Downtown OKC thriving, but what about the rest of OKC?

[RickOKC]

Amen, Steve.

[adaniel]

Great post by Steve.

Something that bears repeating: Does anyone think that the Plaza District and Uptown/23rd street would be revitalizing if downtown and Bricktown were allowed to float on as they did pre-MAP's? Lots of historical neighborhoods like Crown Heights and Miller and Crestwood, neighborhoods that aren't particularly close to downtown, have seen home appreciation unheard of in this state. It was the initial burst of interest from downtown growing that eventually led people to explore these areas. And by urban "osmosis" interest will eventually start spreading into other second ring areas. I actually know people my age who are looking into areas like Belle Isle and some of the older neighborhoods along Portland Avenue in West OKC. You already see this Houston. Their Downtown has developed nicely, and with redevelopment just about tapped out in the Inner Loop, you are now starting to see interest pick up in areas between 610 and Beltway 8, essentially their second ring area.

[Just the facts]

Steve, my money is on suburbia collapsing completely. It is only made possible by massive public subsidies from federal support to maintain the highways, to federal support for new home construction, to a military industrial complex all too willing to go to war with every nation that threatens the free flow of oil at market prices. It has bankrupted the country. Cities that survive will be the ones that can keep the wheel of commerce turning when the wheels of cars no longer do.

[Just the facts]

Now, why can't you make a city for both cars and pedestrians? That just sounds unreasonable.

[Just the facts]

Steve, my money is on suburbia collapsing completely. It is only made possible by massive public subsidies from federal support to maintain the highways, to federal support for new home construction, to a military industrial complex all too willing to go to war with every nation that threatens the free flow of oil at market prices. It has bankrupted the country. Cities that survive will be the ones that can keep the wheel of commerce turning when the wheels of cars no longer do.

This story appeared today:

$5 Gas Returns To Southland « CBS Los Angeles

“I pay 75 bucks like three times a week to come to work,” said one woman. “You have to work to eat…if you don’t work, you don’t eat.”

She is going to be hosed when she can't afford to get to work.

[RickOKC]

Steve, my money is on suburbia collapsing completely. It is only made possible by massive public subsidies from federal support to maintain the highways, to federal support for new home construction, to a military industrial complex all too willing to go to war with every nation that threatens the free flow of oil at market prices. It has bankrupted the country. Cities that survive will be the ones that can keep the wheel of commerce turning when the wheels of cars no longer do.

Just because you want to see the collapse of suburbia, doesn't mean that betting on it is a safe investment. People live how they want because they want to live that way - not because it is the most financially beneficial way to live. You have likely made sacrifices to live an urbanist life - just as others have sacrificed to live a suburban life. You want a sense of community and density; others want a sense of individuality and space. Now, I want to make it clear: I agree with many of your conclusions. However, a mindset shift (not financial hardship) is all that will tilt people away from further sprawl.

With that being said, I would like to return to the main thrust of this thread by asking for anyone to prove as wrong the point that both Steve and I have made. We have suggested that urban life and suburbia (not unnecessary sprawl) can co-exist and even synergistically benefit each other. I suggest it is myopic and antiquated to suggest a "limited good" mindset - that there is only so much prosperity to go around and that urban and suburban must deny the other to obtain what is available.

[Mr. Cotter]

However, a mindset shift (not financial hardship) is all that will tilt people away from further sprawl.

Not being able to afford where you live is about the fastest way I can think of to trigger a mindset shift.

[Just the facts]

Just because you want to see the collapse of suburbia, doesn't mean that betting on it is a safe investment. People live how they want because they want to live that way - not because it is the most financially beneficial way to live. You have likely made sacrifices to live an urbanist life - just as others have sacrificed to live a suburban life.

Wanting to see it - and predicting it are two different things. Also, I live in suburbia on a cul-de-sac where everyone has to drive for everything (except for me - I ride my bike). Ironically, I remember when we bought our house I was happy we lived in the back of the subdivision because traffic would be less. Now that I spend the first .6 miles of my bike ride just to reach the entrance I wish I lived closer to the front. No matter where I go 1.2 miles is spent just in the subdivision.

Now back to your question. What do you mean co-exist? Do you mean a section of OKC can be car-oriented and totally different section can be pedestrain oriented, or that the same area can serve both cars and pedestrains at the same time?

[Popsy]

Wanting to see it - and predicting it are two different things. Also, I live in suburbia on a cul-de-sac where everyone has to drive for everything (except for me - I ride my bike). Ironically, I remember when we bought our house I was happy we lived in the back of the subdivision because traffic would be less. Now that I spend the first .6 miles of my bike ride just to reach the entrance I wish I lived closer to the front. No matter where I go 1.2 miles is spent just in the subdivision.

Now back to your question. What do you mean co-exist? Do you mean a section of OKC can be car-oriented and totally different section can be pedestrain oriented, or that the same area can serve both cars and pedestrains at the same time?

No offense intended here, but I have become a believer that you spew this ignorant crap for the purpose of trolling to get someone into a conversation. I also believe you ride a bike, not for the purposes you espouse, but because you can't afford the gas due to not working very often as evidenced by how much you are in this forum. If this is the case, you probably need to spend more time trying to find your wife a better paying job. If my beliefs are not spot on, then please accept my apology for inferring you are a deadbeat.

[Just the facts]

No offense intended here, but I have become a believer that you spew this ignorant crap for the purpose of trolling to get someone into a conversation. I also believe you ride a bike, not for the purposes you espouse, but because you can't afford the gas due to not working very often as evidenced by how much you are in this forum. If this is the case, you probably need to spend more time trying to find your wife a better paying job. If my beliefs are not spot on, then please accept my apology for inferring you are a deadbeat.

Apology accepted.

Sid - I like your last 2 posts a lot, but it isn't going to happen. So since we know it isn't going to happen what is the only possible outcome? Our currency is based on debt and the #1 source of debt is home loans (#2 is car loans). Our system requires us to build more houses, abandon homes that are debt free, and new houses require new roads, which are driven on by new cars (as debt-free cars are crushed and recylced to be sold as new cars - with new debt). Our entire way of life isn't sustainable.

[Plutonic Panda]

Wanting to see it - and predicting it are two different things. Also, I live in suburbia on a cul-de-sac where everyone has to drive for everything (except for me - I ride my bike). Ironically, I remember when we bought our house I was happy we lived in the back of the subdivision because traffic would be less. Now that I spend the first .6 miles of my bike ride just to reach the entrance I wish I lived closer to the front. No matter where I go 1.2 miles is spent just in the subdivision.

Now back to your question. What do you mean co-exist? Do you mean a section of OKC can be car-oriented and totally different section can be pedestrain oriented, or that the same area can serve both cars and pedestrains at the same time?

You could make the downtown area pedestrian friendly and suburbia car friendly. When I say that, I don't mean completely making it impossible to drive cars in downtown and walking in suburbia. I just don't understand why you can't make downtown and advantage to peds and balance cars and peds in the suburbs. Put in bike lanes, 12ft. sidewalks, have up to date cross walks(meaning the newer style where a light will completely change just for a ped. Project 180 seems to be doing to incorporating the best of both worlds.

ps I did watch that video and it was interesting and had some good points. I still think that you can have a city that can provide happiness to both pedestrians and cars. I love cars and am a huge advocate. I also ride my bike a looooooot. One thing that could be improved is the way drivers act towards bikers on the road. I had someone throw a drink at me one time in Edmond for riding my bike on a two lane road. The are assholes out there, but I still ride.

[catch22]

Because fundamentaly you cannot have both coexist without one interrupting the other. There's isn't much of a middle ground, walk ability is all psychological. A mile is a mile. When walking down the sidewalk of a busy fast-moving street, the first thing you think of is "I hope I don't get run over by a car". That fear reduces the urge to walk other than for exercise. The traffic is simply moving too fast. How do you bring that fear down, you reduce your speeds. Speed limit signs don't work at reducing speed, so you need to reduce speed by any of the methods used to calm traffic: more controlled intersections, on street parking, reduced building setbacks, speed bumps, smaller traffic lanes, etc. Don't have to do all of the above, but you have to do one or some of them to get traffic to naturally slow down. Now you have made driving an inconvenience and have made walking easier. There is not much of a middle ground, you are either walkable or you are not, you are either car friendly or you are not.

By adding "points" to one side, you must reduce "points" to the other side of the argument. That is to say, the more walkable you are, the less car friendly you are. Vice versa. Chicago strikes a "decent" balance between the two, but commuting by car is still a painfully slow process and the scale is swung to the walkable side. I can't think of any cities I have been to that provide a perfect balance between pedestrian and auto.

[bchris02]

As far as suburban areas are concerned, northwest OKC, especially north of Memorial is very nice as is SW OKC South of I-240. I definitely understand the concern about how blighted once nice suburban areas have become, but I am not sure its possible to fully revitalize them. I am also not a huge fan of turning vast sections of suburban OKC into urban prairie like Detroit has done. I think the focus should be on better building codes, landscaping, zoning, and overall smarter suburban growth to prevent the current up-and-coming suburban areas from going to crap in 20 years like west OKC has.

I also don't see suburbia collapsing any time soon. Millennials are far more urban-minded than previous generations, but plenty are still choosing suburbia, especially in OKC where people tend to marry and have children young. I think one of the biggest barriers to people becoming lifelong downtown residents and raising families there rather than just living there in their twenties will be the fact most people would rather have their kids in Edmond, Deer Creek, or Moore schools rather than OKC schools.

[TAlan CB]

I get uncomfortable when this sort of topic comes up ... I see it as a misunderstanding of how reinvestment in the urban core benefits the entire city, and also skips over what's been done for the rest of the city.
Consider that southeast Oklahoma City benefited greatly from the decision to buy the old General Motors plant and retrofit it for Tinker expansion, or that southeast Oklahoma City is seeing hundreds of new high paying jobs coming in with the city's successful recruitment of Boeing. And can anyone deny that quality of life was improved in far west Oklahoma City with the new Council Road/I-40 junction, or the city's assistance in bringing the new factory outlet mall to town? Miles and miles of roads are being widened and repaved in northwest Oklahoma City, where the new Patience Latting Library opened on NW 122 is arguably the best one in the city. NE 23 has seen millions spent cleaning up the corridor and making it a better stretch for commercial redevelopment. The city has also helped bring the JFK neighborhood back to life with dozens of new modern homes being built among the older residences. The city has invested millions in the Softball Hall of Fame in northeast OKC, a greatly under-appreciated venue that helps support restaurants and shops in the Adventure District.
The city is looking at how to turn around fortunes along I-240 in southwest Oklahoma City, which some might argue is a victim of uncurbed sprawl. Likewise, some would argue that Lyrewood Lane is a victim of sprawl that took place in the 1970s. Could Memorial Road go the same direction in 20 years?
I don't know.
I can tell you that redevelopment of the urban core is "viral." I've seen with my own eyes how redevelopment of downtown has spurred investment in the former Skid Row (now known as Film Row), Paseo, NW 23, Lincoln Heights Neighborhood, Mesta Park, Stockyards, and numerous historic neighborhoods stretching from NW 23 to Crown Heights.
As a city, we've been allowing continued sprawl while also trying to fix the damage done by past sprawl, all as the ongoing sprawl ends up leading to new problems. Yes, some may argue this is not the ideal way to progress as a city. But some may also argue that with the OKC school system still falling short (despite several hundred million being invested by the city in schools throughout the city), those sprawl areas in the overlapping boundaries of suburban school districts are what have allowed the city to enjoy continued growth in population.
And remember, the argument goes, if your population isn't growing, you're dying.
Walkability is great. And it's entirely possible that the embryonic efforts downtown can spread in the same way MAPS triggered a wave of investment as I've detailed. Public transit is obviously needed, and most agree it's entirely weak in OKC. But I've not seen the sort of momentum with public transit that will result in funding for transit that will cover all 622 square miles in OKC. Supporters of the streetcar system argue (stop me if this sounds familiar), start with the urban core, and create the momentum that will allow it to spread.
I realize this is a very long and complicated post that probably includes things for both sides of this debate to pick apart. But from my almost 20 years of experience covering this issue, it's not an "either-or" question between downtown and "the rest of OKC."

Well said.
It is clear that core growth spurs growth in all quadrants of a metro because it creates a mind-set of possiblities. But, like the AICC, the under-current of divisiveness and the inability to FINISH projects greatly henders more rapid growth in OKC. Since Maps does fund projects, once done their viability is greatly enhanced. But, the length of time it takes to get to some of the projects creates an automosphere of second-guessing. Light Rail is a prime example, it has been voted for many times, once defeated by your own Senator - Inhofe - and now by 'lower priority' (despite being the real reason most voted for Maps 3). The longer it takes, the more people will fight the concept of possible benefits. Whether intentional or not, there is an apparent atmosphere of doing things 'half way' in Oklahoma City in particular. The roads are full of potholes, mass trans in nonexistant, there are mountains of garbage - literally and along side the roads. There is a lack of community concern about environmental issues - like trash and resource maintaince (water in particular). There is a toxic political climate in the state that only current city leaders have kept 'in-check' in OKC. There is a total lack of understanding that cultural and infrastuctual improvements never pay for themselves - but pay great dividends to the growth of a community. Perhaps it is the geography of the metro area, people don't seem to claim OKC, they claim Norman, Edmond, Yukon, MWC, Southside, NW OKC. This is the real value of the downtown renaissance - the creation of a community from a group of communities - a center of gravity. All of the improvements over the last 20 years have just allowed OKC to 'keep up with the Joneses'. How you FINISH (including maintenence and beautification) the projects (all) that have been started may determine whether you keep up or leap ahead.

[ljbab728]

Light Rail is a prime example, it has been voted for many times, once defeated by your own Senator - Inhofe - and now by 'lower priority' (despite being the real reason most voted for Maps 3). The longer it takes, the more people will fight the concept of possible benefits.

Light rail is not a prime example. Maps 3 included a street car system, not light rail. It was Ernest Istook who derailed a previous proposal for light rail in OKC.

[TAlan CB]

Light rail is not a prime example. Maps 3 included a street car system, not light rail. It was Ernest Istook who derailed a previous proposal for light rail in OKC.

Thanks for the clarrification on who killed the 'street car system', the ' I's ' often mixed me up. I have lived in many cities that have both light rail and 'street cars', I assure you that most people don't know or care about the difference as long as it gets them from point A to point B. While it is true that 'rail' is used more for commuter and mass trans, there are several systems where the 'street car' is the main transporter. While I do appreciate the asthetic and functional difference - most people will equate one with the other depending on their personal experiences and expectations. In the end they are both 'railed' systems to get people from here to there. If this system fails there will be no support for the larger, long-range system because most will not see the difference. The benifit of the 'street car' system coming first is that they are generally more popular and visually impacting in the areas they serve. But every friend or family member I talk to in Oklahoma, most of whom are generally supportive of these systems, do not equate any difference and do specifically site these histories of 'failed', terminated, altered, or delayed projects - like it or not.

[BoulderSooner]

Light rail is not a prime example. Maps 3 included a street car system, not light rail. It was Ernest Istook who derailed a previous proposal for light rail in OKC.

he derailed street car in the original maps ... but that part of maps was not funded .. it required federal dollars ... our current Maps3 street car will not

[Just the facts]

If this system fails there will be no support for the larger, long-range system because most will not see the difference. The benifit of the 'street car' system coming first is that they are generally more popular and visually impacting in the areas they serve.

This is exactly why OKC dodged a bullet when the original MAPS rail system was scrapped. It was only thrown in to silence opposition from the Meridian Road hotel cabal. It was a poorly conceived route which would have failed miserable, and destroyed any hope for another rail initiative probably forever. The streetcar has to come first in any regional rail plan. Someone who leaves their car behind in Edmond or Norman has to have a way to get around once they get downtown. This is why Tulsa needs to develop a streetcar system to make an OKC/Tulsa rail connection viable for businesses and travelers on both ends. Otherwise, it will just be people from Tulsa coming to OKC because Tulsa bound people would have a mobility problem once they got there.

[TAlan CB]

This is exactly why OKC dodged a bullet when the original MAPS rail system was scrapped. It was only thrown in to silence opposition from the Meridian Road hotel cabal. It was a poorly conceived route which would have failed miserable, and destroyed any hope for another rail initiative probably forever. The streetcar has to come first in any regional rail plan. Someone who leaves their car behind in Edmond or Norman has to have a way to get around once they get downtown. This is why Tulsa needs to develop a streetcar system to make an OKC/Tulsa rail connection viable for businesses and travelers on both ends. Otherwise, it will just be people from Tulsa coming to OKC because Tulsa bound people would have a mobility problem once they got there.

Generally a good point, but unless Tulsa has change significantly (and they may have) their bus system was much better than what is in OKC - where the rail system will be more impactfull.

[Just the facts]

No one from OKC is going to ride a Tulsa bus. It just isn't going to happen. People in OKC don't even ride their own buses.

[Just the facts]

Lol! I take one every month. And there are always people on the bus with me.

Yes, but you are a trailblazer.

[Mr. Cotter]

If our bus system were better, I would be a "choice rider." But, the route I need only runs once an hour, and once I get downtown, the circulators (Discovery?) doesn't run until 10:00 am. - which is after it would do me any good to get from the transit center to my building. I don't have the luxury of knowing I can leave the office at a certain time each night - and the idea of waiting 55 minutes for the bus is reason enough for me to drive downtown every day.

I'm looking forward to the street car system, but until I have a more convenient public transportation option to get me downtown (from inside the core), I'll continue to drive.

[Just the facts]

If our bus system were better, I would be a "choice rider." But, the route I need only runs once an hour, and once I get downtown, the circulators (Discovery?) doesn't run until 10:00 am. - which is after it would do me any good to get from the transit center to my building. I don't have the luxury of knowing I can leave the office at a certain time each night - and the idea of waiting 55 minutes for the bus is reason enough for me to drive downtown every day.

I'm looking forward to the street car system, but until I have a more convenient public transportation option to get me downtown (from inside the core), I'll continue to drive.

This is why OKC should create a public transit zone. If you want access to public transit live inside the zone. If you don't want to live in the transit zone get a car. Serve a smaller area really well instead of a large area poorly. There is a finite amount of money available. That money can be spent in 60 sq miles, or it can be spent in 600 sq miles. I prefer the 60.

[Mr. Cotter]

I had the same problem when I lived at 50th & Lincoln. 50 minute frequency meant zero room for error. I took the 18 and it worked out fine but it isn't convenient to have so few options.

And that's not that too far from the center of town. It really does come down to convenience. My bus option does not need to be as convenient as driving my own car, but there is only so much I'm willing to put up with since I have a paid off car that costs very little to maintain - gas costs less than a bus fare - and my employer pays for my parking.

[ljbab728]

he derailed street car in the original maps ... but that part of maps was not funded .. it required federal dollars ... our current Maps3 street car will not

I'm well aware of that and wasn't trying to imply anything else.