OKC Population Density

[GoGators]

I suggest you start over where the topic started. My take is on a ratio basis the burbs pay more than urban. And yes Peake and costs are exactly the topic we had.

Refresher. A poster said we could unload 2/3rds of OKC. I said if we do then you do not have Peake and all the same projects because of the loss of tax dollars. I said the cost per square mile of expenses is less than taxes taken on a ratio basis.

Those burbs pay into MAPS and projects. I even said its normal and that I was not against projects. The cost of current downtown would not be supported if you sold 2/3rds of OKC. That was the discussion.

Another example, If we took a 2 square mile area including Paycom and Farmers and all those new fancy apartments/houses and figured out how much taxes they paid then added in how much roads/police/fire/water cost - the ratio of costs to taxes paid is going to show x. Do the same for 2 square miles in downtown you have a ton of MAPS likely at least $1billion. Yes, they take in more taxes from business but the cost ratio is going to show expenses higher as a ratio to taxes. So the lower expense/tax ratio in burbs means more burb tax money (as a ratio) goes to help downtown. And thats fine its how cities all work. So to cut out 2/3rds of land area means a loss of revenue to help support downtown. I am actually ok with the downtown projects (all but streetcar) so thats not the discussion. A poster said get rid of 2/3rds and downtown has more money to spend. I say you have less.

Yes I’m that poster because it is true. It’s really not a hard concept. I would cut 2/3rds of land area (operating costs) and keep 90% of sales tax base (revenue).

You keep bringing up maps like it hasn’t paid for itself lol. The suburbs don’t pay for maps, maps pays for itself.

1 billion in maps money invested downtown producing 2 billion in private investment/ new sales tax base vs $200,000 in road maintenace for far flung areas that will generate 0 in new sales tax receipts. Which one is a better investment?

[Jeepnokc]

The suburbs don’t pay for maps, maps pays for itself.

1 billion in maps money invested downtown producing 2 billion in private investment/ new sales tax base vs $200,000 in road maintenace for far flung areas that will generate 0 in new sales tax receipts. Which one is a better investment?

MAPS is paid for by OKC sales tax addition. That billion dollars in 1 cent sales tax didn't come from the core but from retail businesses all over OKC. When you consider the lack of retail downtown...it is very arguable that the outside core area where all the retail is located paid the majority of MAPS.

I am only speaking from my little corner of OKC but it is from experience. Due to all the new homes going this rural SW corner of OKC, there is a new Walmart Supercenter, a new BWW, a new Crest, a new Pub W, Firestone, TacoBell, new car wash, new On Cue and numerous other business sprouting up to support these new homes. This is all new sales tax for OKC. This is also the sales tax addition that help pay for MAPS.

[Rover]

Yes I’m that poster because it is true. It’s really not a hard concept. I would cut 2/3rds of land area (operating costs) and keep 90% of sales tax base (revenue).

You keep bringing up maps like it hasn’t paid for itself lol. The suburbs don’t pay for maps, maps pays for itself.
1 billion in maps money invested downtown producing 2 billion in private investment/ new sales tax base vs $200,000 in road maintenace for far flung areas that will generate 0 in new sales tax receipts. Which one is a better investment?

Give me a break.... you have no credibility when you ignore tremendous amounts of investments made all over the city because of infrastructure development. You obviously never get out of downtown if you think that’s where most of the development is happening.

[GoGators]

Give me a break.... you have no credibility when you ignore tremendous amounts of investments made all over the city because of infrastructure development. You obviously never get out of downtown if you think that’s where most of the development is happening.

I’ve literally never said one thing about development in okc only happening in downtown. I’ll say it one more time. The outer areas do not subsidize the inner areas of OKC.

[GoGators]

If you’ve seen some of his other posts that much would be clear. This poster is living in some fantasy world.

I live in a world of facts and statistics. Please feel free to show any source that proves me wrong. Here’s a hint you can’t.

[Plutonic Panda]

I live in a world of facts and statistics. Please feel free to show any source that proves me wrong. Here’s a hint you can’t.

Of course I can’t prove an opinion wrong. Let me write out for you and try again: my opinion is you live in a fantasy world. You don’t live in a word of facts and statistics. You rely on ones spun exactly like the citylab article did giving an overly simplistic view of productivity. Or you can’t seem to acknowledge the fact how much more expensive infrastructure is in dense urban areas nor do you want to admit where most people in OKC live. The thing you had to use as an attempt to prove your claims the core of OKC sustains the peripherals is what a block of urban development brings in as far as tax revenue vs. lower density and I never disputed that.

You also constantly are unable to reply to my posts calling you out on your BS about walkability and new urbanism.

For the sake of argument, my source that you are living in a fantasyland is backed up by you claiming you want to shed 2/3 of OKC.

[Plutonic Panda]

I’ve literally never said one thing about development in okc only happening in downtown. I’ll say it one more time. The outer areas do not subsidize the inner areas of OKC.

How about you clarify what the inner areas are? Because the vast majority of OKC is either rural or suburban.

[mugofbeer]

In all fairness, isn't there a great distinction to be made between land where development is or has a reasonable chance of happening vs. those huge swaths of land east of Lake Draper, land in NE Oklahoma county up the North Canadian river bottoms/i-44 going virtally to Bristow or land swaths going far west beyond Mustang?
If you look at maps of cities in Texas or here in Colorado, cities can, sort of, reserve potential annexation land for the future by just annexing small ribbons that encircle swaths of rural land (I'm assuming to reserve but not have to provide services).
In Colorado, it appears cities can even annex small bits of land that aren't physically connected to the rest of the city. Is this type of thing not allowed in OK?

[GoGators]

Of course I can’t prove an opinion wrong. Let me write out for you and try again: my opinion is you live in a fantasy world. You don’t live in a word of facts and statistics. You rely on ones spun exactly like the citylab article did giving an overly simplistic view of productivity. Or you can’t seem to acknowledge the fact how much more expensive infrastructure is in dense urban areas nor do you want to admit where most people in OKC live. The thing you had to use as an attempt to prove your claims the core of OKC sustains the peripherals is what a block of urban development brings in as far as tax revenue vs. lower density and I never disputed that.

You also constantly are unable to reply to my posts calling you out on your BS about walkability and new urbanism.

For the sake of argument, my source that you are living in a fantasyland is backed up by you claiming you want to shed 2/3 of OKC.

You justify your points by saying a rural road in Payne County isn't walkable. Then argue that a Lowe's in Midwest City is just as walkable as the plaza. I chose not to continue those discussions for obvious reasons lol.

[hoya]

Since the city gets their money from sales taxes, they could de-annex land like crazy and save money as long as they kept the retail establishments.

[GoGators]

How about you clarify what the inner areas are? Because the vast majority of OKC is either rural or suburban.

I was simply using a hypothetical example from the density map posted

The areas shaded in white contains approximately 531,762 residents (84.5% of total pop.) within 166 sq mi (27.7% of total land area)

Someone posted the idea of getting rid of SOME of OKCs land and a few posters acted like the idea was foolish. It is just a hypothetical math problem explaining how that premise is not foolish. That's literally the only point I'm trying to prove.

[Ross MacLochness]

Just wanna chime in for one second and use Bricktown as one tiny case study. Bricktown is only .0003% of the total land area of the city yet produces something like 6-10% (I can't remember the exact number) of tax revenue for the city.

[David]

Do you know where you say the stats for that? Might be a useful source of information for the discussion.

[Ross MacLochness]

I'll try to find the stat for tax revenue. The land area I calculated myself using an area measuring tool for Google maps

[shawnw]

I don't have a link I can provide but I've heard these numbers as well (from multiple reputable sources) during more than one presentation (data was provided by the city), though I will clarify that the way it was presented was that percentage was from the 1-square mile that contains bricktown, so it wasn't _just_ bricktown, is the way I understood it. But the point they were making was about the value of the business density to the tax base using 1 sq mi vs the other 600+. Personally I would like to see a square mile heat map of the city showing tax collections.

[Plutonic Panda]

You justify your points by saying a rural road in Payne County isn't walkable. Then argue that a Lowe's in Midwest City is just as walkable as the plaza. I chose not to continue those discussions for obvious reasons lol.

There are different levels in walkability.

Are you really trying to say my logic is flawed in saying that a development that has dedicated pedestrian thoroughfares and large sidewalks in front of every store WITH a new pedestrian dedicated park/link to the neighborhoods to the north underway is somehow comparable to a rural road likely with no shoulders?

How on earth is that relevant to me saying I can get around in the Mid American Plaza center just as well as I can the Plaza District? Once again, the shopping center in Midwest City that has a Lowes has dedicated network of sidewalks and a park U/C or soon to be with dedicated pedestrian links for the neighborhood to the north. You not being to handle differing opinions that debunk your theory of what some find walkable is not my problem nor it a valid excuse to discredit people yet cherry pick posts as you do not just with me, but other posters.

Me finding the shopping center in question as walkable as the Plaza just doesn’t fit your narrative. It is a simple as that. But continue to live in your bubble and believe a development is walkable only if you claim it to be—or are you going to use Citylab or Strongrown’s criteria of what a walkable area is?

[David]

Personally I would like to see a square mile heat map of the city showing tax collections.

That would be really useful. I looked around on https://data.okc.gov/portal/page/start/ for a while, but I was not able to find sales tax collection as a existing published data set.

[shawnw]

I've also looked for that. Really need to find a way to make that happen. Someone should talk to Zach about seeing if that can happen. Maybe I'll email him (though I know he's on here and has responded to things in the past).

[Ross MacLochness]

Urban3 does this but it costs $$$$$ Our heat map would likely look a lot like this:

https://www.urban-three.com/albuquerque-nm

"Two and three-story townhome/condo developments in the Central Avenue corridor were found to bring in more than 10-15 times the property tax revenue of a standard Walmart on a per acre basis. Perhaps even more encouraging for the future of the BRT and its planning efforts is the amount of value already added within the corridor over the last 10 years, which outpaces the rest of the City."

also this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ceHYeOE8Xg

[GoGators]

There are different levels in walkability.

Are you really trying to say my logic is flawed in saying that a development that has dedicated pedestrian thoroughfares and large sidewalks in front of every store WITH a new pedestrian dedicated park/link to the neighborhoods to the north underway is somehow comparable to a rural road likely with no shoulders?

How on earth is that relevant to me saying I can get around in the Mid American Plaza center just as well as I can the Plaza District? Once again, the shopping center in Midwest City that has a Lowes has dedicated network of sidewalks and a park U/C or soon to be with dedicated pedestrian links for the neighborhood to the north. You not being to handle differing opinions that debunk your theory of what some find walkable is not my problem nor it a valid excuse to discredit people yet cherry pick posts as you do not just with me, but other posters.

Me finding the shopping center in question as walkable as the Plaza just doesn’t fit your narrative. It is a simple as that. But continue to live in your bubble and believe a development is walkable only if you claim it to be—or are you going to use Citylab or Strongrown’s criteria of what a walkable area is?

No, i'm saying your logic is flawed by bringing up a rural road in Payne County to make your argument about walkability in the first place.

Your logic is also flawed because you dismiss any evidence presented because of the source without being able to provide any source that supports your view whatsoever.

You can erroneously claim that some 4 million square foot big box shopping center that is more parking lot than retail is walkable, but that doesn’t magically make it so. Unless you are going to attempt to prove Belle Isle is a walkable paradise because people walk to freebirds from their parking spot. If you think that is the case that is fine, but don’t call it cherry picking when I don’t respond to such claims.

[Laramie]

Not all that concerned about OKC population density or growth. Our city somehow manages to grow 5% - 10% range during the most turbulent of times. When we had a lot of our population moving to the North Texas Metroplex area; we still maintained growth.

Imagine the impact of a successful 1960s MAPS initiative in place of a stalled Pei Plan? Our quality of life would have improved as our city probably would be more cosmetically attractive--like a country girl slipping on a fashion wig, pink dress and making her way into town... ...you go girl, ride them cowboys.

[Plutonic Panda]

No, i'm saying your logic is flawed by bringing up a rural road in Payne County to make your argument about walkability in the first place.

Your logic is also flawed because you dismiss any evidence presented because of the source without being able to provide any source that supports your view whatsoever.

You can erroneously claim that some 4 million square foot big box shopping center that is more parking lot than retail is walkable, but that doesn’t magically make it so. Unless you are going to attempt to prove Belle Isle is a walkable paradise because people walk to freebirds from their parking spot. If you think that is the case that is fine, but don’t call it cherry picking when I don’t respond to such claims.

I’d be willing to bet a large number of Plaza District patrons walk to their destination from their parking spot so that’s yet another weak argument. When you see me bringing up Payne County road you missed my point if you think I’m trying to say it is walkable like an urban district such as the plaza. To discount my entire post is cherry picking between each my posts and that is exactly what you did. You have no obligation to respond to my posts obviously, but I’m calling as I see it.

You also place words in my mouth by insinuating I’m claiming developments like the one in Midwest City are walking paradises which is a borderline straw man. I never made such claim— I only said that one could find a development comfortable and walkable that YOU may not. The Plaza district was just used as an example vs. the stereo typical and evil strip malls that many urbanists(and posters on OKCTalk, which is typical of development forum websites).

Funny enough, we would probably agree on Belle Isle. It is a horrible shopping center. It is hardly walkable and even less than the MidAmerica Shopping Center in MWC. It is completely disconnected from Penn Square which is extremely moronic, has a very plain Jane parking lot with little landscaping and pedestrian features, and a lack of sidewalks connecting the various sections of the development. Not to mention it replaced a really cool power plant and lake that could have been repurposed into an incredible development with the right vision.

[Jeepnokc]

Urban3 does this but it costs $$$$$ Our heat map would likely look a lot like this:

https://www.urban-three.com/albuquerque-nm

"Two and three-story townhome/condo developments in the Central Avenue corridor were found to bring in more than 10-15 times the property tax revenue of a standard Walmart on a per acre basis. Perhaps even more encouraging for the future of the BRT and its planning efforts is the amount of value already added within the corridor over the last 10 years, which outpaces the rest of the City."

also this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ceHYeOE8Xg

Read the article...did not watch the 16 minute video so pardon me if the answer is in the video.. Is this really comparing apples to apples? It is only looking at property tax revenue and ignores other revenue attributes of the property. Seeing how residential doesn't produce sales tax revenue, the walmart brings in much much more retail sales tax than the townhouses do. I would be more interested in numbers if it compared the total amount of what the properties bring in (property tax plus sales tax)

[GoGators]

I’d be willing to bet a large number of Plaza District patrons walk to their destination from their parking spot so that’s yet another weak argument. When you see me bringing up Payne County road you missed my point if you think I’m trying to say it is walkable like an urban district such as the plaza. To discount my entire post is cherry picking between each my posts and that is exactly what you did. You have no obligation to respond to my posts obviously, but I’m calling as I see it.

You also place words in my mouth by insinuating I’m claiming developments like the one in Midwest City are walking paradises which is a borderline straw man. I never made such claim— I only said that one could find a development comfortable and walkable that YOU may not. The Plaza district was just used as an example vs. the stereo typical and evil strip malls that many urbanists(and posters on OKCTalk, which is typical of development forum websites).

Funny enough, we would probably agree on Belle Isle. It is a horrible shopping center. It is hardly walkable and even less than the MidAmerica Shopping Center in MWC. It is completely disconnected from Penn Square which is extremely moronic, has a very plain Jane parking lot with little landscaping and pedestrian features, and a lack of sidewalks connecting the various sections of the development. Not to mention it replaced a really cool power plant and lake that could have been repurposed into an incredible development with the right vision.

That’s fair. I see what you are saying from your explanation. With that clarification, what I argued regarding the MWC development would be a straw man.

[Ross MacLochness]

Read the article...did not watch the 16 minute video so pardon me if the answer is in the video.. Is this really comparing apples to apples? It is only looking at property tax revenue and ignores other revenue attributes of the property. Seeing how residential doesn't produce sales tax revenue, the walmart brings in much much more retail sales tax than the townhouses do. I would be more interested in numbers if it compared the total amount of what the properties bring in (property tax plus sales tax)

Totally agree, I'd love to see that as well. And I agree that since OKC is a sales tax city, it's not a one to one comparison. However, the principles are still similar in that we still need to be doing the math to see if how and what we are building is sustainable long (and short) term. We still need to be building efficiently enough so that we can pay for services, roads, plumbing, sewer, etc and their long term maintenance costs with the amount of tax revenue we bring in no matter if it's property or sales tax. A wal mart does indeed bring in a **** ton of sales tax revenue, but think about all the land a wal mart uses. When you add up all the parking, roads, and other externalities that make wal marts in their current form viable, how much surplus do we get compared to the same sized parcel filled with fine grained, multi story development with a mix of uses and little to no parking. I don't have the answer, (but I believe I know what it would be) but these are the types of questions we need to asking. We don't have to choose one extreme, (i.e. land of wal-marts), or the other (i.e. Manhattan). We can move along that continuum how we want and what works best for our city, we just need to be sure we have enough intensity to pay for what we've built.