High Density Living: Norman Edition

[Plutonic Panda]

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

Well first off I like driving but I would also like to be able to walk to the store to pick up something to eat or whatever, so I understand your point. I live in Edmond so it isn't very dense and I like it that way. I prefer having a yard(front and back) and is cheaper to own bigger home than bigger apartment(if you want to live in nice areas). So to me there are pros and cons for each. Cons here is having to drive everywhere to get something. But, on the other hand, sometimes I like driving to the store and looking out my window. I just can't imagine a city that is 100% urban. Some people like high density urban environments and I think they're neat and one day I would love to become a developer and develop such areas. But, as far as living I just like were I'm at.

[Just the facts]

Just to be clear, no one is asking you to move, but both Edmond and Norman should also include high density areas for those that want to live in a traditional town style development. Edmond and Norman don't have to be 100% suburban or low density.

[catch22]

I don't think anybody should be forced to live 100% urban or suburban. I really don't think many are asking or talking about that, Plutonic Panda. However, the cost of sprawl and the street network to support that life style should reflect the true cost to sustain that. If you love driving you should be willing to pay to use that. The big beef most on this forum (and other likeminded individuals who are not on this forum) have with suburbia is that the cost is enormous to the city budgets, but very little of that cost is being paid by the primary users of it. Usually at the cost of the inner city being neglected (why we are now spending so much money to grow the inner city again, if we hadn't hav subsidized sprawl, we wouldn't be investing as heavily to rebuild downtown -- it'd still be functional and pretty spectacular).

[Plutonic Panda]

I understand people need to be willing to pay and I support that. I would also support a new gas tax that would primarily go to building a brand new Light Rail and then go to rebuilding our interchanges ASAP!

[Plutonic Panda]

Just to be clear, no one is asking you to move, but both Edmond and Norman should also include high density areas for those that want to live in a traditional town style development. Edmond and Norman don't have to be 100% suburban or low density.

I agree with that. In fact I would love for Edmond to have an extensive urban development in the central core surrounding UCO. I mean I would like a pretty big area for that. I would also be in favor of completely removing Broadway starting from 2nd street all the way to Bryant and putting in a street car and creating a new entertainment, shopping, and residential area not seen in OKC. I don't know Norman that well but that will probably change when I attend OU in the Fall.

[Stew]

All this urbanism dense living seems very faddish. Right now there's a lot of interest and tremendous subsidies to make everything bright and shiny but when the shine wears off people will move back to the burbs for the same reasons our grandparents did. There's nothing new under the sun. It's all been played out before.

Whether I'm right or wrong I do enjoy all the new stuff.

[Plutonic Panda]

All this urbanism dense living seems very faddish. Right now there's a lot of interest and tremendous subsidies to make everything bright and shiny but when the shine wears off people will move back to the burbs for the same reasons our grandparents did. There's nothing new under the sun. It's all been played out before.

Whether I'm right or wrong I do enjoy all the new stuff.

I agree to some extent. I don't know how faddish it is. I just can't imagine living in a concrete jungle no matter how dressed up it is. But, that is just view of it and I'm sure many people on here would disagree.

[Spartan]

I agree but to be fair, most people haven't experienced or lived in the kind of density that most new urbanists like JTF actually would like to see. It is pretty doubtful that aside from projects like Carlton Landing, traditional, "urban" neighborhoods are not likely to be built or preserved (Deep Deuce) in Oklahoma. There will be exceptions but I don't see the 'fad' really taking off here.

Extreme fans of urbanism who can will probably eventually leave for places that are really committing to that kind of density.

I don't know what all of this is to be honest. A lot of people don't leave and the point is that cities can embrace all of its citizens, provide a place for everyone, and become much more diverse places. Diversity isn't just racial but also exists between lifestyles, income groups, and people who like red cars versus people who like black suvs.

In the past we've gotten too caught up in entire suburbs where everyone looks the same, thinks the same, lives in the same house, and drives the same car. That's why a lot of people roll their eyes at Edmond or look down on Moore, or [insert typical reaction to a suburb's stereotype]. However, showcasing Downtown OKC is by far putting our best foot forward in attracting growth and new business.

[HangryHippo]

I wonder if this will pass tonight. I think it'd be a great addition, but knowing Norman, I doubt it passes.

High-density project on agenda for Norman City Council | News OK

[jedicurt]

I wonder if this will pass tonight. I think it'd be a great addition, but knowing Norman, I doubt it passes.

High-density project on agenda for Norman City Council | News OK

i'm also saying no, it won't pass... which is sad. I would like to see more of their plans. as if not done right, i too might oppose it, just not for any of the reasons that it will get voted down

[BoulderSooner]

i'm also saying no, it won't pass... which is sad. I would like to see more of their plans. as if not done right, i too might oppose it, just not for any of the reasons that it will get voted down

what is interesting is that if the developer is correct and he can build the highrise housing by current zoning right he very well might just building the housing anyway if this is voted down. if which case he could just leave the planned retail empty and go get the rezoning after the fact

[ou48A]

This location seems like a pretty good place for this type of development.
I don’t understand why Campus Corner merchants wouldn’t want more people closer to their businesses.

[HangryHippo]

Well, it makes too much sense.

[venture]

This was in the Transcript today...Work on density zoning continues » Headlines » The Norman Transcript

I like the direction they are going in.

Initial proposed ordinance was:
HDR-1 - up to 45' high
HDR-2 - up to 55' high
HDR-3 - up to 75' high

Mayor Rosenthal has proposed changing them to:
HDR-1 - 3 stories or up to 45' high
HDR-2 - 4 stories or up to 55' high, discouraged next to single family homes
HDR-3 - unlimited height, on arterial streets only, prohibited next to single family homes

So things are continuing to evolve and it appears in the right direction. We need to get away from the 75' high restriction. I'm not sure the location restriction is good, because that wouldn't allow them to build on a secondary street downtown or other higher density areas.

[Questor]

Interesting that there is now virtually no difference between HDR-1 and the controversial apartment development on the west side. Leave it to normanites to approve higher density on the outskirts and fight it to the death in the urban core.

[kevinpate]

The CC area development discussion was postponed, again, at the request of the developer.
Vote on high-density rezoning request postponed for fifth time » Headlines » The Norman Transcript

[HangryHippo]

Has anyone seen the renderings for this Risser project?

[Geographer]

That's the one just north of campus corner right? If so, there's new renderings out from the meeting last week. Check the city of norman's planning commission agenda from June 13th.

[HangryHippo]

Yeah. I looked up the agenda though and didn't see any renderings included. The link for that week doesn't have open links like the other agendas. Can you post them here? Or at least the link to the active agenda where you saw them?

[Questor]

Here are the schematics for the Campus Corner development:

http://norman.legistar.com/gateway.a...22eb213174.pdf

[G.Walker]

Nice...

[Geographer]

Here is the document from the City of Norman website: http://legistar1.granicus.com/norman...ing_Agenda.pdf (scroll to the last page for links)

[HangryHippo]

Here is the document from the City of Norman website: http://legistar1.granicus.com/norman...ing_Agenda.pdf (scroll to the last page for links)

Thanks Trey and Questor.

[jedicurt]

Here are the schematics for the Campus Corner development:

http://norman.legistar.com/gateway.a...22eb213174.pdf

not great, but very good. i like

[BG918]

So is this moving forward? Looks like a decent infill project for Norman, and hopefully leads to more similar developments in that area.

Looking at the site plan it appears the small office building where the Emerging Technology Entrepreneural Center (ETEC) is located. Are they relocating to another space in Campus Corner or downtown Norman? That would be great to see them get their own new building.