Mayor Mick Cornett Should Adopt Downtown Housing Incentive Program For Developers

[G.Walker]

Mayor Mick Cornett can learn from former Austin Mayor Will Wynn. Wynn set out a goal for having up to 25,000 people living Downtown Austin by 2015, and the city provided incentives for building residential units in the urban core. After this incentive program was implemented, Austin saw a boom of high-rise condo development downtown is the last 6 years.

I think Mick Cornett and city officials, should really sit down and look at such a program, with all the developments going on now, its a win/win situation. Now would be the perfect time.

[Kerry]

Can you give some examples of the 'incentives' Austin used?

[Midtowner]

We've given developers free land to use in Midtown and they still couldn't get 'er done.

If the city's involved at any level, I'm skeptical.

[G.Walker]

We've given developers free land to use in Midtown and they still couldn't get 'er done.

If the city's involved at any level, I'm skeptical.

Thats Midtown, I am talking about urban core, there is still plenty land available east of downtown, and will have plenty of land available south of downtown.

[OKCTalker]

What would justify the use of taxpayer dollars to move people downtown? The economies of supply & demand seem to be working just fine.

[G.Walker]

Can you give some examples of the 'incentives' Austin used?

Incentive Program

One of the most effective aspects of Austin's Smart Growth Initiative is the Incentive Program. The incentives include fee waivers, infrastructure investments and expedited approval of development applications.

[semisimple]

Mayor Mick Cornett can learn from former Austin Mayor Will Wynn. Wynn set out a goal for having up to 25,000 people living Downtown Austin by 2015, and the city provided incentives for building residential units in the urban core. After this incentive program was implemented, Austin saw a boom of high-rise condo development downtown is the last 6 years.

The incentives probably helped, sure, but the sheer amount of construction suggests there was pent-up demand for downtown living in Austin. Indeed, some of those condo/apartment towers are full or nearly full although the more recently-finished ones (which are mostly high-end) have been filling more slowly.

Amenities that don't exist in downtown OKC, like a downtown grocery store (Whole Foods opened downtown in 2005), riverside trails/parks, and a vibrant downtown nightlife probably helped accelerate this wave of construction.

Factor in other things like the tremendous difference in the growth rates of OKC and Austin and it just seems highly unlikely that--incentives or not--OKC will see a high-rise residential construction boom like Austin's anytime in the next several years.

[Kerry]

What would justify the use of taxpayer dollars to move people downtown? The economies of supply & demand seem to be working just fine.

How about not having to pay the price of sprawl. All those new four lane roads going out into the country in all directions have to be paid for and maintained. Police are patroling hundreds of square miles of low density areas, etc...

[G.Walker]

The incentives probably helped, sure, but the sheer amount of construction suggests there was pent-up demand for downtown living in Austin. Indeed, some of those condo/apartment towers are full or nearly full although the more recently-finished ones (which are mostly high-end) have been filling more slowly.

Amenities that don't exist in downtown OKC, like a downtown grocery store (Whole Foods opened downtown in 2005), riverside trails/parks, and a vibrant downtown nightlife probably helped accelerate this wave of construction.

Factor in other things like the tremendous difference in the growth rates of OKC and Austin and it just seems highly unlikely that--incentives or not--OKC will see a high-rise residential construction boom like Austin's anytime in the next several years.

We are in the same position Austin was back in 2002, then it all started with their Frost Bank Tower, then a few years after that, after streetscapes, incentive programs for emloyers and housing developments, you saw a span 7 skyscrapers built in 8 years, amazing.

So if history repeats itself, we could see in influx of high-rises being built after Devon, project 180 and convention center is completed!

[Kerry]

I always get a kick out of people that say "it won't work in OKC". It is as if 1900 to 1955 never happened. All these things us 'urbanist' want already happened in OKC once. Steve, your next book should be called The Rise and Fall and Rise of Oklahoma City. We're coming back with a vengence. And this time it's personal.

[soonerguru]

We are in the same position Austin was back in 2002, then it all started with their Frost Bank Tower, then a few years after that, after streetscapes, incentive programs for emloyers and housing developments, you saw a span 7 skyscrapers built in 8 years, amazing.

So if history repeats itself, we could see in influx of high-rises being built after Devon, project 180 and convention center is completed!

Or we'll have more and more people moving to places like Deer Creek and trashing our public school system on this board.

[G.Walker]

I always get a kick out of people that say "it won't work in OKC". It is as if 1900 to 1955 never happened. All these things us 'urbanist' want already happened in OKC once. Steve, your next book should be called The Rise and Fall and Rise of Oklahoma City. We're coming back with a vengence. And this time it's personal.

It will work, everything is coming in place. We just need the City to implement programs to lure high-tech employers, and boost downtown housing development.

[Chicken In The Rough]

Austin also has extreme and seemingly unsolvable traffic problems. This provides a nice incentive to live in the downtown core and/or near the major employment centers. I believe there was some pent-up demand. But, incentives probably helped some developers move things along more quickly and change some priorities.

I would love to see an additional 25,000 people downtown in the next 10 years. But with the abundance of undeveloped or underdeveloped land, I would like to see incentives extended to the near-core areas as well. We could dramatically boost density in 10-Penn, Capitol Hill, Plaza, and many other areas making this city much more walkable and streetcar-able. There is no reason to continue the infrastructure madness (i.e., Kilpatrick Turnpike, extending Hefner Parkway to the moon, etc). Instead, we should focus on enhancing and optimizing our current revenue base.

[J. Pitman]

How about not having to pay the price of sprawl. All those new four lane roads going out into the country in all directions have to be paid for and maintained. Police are patroling hundreds of square miles of low density areas, etc...

You really think a couple of dense residential projects will stop sprawl?

Uhm, ok.

[G.Walker]

Austin also has extreme and seemingly unsolvable traffic problems. This provides a nice incentive to live in the downtown core and/or near the major employment centers. I believe there was some pent-up demand. But, incentives probably helped some developers move things along more quickly and change some priorities.

I would love to see an additional 25,000 people downtown in the next 10 years. But with the abundance of undeveloped or underdeveloped land, I would like to see incentives extended to the near-core areas as well. We could dramatically boost density in 10-Penn, Capitol Hill, Plaza, and many other areas making this city much more walkable and streetcar-able. There is no reason to continue the infrastructure madness (i.e., Kilpatrick Turnpike, extending Hefner Parkway to the moon, etc). Instead, we should focus on enhancing and optimizing our current revenue base.

You have a good point, but I would rather see nice mid-rise development to, outside of the core area, like along I-40 going east into the city, and south of I-40. Nice mid-rise development, provides the city with character and diversity, and shows developers were are not just focused on big development.

I think the city should be focused on bringing another big employer downtown, high-paying, that will attract housing development also.

[okclee]

I continue to throw this out there as a challenge; Try convincing someone who lives in the suburbs into moving to downtown Okc.

[G.Walker]

I continue to throw this out there as a challenge; Try convincing someone who lives in the suburbs into moving to downtown Okc.

Its all about employment, lifestyle, and amenities. Good jobs attract people, people attract housing, housing attracts retail. You never hear about people relocating to another state or city because of good housing or retail, 99.9% of the time people relocate is because of a job change, wanting to be closer to their job, or higher paying position.

[Rover]

Most of what Austin did for "incentives" was pretty basic. Things like expedited inspections and permit approvals, etc. cost little and work. They also have an effective district chilled water system that fits residential style construction.

Keep in mind that close downtown proximity of UT and its 60,000 students, its faculty, and related businesses is definitely an advantage. Also, capital is close in downtown. That certainly helps core development and is something OKC doesn't really have.

Plus, I have worked on several downtown development projects in Austin and I can tell you that there is huge vacancy there. Let's see how it plays out as the Austonian comes on the market.

[Spartan]

Incentive Program

One of the most effective aspects of Austin's Smart Growth Initiative is the Incentive Program. The incentives include fee waivers, infrastructure investments and expedited approval of development applications.

That hardly competes with what we already do in downtown. I mean, how could Austin's Smart Growth Initiative even come close to competing with years-long approval processes through OCURA (which the developers here obviously prefer), the good ole boy system (again), and any good ole boy demands they might make like a TIF, infrastructure, cheap land (contrary to Midtowner's assertion of 'free land'), and so on...

Sarcasm aside, what we need to do for the most part is make people with good ideas successful and people with bad ideas unsuccessful. We need to make land squatting and shoddy development unfeasible and we need to make quality urban development and quick action profitable.

[G.Walker]

That hardly competes with what we already do in downtown. I mean, how could Austin's Smart Growth Initiative even come close to competing with years-long approval processes through OCURA (which the developers here obviously prefer), the good ole boy system (again), and any good ole boy demands they might make like a TIF, infrastructure, cheap land (contrary to Midtowner's assertion of 'free land'), and so on...

Sarcasm aside, what we need to do for the most part is make people with good ideas successful and people with bad ideas unsuccessful. We need to make land squatting and shoddy development unfeasible and we need to make quality urban development and quick action profitable.

Then why doesn't the City of Oklahoma, or Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce, pay the bill, and build class A office space downtown, to attract new employers.

The good thing about doing that is we can tailor to what type of employers could move in the office space. For example, the city could require that the salaries start at a certain level, that they be in a particular industry (biotech, engineering, etc). and apply TIF to that office space. Sounds good to me? Your thoughts?

[Spartan]

Yeah, I would be a big proponent of that. Others wouldn't though. People would balk about the city developing real estate whereas other cities do it all the time, especially with their economic development arms (chamber/city collaborations). The other bone to pick would be what the chamber would design..there's a lot of controversy around the Chamber Forum project which a lot of people don't want built and neither do I. Some people would incorrectly say it shows that the Chamber can't be trusted to do urban development whereas I would contend that it shows how the city and chamber might not be able to always collaborate effectively to do urban development. Keep in mind the city's role in the site layout of the Chamber Forum project.

EK Gaylord should either be completely removed from the street grid or at the very least it should be straightened out and dead-end at 4th.

[G.Walker]

Good thing is that we have employers already wanting to move to here. Just think if we had Class A office space, it would make it easier to attract high paying employers. The city, Greater Oklahoma City Chamber can get funding for such a project.

[benman]

[QUOTE=AbcGum;378543]You really think a couple of dense residential projects will stop sprawl?


Exactly. Look at Houston, it still has mega sprawl (yes, I know its much bigger than here) going out almost an hour from its core. I dont think you are going to stop sprawl. It will be nice to encourage and offer some other options, but its not going to stop. Families are going to want a brand new home for a good price no matter what and that means homes will continue to sprawl out into the countryside where land is cheap. Some natural barriers would help us out, but we sure dont have any.

[okclee]

What about the incentive program for the developers up on Memorial Road?

[G.Walker]

What about the incentive program for the developers up on Memorial Road?

I am not familiar with that? What is the program?