex of shared apartments, condo developments, and so forth. We already have a lot of that in Norman, so I don't understand your point. Other than aesthetics, how is that any different than Crimson Park, Campus Lodge, The Edge, etc. which were all built here within the last 10 years? I agree the picture you posted looks pretty, but as far as function and configuration goes I think we have plenty of these developments around town already. I also think the average permanent resident is probably not impressed with any of them.

A photo of one of the campus housing complexes built in the last few years (this is a very generous photo):

photo.jpg


Just trying to understand where you are coming from. Not seeing it in this one.

Just to restate my viewpoint in case it isn't clear, it is that I like high density, but I don't think Norman developers know what they are doing and I don't think the city has the balls to enforce any codes or ordinances against them to prevent a giant trashy apartment apocalypse in this town. I am only getting that out of the way right now because I don't want to be hit over the head with replies about how great high density is... you're preaching to the choir. I'd just rather not see it in Norman unless they can man up and learn how to do it right.

[mcca7596]

Questor, the main problem with the place in the first picture that you posted is that it doesn't interact with the street and the setback is too large.

[kevinpate]

There are parts of Norman that are well suited for this type of development but there are other parts that are not.

I believe the majority understands this and would like to see that the development is done in a ways that fit the need of different parts of town.

aka NIMBY, irrespective of any particular topic de jour.

[Just the facts]

Also, I want to correct you on what you just said -- developments like this are not and have not been illegal in Norman.

Norman has a maximum density of 26 units per acre. Anything more than that are not allowed. To get around that they have to build radiant structures (like your first picture) - and those have failed around the world since they day they were conceived.

[ou48A]

aka NIMBY, irrespective of any particular topic de jour.

There are some things that are ok… but others that are not. Most of this is simple common sense.
Kind of like not putting a strip joint in next to a grade school.

[Questor]

Questor, the main problem with the place in the first picture that you posted is that it doesn't interact with the street and the setback is too large.

Yeah I think so too.

[Questor]

Norman has a maximum density of 26 units per acre. Anything more than that are not allowed. To get around that they have to build radiant structures (like your first picture) - and those have failed around the world since they day they were conceived.

NewsOK article wasn't exactly right. Items zoned RO, small lot, are allowed up to 33/acre, while RO large lot up to 43/acre. RO is mixed use and those values are for residential only; commercial does not contribute to the value.

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/planning/zoning-summary

Here's something interesting... OKC's zoning definitions. Their medium-density R-3 maxes out at 23/acre. This is comparable to Norman's RM-6 21/acre. What's interesting about the OKC list is that only one actually talks about mixed use... the Bricktown Core Development (BC) district, and density isn't even mentioned on this summary sheet. The words "high density" appear no where in OKC's zoning lexicon.

http://www.okc.gov/Planning/code/On-...finitions.html

I'm not pointing all of this out to win some online argument. I am simply saying I think that OKC and Norman codes are not all that different, and yet I am generally much happier with developments in OKC than I am Norman. I don't think that pointing to Norman's code and saying it's the problem is really a root cause. And regardless of all of this I think if someone wanted to they could buy up enough land in Norman to meet the requirements of RO, could place the residential close to the street corner, could load up retail on the first and possibly second floors to drop density per acre, and could use the empty space behind for a parking garage if they wanted to. There are always creative ways to do what you want to do and meet code.

[Questor]

Also I wanted to point out that Norman's PUD zone definition pretty much allows a free for all, depending on the whims of the planning commission and other city entities.

Zoning ordinance text, page 10:

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/sites/def...%207-31-12.pdf

Could Norman's zoning actually be more progressive than OKC's?

[Just the facts]

Personally I don't even like segregated zoning. Mixed use should be allowed everywhere. The only requirment (other than heavy industrial) should be that buildings are about the same scale, regardless of use.