High Density Living: Norman Edition

[HangryHippo]

It appears Norman has decided to squash could be a sizable development opportunity:

http://normantranscript.com/headline...gh-density-yet

Really great that we get architecture grads with the drive to build something that looks very nice and then squander it because some people might get upset about a little density.

[Spartan]

I am really surprised. It looks like Stillwater and Manhattan are going to build up way before Norman.

[BG918]

Is high density development allowed anywhere in Norman, like downtown? Is it a problem because it's in a single family neighborhood, even though there are apartments in the vicinity? That whole area from Boyd to Brooks in between the tracks and Jenkins should be zoned for high density. If a commuter line is started there will likely be a stop there so perfect place for TOD.

[Spartan]

How were the Boyd lofts approved,many the East Village? Boyd has no mixed-use

[ljbab728]

Norman has not decided to squash that kind of development. According to this article they want standard development guidelines to be in place first. I don't see that as unreasonable.

Norman City Council rejects high-density housing proposal | NewsOK.com

[HangryHippo]

Norman has not decided to squash that kind of development. According to this article they want standard development guidelines to be in place first. I don't see that as unreasonable.

Norman City Council rejects high-density housing proposal | NewsOK.com

Go back and read what I actually wrote about Norman squashing this development OPPORTUNITY. I have no problem with wanting standard development guidelines being in place and don't find that unreasonable either, but the houses that this development would replace need replacing. They are rundown and I don't see the problem with approving something dense for an area that surrounds the university. The developers said they would meet whatever aesthetic requirements Norman wanted them to but that they needed the density to make it work. How often does Norman see proposals willing to make that kind of agreement? I strongly believe this should have been approved. When are we going to actually see the new guidelines? At some reasonable time when the developer might still be willing to come back with this proposal? Probably not.

[ou48A]

Is high density development allowed anywhere in Norman, like downtown? Is it a problem because it's in a single family neighborhood, even though there are apartments in the vicinity? That whole area from Boyd to Brooks in between the tracks and Jenkins should be zoned for high density. If a commuter line is started there will likely be a stop there so perfect place for TOD.

I would agree that this would be a good area for high density development however there have been persistent rumors that OU would eventually like to use most of this land “ from Boyd to Brooks in between the tracks and Jenkins”.
I have heard that OU would like to eventually build a new basketball arena, a new baseball park, parking garages and more academic space in this area.
The area just east of the tracks where there are a number of older mostly rental homes has good street access and would have good access to a commuter rail station.

This would tie in well if the city ever built a partly elevated Front street project that would run from the campus area to all the way north past Robinson to connect with Flood street. It would run on the west side of the tracks.

[kevinpate]

I enjoyed my time at OU, even though it wasn't typical undergrad time. That said, if OU has designs on land for future expansion purposes, then OU ought to actually acquire the land, or at minimum hold an option on it. If not, the land is, and ought to be, freely available for any willing seller/buyer transaction that comes along.

I can't think of a better location in Norman for high density residential than easy walking distance to the heart of campus. I had a relative live in one of the older rentals just off this area back in the late, late 80's. It was fugly as all get out, but it was also dirt cheap .. a big gelling point since he was also maintaining a household back home and each week he spent almost as many nights back home as he spent in Norman.

[ljbab728]

Go back and read what I actually wrote about Norman squashing this development OPPORTUNITY. I have no problem with wanting standard development guidelines being in place and don't find that unreasonable either, but the houses that this development would replace need replacing. They are rundown and I don't see the problem with approving something dense for an area that surrounds the university. The developers said they would meet whatever aesthetic requirements Norman wanted them to but that they needed the density to make it work. How often does Norman see proposals willing to make that kind of agreement? I strongly believe this should have been approved. When are we going to actually see the new guidelines? At some reasonable time when the developer might still be willing to come back with this proposal? Probably not.

I certainly not questioning that this may have been a good opportunity. The problem, as I see it, is that without specific guidelines in place they may be setting precedents that could be used later by other developers to demand similar types of developments even if they don't meet some new guidelines. If that area is a good fit for that kind of development developers won't be forever put off by a delay to develop those guidelines.

[HangryHippo]

I would agree that this would be a good area for high density development however there have been persistent rumors that OU would eventually like to use most of this land “ from Boyd to Brooks in between the tracks and Jenkins”.
I have heard that OU would like to eventually build a new basketball arena, a new baseball park, parking garages and more academic space in this area.
The area just east of the tracks where there are a number of older mostly rental homes has good street access and would have good access to a commuter rail station.

This would tie in well if the city ever built a partly elevated Front street project that would run from the campus area to all the way north past Robinson to connect with Flood street. It would run on the west side of the tracks.

OU48A, you seem to regularly be in the know about the rumors regarding OU, but I have never heard so much as one word about the possibility of any of this. While I'm certainly not trying to call you out, what would they do with the existing facilities if they did build new stuff in this area north of Boyd? And why would they expand north? That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. They have a tremendous amount of land to the south, especially around Constitution in the area they've been clearing off the old barracks and apartments.

Also, I think kevinpate has an excellent point. If OU does hope to expand, they ought to actually acquire the land or it ought to be available to other entities that are interested. This is probably a pipe dream, but I wish OU was more transparent about their hopes for the future. I'm sure that would rile the NIMBYs, but I would like to have a better idea about what my alma mater wants to see for the future.

[ou48A]

OU48A, you seem to regularly be in the know about the rumors regarding OU, but I have never heard so much as one word about the possibility of any of this. While I'm certainly not trying to call you out, what would they do with the existing facilities if they did build new stuff in this area north of Boyd? And why would they expand north? That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. They have a tremendous amount of land to the south, especially around Constitution in the area they've been clearing off the old barracks and apartments.

Also, I think kevinpate has an excellent point. If OU does hope to expand, they ought to actually acquire the land or it ought to be available to other entities that are interested. This is probably a pipe dream, but I wish OU was more transparent about their hopes for the future. I'm sure that would rile the NIMBYs, but I would like to have a better idea about what my alma mater wants to see for the future.

Most of this is a wish list at this point, in need of large amounts of money, not very much official has been done that I am aware of.

But if you are familiar with this area you may already know that OU has been gradually buying up property east of Jenkins and north of Brooks. OU has already torn down houses, build parking lots, and park space in this area. This is only very slowly occurring. It makes sense to buy property as it naturally becomes available for sale. I have been told that the OU’s foundation probably owns more property in this area but that it is being rented out for now though a property management company and that it will be torn down when practical.

There was a published report several years ago that talked about the possibility of a new basketball arena located at the NE corner of Jenkins and Brooks. This land is more centrally located than the vacant land on the south base. Building new high destination facility’s close to the football stadium and close to a commuter rail station with a large park and ride has several obvious advantages.

Having become better acquainted with things at OU in recent years I have learned that there are a lot of things that go on that never make the newspapers or much outside a certain circle of people and a lack of clarity is often the case. IMHO there are different factions in some cases that have different ideas.

But a narrow strip of condos / apartments along the tracks would help create a sound barrier for OU and still preserve large amounts of land for OU. I could see that.

[Questor]

If I'm reading that correctly, the Council is saying the request was denied and all requests will be denied until the issue of creating a master plan for high density is settled. I don't know that this is a bad thing.

Also, who the heck are the Elsey brothers? Does anyone know who they are, what they have gotten funded and built out to completion in the past, and so on? Have they had successful high density developments elsewhere in the past? Are they this project's architects, or are they guys with money looking to buy land and get something going on it by pairing up with others? If the latter, who have they paired-up with in the past? What are their construction, architectural, and developer connections?

Just because somebody walks into city hall with an idea that doesn't mean such things should just be automatically approved.... I mean I have no idea who these people are... maybe the council doesn't either. Does anyone here, and can you share some information if you do? Have they previously approached city staff and worked with them on any plans? Where are they?

[HangryHippo]

As I understand it, the Elsey brothers are architects from Kansas. I know they have some carried out some developments in Manhattan, Kansas and Stillwater, Oklahoma. I've not seen either development so I cannot comment on the quality of either. I think they were the architects for this proposed development and not just the guys with the money for the land.

You're right. But they did say they would be willing to work with the council on the aesthetics, but I'm just worried that the council won't develop an ordinance in a timely manner that will be friendly to this kind of development. Does anyone know what the citizen meetings led to? Is the council hoping to see quality density developments or did the NIMBYs win out, ultimately resulting in an ordinance unfriendly to density?

[HangryHippo]

Most of this is a wish list at this point, in need of large amounts of money, not very much official has been done that I am aware of.

But if you are familiar with this area you may already know that OU has been gradually buying up property east of Jenkins and north of Brooks. OU has already torn down houses, build parking lots, and park space in this area. This is only very slowly occurring. It makes sense to buy property as it naturally becomes available for sale. I have been told that the OU’s foundation probably owns more property in this area but that it is being rented out for now though a property management company and that it will be torn down when practical.

There was a published report several years ago that talked about the possibility of a new basketball arena located at the NE corner of Jenkins and Brooks. This land is more centrally located than the vacant land on the south base. Building new high destination facility’s close to the football stadium and close to a commuter rail station with a large park and ride has several obvious advantages.

Having become better acquainted with things at OU in recent years I have learned that there are a lot of things that go on that never make the newspapers or much outside a certain circle of people and a lack of clarity is often the case. IMHO there are different factions in some cases that have different ideas.

But a narrow strip of condos / apartments along the tracks would help create a sound barrier for OU and still preserve large amounts of land for OU. I could see that.

Do you know where I could find the published report you mention?

[ou48A]

Do you know where I could find the published report you mention?

I wish I could remember where I read it. But it was about 4 or 5 years ago and most likely in the Daily Oklahoma but I am not real sure, sorry. I am pretty sure it was more speculation than anything about what they would like to eventually do.

If you will Google a satellite map of this area you will see that OU already has decent size chunk of the land under its control that would be needed for a new arena. This is in an area bordered by Brooks on the south, Jenkins on the west, Trout on the east and University PI on the North. I drove though this area on Friday. It looked like most of the remaining homes in this area are in a state of poor repair. Some look like they should be condemned.

I strongly wish OU would be much more forthcoming about their long range construction goals and desires. I really hate it when they spend even a small amount of money on something only to tear it back out just a few years later.
It would be more cost effective if they did and it also might help with their fund raising efforts.

[HangryHippo]

This article High density zoning district currently under consideration » Headlines » The Norman Transcript is pretty depressing. The article states that "a growing demand for urban housing within a walkable distance to the university and/or ships and businesses is driving the high-density movement in Norman and follows a national trend of urban renewal." However, our lame ass council can't get over protecting the charm of suburgatory. I'm sorry but I really find all this reluctance to change frustrating as hell. Why can't we agree that density is cool and that it's probably not going to just magically appear in the middle of their quaint neighborhoods, but rather in designated areas and with a great attention to detail and fit. Hell, it might even make more people want to live in Norman.

[kevinpate]

... Hell, it might even make more people want to live in Norman.

You do realize you have hit the fear nail rather squarely on its head? There is a segment of Norman that recognizes many people want to live in Norman because of how it is but fear, rightly or wrongly is irrelevant as the fear is real to them, Norman will cease to be Norman if it grows too much or too fast. This group is not unorganized and even where they recognize certain aspects of Norman is warty, they like Norman as it is, warts and all.

[HangryHippo]

You do realize you have hit the fear nail rather squarely on its head? There is a segment of Norman that recognizes many people want to live in Norman because of how it is but fear, rightly or wrongly is irrelevant as the fear is real to them, Norman will cease to be Norman if it grows too much or too fast. This group is not unorganized and even where they recognize certain aspects of Norman is warty, they like Norman as it is, warts and all.

Oh yes, I realize it. I do wish it weren't quite so though.

[blangtang]

The historic district folks want to limit "high density" to three stories, while a developer wants 75 feet.?! lol!

"A growing demand for urban housing within a walkable distance to the university and/or shops and businesses is driving the high density movement in Norman and follows a national trend of urban renewal. But residents, especially those in Norman’s historic districts near where much of the high density construction requests are focused, are concerned about increased traffic, parking problems, and the potential for damaging the charm and character of existing single family neighborhoods."

There are only 2 Historic Districts in Norman, the Classen Miller one and the Chautauqua one, and I don't understand how the Chautauqua one would be affected, unless the developers somehow re-jiggered the boundaries, which I doubt will happen.

That Jungman guy quoted in the article lives in the Classen Miller district and I have a feeling those people are pissed off about that new suburban looking 2 story apartment called Monnett Garden, which is just west of the train tracks, south of Duffy, and east of Monnett.

8285746646_968ab9f16a_m.jpg


8285738160_567e1868d4_m.jpg

I suppose I don't blame them too much since there was the LOFT 401 that is sort of creeping toward their 'hood. Are these discussions reacting to phantom developments or have there been some actual proposals, I haven't been paying too close attention.

[HangryHippo]

There was a proposal by a developer made up of two brothers out of Kansas I think and they had proposed some housing north of Sarkey's off Boyd. But these NIMBY clowns protested the hell out of it, apparently so they can keep the charm of the rundown homes that are currently there.

[Bunty]

I am really surprised. It looks like Stillwater and Manhattan are going to build up way before Norman.

Surely, OSU's buyout of the rather large student ghetto just to the north of it has helped to stimulate development of two or so mid rise apartment complexes. Development like that was needed to help discourage students from over crowding a rather old, but not real crappy, Westwood neighborhood just to the west of OSU, which has been a local issue of controversy.

[Just the facts]

"A growing demand for urban housing within a walkable distance to the university and/or shops and businesses is driving the high density movement in Norman and follows a national trend of urban renewal. But residents, especially those in Norman’s historic districts near where much of the high density construction requests are focused, are concerned about increased traffic, parking problems, and the potential for damaging the charm and character of existing single family neighborhoods."

What is sad is that high density decreases traffic. Eliminate the need for the car and you eliminate the car; eliminate the car and you eliminate traffic AND the need for parking.

[Plutonic Panda]

What is sad is that high density decreases traffic. Eliminate the need for the car and you eliminate the car; eliminate the car and you eliminate traffic AND the need for parking.

So you want everyone to walk everywhere? When you need to go across the country you take a train? Like I said before I want a light rail in OKC more than anything but if I am imagining the world you are, it seems really boring to me. I think there need to be balance for people like me who like cars but also for people that want to use mass transit for their everyday travel and then there are those who make the best of both worlds.

[Spartan]

There was a proposal by a developer made up of two brothers out of Kansas I think and they had proposed some housing north of Sarkey's off Boyd. But these NIMBY clowns protested the hell out of it, apparently so they can keep the charm of the rundown homes that are currently there.

This. Elsey is a good developer..solid track record.

[Just the facts]

So you want everyone to walk everywhere? When you need to go across the country you take a train? Like I said before I want a light rail in OKC more than anything but if I am imagining the world you are, it seems really boring to me. I think there need to be balance for people like me who like cars but also for people that want to use mass transit for their everyday travel and then there are those who make the best of both worlds.

Why would you want to drive your car if you lived in a high density area that had all your daily needs (and wants) within walking distance? While I was in Philly I looked at some apartments and condos and The Phoenix as a pretty good marketing edge. You can go anywhere in the world without stepping outside and no car needed.

Philadelphia Condominiums - The Phoenix :: Luxury Residences :: 1600 Arch Street