Housing-business plan has some neighbors wary

Developer Grant Humphreys stands with site maps of his NW 36 Street mixed-use project. A close-up of the site plan is shown below. by steve lackmeyer, the oklahoman

Project details
•A self-contained, mixed-use development, increasingly popular in other states, has yet to be built in Oklahoma City. Such developments typically feature narrow streets that favor pedestrian traffic, a diversity of housing and retail, and a compactness that eliminates buffers between different types of housing and retail. In the West Village in Dallas, the development includes buildings that have shops and restaurants on the first floor and housing on upper floors that wrap around structured parking.
•The Humphreys development proposes a mix of lofts and midrise apartments and for-sale flats, townhomes and midrise condominiums. A plaza in the heart of the development would be surrounded by restaurants, offices and shops with one building featuring five floors of hotel rooms. Humphreys also wants the development to include sidewalk cafes with landscaped seating areas under hanging lights. He also envisions open-air music and annual festivals. Over the past few months, Humphreys has met with residents of Edgemere Park, Edgemere Heights, Central Park and Crown Heights, hoping to convince them to support his upcoming application to change the 18 acres from single family to planned unit development zoning.

"What we're proposing is a mixture of uses that create a walkable community and brings much-needed amenities into the inner-city and historic neighborhoods,” Humphreys said. "We'll have some great public spaces, new housing convenient to downtown, office space for people in the area, and a great deal of restaurants, retail and a grocery that is much needed.”

Neighbors are at odds as to whether to fight, negotiate or support the project, which is being developed by The Humphreys Co. Humphreys has a contract to buy the land from First Christian Church.

A tough battle
Some neighbors have pledged to fight the project at a series of meetings held over the past few months, including one attended by more than 200 residents Tuesday night at the Westminster School auditorium. The top complaints included fears of increased traffic and the height of some of the proposed buildings, including a hotel that residents believe will be seven stories tall (Humphreys promises that the building will be no taller than six stories).
"There aren't a lot of people going to sleep around here thinking, ‘If only I could get that seven-story hotel down, the street life would be better,” resident John Joyce said at the start of the meeting.

The hotel height also was cited by Betsy Brunsteter, one of three area residents who are practicing architects and presented recommendations.

The suggestions include minimizing building heights facing North Creek, which flows along the northern edge of the development, and prohibiting retail operations from the same area. Some residents insisted they should fight Humphreys and demand that his project be scrapped. Other residents, including George McQuistion, wondered whether such a fight would be difficult because the proposed mixed-use zoning is encouraged in the city's master plan.
And when some residents suggested that the development is unanimously opposed by the adjoining neighborhoods, others, like Ed Martin, responded that they like what Humphreys is proposing. "Not all of us are against this development,” Martin said. "It could be a lot worse. ... I'd like to be able to go over to a nice deli there or to the grocery.”

Ward 2 Councilman Sam Bowman, who represents the neighborhoods, avoided stating his opinion on the project. He said the debate is too big to simply be heard at City Hall and insisted most issues will need to be resolved before the rezoning is heard by the city council. "This represents a powerful bloc of neighborhoods we're not ordinarily used to hearing from all at once,” Bowman said.

Humphreys said his next step is to try to educate residents on the nature of mixed-use developments and work with key neighborhood leaders on addressing confusion and misinformation. He noted that neighbors previously were misinformed that he was planning to include a Walmart — a tenant he swears will never be considered. He said early plans to lure a Whole Foods market also have been scrapped, and he only will be seeking a small specialty grocer."We believe in the public process,” Humphreys said. "We want to work with the community in hopes of negotiating a win-win for project design. We believe that as they become more enlightened to our development concepts, that they will see the beauty of it and the quality of life it can afford and the great impact to the inner-city and can look past their initial fears of building height and density.”

http://olive.newsok.com/Repository/getimage.dll?path=DOK/2008/07/10/19/Img/Pc0190400.jpg

I just can't imagine this being all that bad.

I personally think it will be good and bring some life to that area.

This is exactly the type of in-fill developments that will bring a bit of density to the city's core.

I suppose this is property now owned by the First Christian Church? The empty land between the church and I-235 and north of NW 36th?

Is this the property (highlighted in yellow)?

http://www.pc78.com/images/okctalk/nw36th2.jpg

This is exactly the type of in-fill developments that will bring a bit of density to the city's core.

I suppose this is property now owned by the First Christian Church? The empty land between the church and I-235 and north of NW 36th?

Yes, as stated in the article, FCC owns the property.


Neighbors are at odds as to whether to fight, negotiate or support the project, which is being developed by The Humphreys Co. Humphreys has a contract to buy the land from First Christian Church.

Pete, yes I believe that highlighted section is the property but I could be wrong.

It must be that property then...

And I'm not buying most of the neighborhood concerns, particularly about traffic. It looks like the only ingress/egress will be on 36th street.

And the whole project is separated by the surrounding neighborhoods by a wooded creek.

Of course in these situations, the neighbors always just want the property to stay vacant. I hope a compromise can be reaches and this goes forward. Looks exactly like the type of thing we need more of in OKC.

Yep, we need this density and Humphrey's does't build second rate either. Now if we could only get the city to deannex tons of unnecessary land. Our population density numbers would skyrocket and attract national retailers and employers that we despirately need.

not to mention that greater population density will help the success of public/rapid transit... we're currently too spread out for those to be completely viable, imo.

-M

I read the Sentinel article on this the other day -- yeah, these folks have a reasonable gripe in that they have to get permission to paint their houses.... but otherwise, this is a decent project.

Hate to see that old youth center go though. In my younger days, I was a member of the Oklahoma Youth Symphony. They used to have their rehearsals there. Good times.

This looks like a solid development to me. The citizens of the neighborhood would greatly benefit from its presence -- their property values would probably skyrocket. The "concerned citizens" need to take a step back from the ledge.

On the other hand, they need to demand a quality development, not just sit idly by and let the developer do whatever he wants. This looks like a quality development to me.

I'm just not seeing a down side to having that land filled in with buildings and peeps. Could it really be louder or more disruptive than the current traffic noise wafting across a mostly barren patch of grass? Guess I'm just not citified enough to see the problem.

Here's another opportunity for a TOD.

I was sorry to see the comment about plans to lure Whole Foods being scrapped. Was hoping to see them bring their store downtown. I was in the Tulsa Whole Foods store last week and asked one of the managers there if they knew of plans to bring Whole Foods to OKC. She said that the company is in fact looking for land to buy in OKC. I asked her what part of OKC and she said she didn't know. If downtown (or Bricktown) doesn't have an interest in Whole Foods then I suppose they'll end up in Edmond, or maybe Norman even. They usually go where the more upper class (higher income) areas are, but I think they would do great downtown. Time will tell.

I don't live in that neighborhood, but I know some people who do, and they are not happy. This is not a Humphreys family member versus various miscellaneous nobodies. This project, as Midtowner noted, is surrounded by historic preservation neighborhoods inhabited by lawyers, architects and other professional people not easily bamboozled or intimidated.


Ward 2 Councilman Sam Bowman, who represents the neighborhoods, avoided stating his opinion on the project. He said the debate is too big to simply be heard at City Hall and insisted most issues will need to be resolved before the rezoning is heard by the city council. "This represents a powerful bloc of neighborhoods we're not ordinarily used to hearing from all at once,” Bowman said.

I like Councilman Bowman personally, but it seems like he will do almost anything to avoid having to take sides on an issue. The debate is too big to be heard at City Hall? What does that mean? Being on council means making tough decisions, not trying to get controversy lost in a pile of paperwork on some assistant municipal counselor's desk and hoping it just goes away.

I live about 500 yards from there and am a bit torn on the project. The nature of the site proposes a challenge to making the development very "walkable" for a lot of neighbors. The property ends up being very segmented with the Church taking up the corner of 36th and Walker. It might work, and I'm leaning toward yes more out of fear for what could end up being built there if this isn't.

I'm leaning toward yes more out of fear for what could end up being built there if this isn't.

We have a winnah!

The reality is that Humphries is probably our best chance for a developer that is actually going to listen to the neighborhood. I think they should ride him hard to make sure it is a quality development that fits in with the district, but that is prime space right there and it will probably be fast food and box stores, developed by people with a lot of resources and zero compassion for the area, if a local developer doesn't do it. And when I say local, I mean that Humpries lives in Edgmere Park, I believe.

I understand some of the concerns, but the reaction from others is more visceral than rational. There are a lot of "do-nothings" in the area who portrayed the development at the recent CH 4th of July Parade as one of strip clubs, hooters, and by-the-hour motels. IMO, those kind of tactics, even in jest, completely undermine the whole idea of community involvement in developing a city.

I'm sorry, but what i have seen so far is a great example of developer interaction with the community and it would be a big mistake to discourage that in a city where it almost never happens to begin with. It could be worse. Chesapeake could own it and be simply demanding blanket approval at every step.

I think it's great the people are involved at all. Whatever their position. It gives the developer a chance to lay it all out and have the people of the neighborhood help decide its own fate. That's real democracy.

I have to agree about Councilman Bowman, Born Here. He's a great guy, but he needs to sit down, get educated on the issue and, if necessary - fight for his citizens. If, in the end, he needs to be gutsy and tell his citizens he thinks it's a great idea - he should do that too. His just not taking a stand happens too often.

Property values going up? Has anyone ever paid attention to what happens when you build rental units directly by an all-owner area? Values go down. We don't want that. Values already have been skyrocketing. In the past 10 years, many houses have doubled and tripled values. I honestly don't think this would help. It would also almost certainly raise the crime rate

Has a neighborhood ever welcomed ANY sort of development? Almost every single time they'll complain and while that is understandable, you can't govern a community based on people that would prefer nothing be done with any land near their homes.

Certainly input and compromise are necessary but it all has to be reasonable. And the last time around with something similar, OCURA put Heritage Hills homeowners in charge of deciding on the old Mercy hospital property and surprise, surprise... They opted for only expensive condos rather than a mixed-use development that would benefit the whole community.

I see a quality mixed-use development that will front a major interstate on one side with the primary (if not only) access on a major 4-lane street.

That some residents would be able to see a building or two from their backyards shouldn't stand in the way of quality in-fill development.

I am for this development. I used to live in the adjacent neighborhood and would have loved to walk to restaurants, movie, etc... Grant is comparing this to some extent to the West Village in Dallas; I have spent time there and love it. It always irritates me when people complain about traffic in the city. Action is good!!!

Its a PUD not a TOD! I have never heard of this development before, is this the first time its been made public?

Another thought is, yeah they should incorporate transit options into something like this, but I have no idea about the details.

Down here in Norman if you wanna get your PUD approved and land use changed you go through the Planning Department first. Is that how it works in OKC? once the planning dept hears it they recommend 'yea' or 'nay' to council to approve the land use changes. Thats why I'm confused about the bickering NIMBYs being given any attention at this point, unless its all about lobbying the councildude.

Maybe I'm unclear on the process for OKC development approvals.

I'd support it if I had any say. It reminds me of something like Mockingbird Station just north of downtown, thats why the transit thing makes sense. Maybe OKC can exercise some forethought on something like this.

Oh, last thought: the current neighbors prefer looking at the raised interstate over this ? LOL!

I agree with Pete.

It the old "not in my backyard" deal.

While you certainly want the surrounding neighborhoods involved and supportive, if the city's projected use of the land calls for, or allows for a mixed use development, then it will be done. If the neighbors don't want anything to happen, then they need to buy the land themselves.

I always find it somewhat amusing when the people who own adjoining parcels of land think that they have the final say in what somebody else does with a tract of land by them. City planners and zoning regulations have that power, not the neighbors. Nothing would ever get built if you had to get permission from the neighbors.

Humphreys is doing the right thing by involving the surrounding community and keeping them informed. But in the end, who cares what Mrs Crown Heights thinks?

It's in a prime spot for any future rail, as the existing tracks are directly on the other side of I-235.


The more I think about this, the more I am thrilled we have local developers working hard to come up with interesting and forward-thinking projects.

There is still tons of empty or nearly-empty land within the I-44/I-240 loop and if we ever want OKC to have a truly urban core and all the related amenities then this is exactly the type of development that is needed.

If this doesn't get approved or has to be substantially watered down I'll be very concerned about OKC ever truly changing the way it's developed. It we can't get these things through, might as well just keep building tract homes in the middle of cow pastures.

Humphreys is doing the right thing by involving the surrounding community and keeping them informed. But in the end, who cares what Mrs Crown Heights thinks?

Well, that's how you end up with a community developed by outsiders who don't give a crap what kind of town you live in. That's exactly how most of Oklahoma City has been developed.

Mrs. Crown Heights should always have a say in what is built next to her. But, just as the developer should not abuse the community by developing without consideration for the surroundings, Mrs Crown Heights should use her place at the table in a constructive way and not derail and deter prudent development, as some seem to want to do in this case. In the end it is up to the city to use its zoning powers to help guide developers into recognizing Mrs. Crown Heights' concerns.

The irony here is that it is working how it should and instead of recognizing the efforts of the developer to address their concerns in a way that really almost never happens in Oklahoma City they are using their inclusion in the process to try and stop anything from happening at all.

But just because some in the area are being short sighted doesn't mean we should universally discount or remove their right to be included in the process.

Someone needs to call up Wal-Mart, ask them to put together a "proposal" for that same land, or at least a portion thereof, and then see how quickly the CH, Edge, and other folks come on board the Humphreys' project.

I don't live in the neighborhood (and I wish I did), but would be thrilled to have a similar quality development near me. Instead, I get a 150-unit apartment complex with a strip center fronting it being built at the intersection a mere 1/2 mile away.

And, until we threatened legal action, the developer Sooner Traditions (yes, Barry Switzer, et al) conveniently "forgot" to send our HOA information on what was originally being planned as a "no amenities" complex.

These neighborhoods are lucky to have a developer who cares enough to share his plans and get their input on the project.

NIMBYism for the sake of NIMBYism is just stupid. As someone noted earlier, if they want that land to remain undeveloped, they should just buy it themselves.

Something that strikes me about many of the CH residents being really opposed to this is that even if it doesn't end up working out well, Crown Heights is relatively unaffected. The development doesn't touch the neighborhood and very few, if any, homes would have a view of it. It's more the Edgemere Heights / Terrace crowd that butt right up against it and would be stuck with having to look at it every day. Yes, CH is close, but this mitigates the risk a bit, for me at least. My thinking is that it there's a pretty high percentage that it will turn out really nice with Humpheries at the helm, if not, at least it's it's to the East a bit. Let's gamble.

I don't see anything great about leaving the property the way it is, barely maintained and with pretty much an abandonded building sitting on it. We're going to have to take some risks to have anything great, people. I would have thought that my neighbors would be a little more forward thinking - hopefully many of them will come around with a little bit of a design tune-up, perhaps.

And the whole project is separated by the surrounding neighborhoods by a wooded creek.

Wooded now... but if you look at the plan, most of the green belt is gone and buildings go right up to the edge of the creek. I have also heard (but I wasn't there myself) that the plan requires altering the course of the creek.

I think this project is too big for this area. It were even over near 36th & Classen, it wouldn't bother me as much. But again, I don't live there, so I'm not the one who's gambling.

It would also almost certainly raise the crime rate

This may be the most ridiculous thing I've read on this board. Density and improved development doesn't bring crime; quite the opposite. Nothing is more attractive to crime than aging, deteriorating neighborhoods with undeveloped woody areas to hide out in.

Well, that's how you end up with a community developed by outsiders who don't give a crap what kind of town you live in. That's exactly how most of Oklahoma City has been developed.

Mrs. Crown Heights should always have a say in what is built next to her. But, just as the developer should not abuse the community by developing without consideration for the surroundings, Mrs Crown Heights should use her place at the table in a constructive way and not derail and deter prudent development, as some seem to want to do in this case. In the end it is up to the city to use its zoning powers to help guide developers into recognizing Mrs. Crown Heights' concerns.

The irony here is that it is working how it should and instead of recognizing the efforts of the developer to address their concerns in a way that really almost never happens in Oklahoma City they are using their inclusion in the process to try and stop anything from happening at all.

But just because some in the area are being short sighted doesn't mean we should universally discount or remove their right to be included in the process.


You said it a whole lot better than I did. Yes, the community should be involved and it appears the Mr Humphreys is doing that. There is always going to be vocal minority that is against anything.

There goes the neighborhood?

by Marie Price
The Journal Record July 11, 2008


OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma City resident Brenda Walters urged her neighbors Tuesday night to look into the future, past a proposal by Grant Humphreys for mixed-use development of 18 acres east of First Christian Church that has drawn considerable protest.

More church land could be sold, or other changes could take place beyond those in the proposal, she said.

“We worked so hard for so long to maintain this neighborhood,” Walters told the group.

The site is near Northwest 36th Street and Harvey Parkway.

Residents of Crown Heights, Edgemere Park, Edgemere Heights and adjacent areas have held several meetings to discuss the proposal, which includes a mix of for-sale and rental residential units, office and retail space and a hotel.

At the latest community meeting, attendees broke into a couple of major camps: those who want no new development unless it involves single-family, owner-occupied homes, and those who are willing to negotiate with Humphreys’ group for something they see as less disruptive to their lives and neighborhoods.

“There’s a lot of consensus,” resident John Joyce said at the meeting’s start.

For example, he said there are not many people who “just can’t wait for a seven-story hotel.”

Humphreys said Thursday that the boutique hotel is planned for only six stories.

Joyce said later that he believes those who are displeased with Humphreys’ plan far outweigh those who are not upset, with about an 80:20 split.

Joyce said some residents want to stop the development, which he sees as probably not a viable option.

He said the idea was “to discuss what our plan would be.”

Nancy Robertson agreed.

“This meeting tonight assumes this is going to happen,” she said.

George McQuistion, who lives adjacent to the proposed development, said, “The primary goal is, where do we go from here?”

“A unified voice is better than one that is not unified,” he said.

McQuistion also told the more than 150 people in attendance that the Oklahoma City zoning code and city plan favor mixed-used development for several reasons, including increasing the tax base, environmental issues and encouragement of mass-transit development.

McQuistion said the advice he and others have received from officials in the process has been “Don’t give up your seat at the negotiating table” by adopting a hard-line, no-development stance.

Robertson said three architects who live in the area looked at the site and came up with some recommendations.

Architect Betsy Brunsteter outlined some of those ideas, including limiting housing along North Creek to single-family residences, and providing only residential development on the north half of the site. Single-family residential or office use would be acceptable along the east side of South Creek.

She said that “single-family” could include town homes and similar types of dwellings as well as traditional houses.

Brunsteter said the recommendations also include “as much green space as possible,” leaving trees along North Creek as a buffer and limiting building heights. The alternate approach also calls for landscaping and a buffer along Northwest 36th Street.

Bob White said that Humphreys has presented a “worst-case scenario” proposal for residents to try to negotiate down.

He also questioned whether residents could make their own offer to the church, which sparked some discussion of contract interference.

One of White’s suggestions sparked some laughter from fellow residents.

“We could all join the church and vote no,” he said.

Elaine Archer expressed concern about Humphreys’ civic connections.

“I’m concerned we’re not going to get a fair deal,” she said.

Humphreys’ father is former Mayor Kirk Humphreys, who is also chairman of Humphreys Real Estate Investments. Grant Humphreys is CEO.

Attorney Eric Groves said he does not see the case being decided on the basis of politics.

“I don’t think Kirk has that kind of weight to throw around at the moment,” Groves said.

When told that some speakers brought up his family connections and the possibility that he might receive preferential treatment, Humphreys said, “Anyone who would make that assumption or propose that idea, obviously does not know the people on the planning commission and the people on City Council and the city’s leadership, who have acted above reproach. They’ve acted and have a track record of earning the public trust. We’ve got the highest respect for people that are in leadership, and in no way do we begin to assume that there’s a different set of rules for us.”

Oklahoma City Councilman Sam Bowman said he cannot see the council bowing to Humphreys in such a fashion.

“It’s not going to be who Humphreys talks to,” he said.

Bowman also said the council will “want to see a neighborhood really involved” in the process.

“It’s too big to find a political answer to this,” he said.

Groves said that, to address some of residents’ major concerns, such as individual property ownership, covenants could be drafted to require such things.

“That has to be on the table as a negotiable item,” he said.

Resident Ed Martin said that not all area residents oppose the development plan.

“We could end up with a lot worse,” said Martin, adding that he would enjoy having a grocery store or deli nearby.

The group also discussed hiring attorneys and taking a more aggressive approach at the outset of negotiations, ready to take legal action if the process breaks down.

The meeting ended with residents agreeing to submit their own recommendations for the area to neighborhood leaders.

Humphreys has lived in Edgemere Park for nine years, but is preparing to move to Block 42, which he developed north of Bricktown.

He said Thursday he plans to spend a lot of time listening to residents’ concerns and answering their questions as the process goes forward.

“You’ve just got to say we’re going to be patient and continue to try to build a bridge of partnership with this community,” he said.

Humphreys said only 11 homes back up to the creek adjacent to the site.

He said he would expect that, initially, people in those homes would oppose any development concept, as opposed to the open land that has been their view for many years.

“I know that we have a real strong showing of support in the community, from discussions I’ve had with a lot of people,” Humphreys said. “Those people don’t come out vocally to fight for it as much.”

Humphreys said he does not think the architectural design of the hotel and the rest of the development is inconsistent with the spirit of the surrounding areas.

“We have not yet even gotten into really any design discussions with the committee that has been chartered to represent the thoughts of the community,” he said. “They’re trying to pull their thoughts together and they’re having a tough time responding in one voice.”

Humphreys said the proposal calls for 160 rental units and 156 owner-occupied spaces.

“There is no diabolical difference between a renter and an owner,” he said, when informed of the opposition to rentals expressed by several meeting attendees. “In many cases, when you’re talking about a high-end rental product, that we are here, your demographic profile will be the same for renters and homeowners.”

Humphreys said some residents may have had direct experience in their neighborhoods with rental homes that have absentee landlords who do not properly maintain their properties.

He said that all buildings on the site, whether rental or owner-occupied, will look the same from the outside and all common-area maintenance throughout the project will be accomplished by an association.

Humphreys said the proposal is in the conceptual design stages and master-planning process.

He said he does not plan to submit for rezoning the property until an agreement has been reached with the community that his group feels comfortable with “or exhausted all efforts to do so.”

That could take some time, he added.

Humphreys declined to state exactly how much was paid for the church property, but did say it was less than a $5 million figure quoted at the meeting.

He said that, as proposed, there is probably more than $120 million in development on the master plan.

“You go through an evolution of design ideas to get to the best,” he said. “We’re open-minded to hear better ideas and to try to get the best ideas from people who sincerely appreciate good design and want to find out what the highest and best use is for the property.”

The concerns about building height are almost laughable.

First of all, the tallest would be all of six stories and it looks like there will be nothing more than 2 stories on the northern half of the development. The southern half is where all the "tall" buildings will be and that is nowhere near any existing residential development and is in fact, bordered by a huge church parking lot, an interstate highway and a major E/W thoroughfare.


Where do you draw the line with who has the right to demand a "spot at the negotiating table"? Does everyone that drives on a major artery like NW 36th have a right? People that live a quarter mile (or more) away?

The days of large tracts of land in the city's core staying undeveloped are going to fade and it's a completely unreasonable expectation that the only thing to be built there will be expensive single-family homes.

These homeowners should provide input about how this development could complement the surrounding neighborhoods, such as having walkways and proper landscaping, but beyond that I really don't see where they have any more right to demand changes than any of us have to tell them to pipe down.

...Another thought is, yeah they should incorporate transit options into something like this, but I have no idea about the details.

Down here in Norman if you wanna get your PUD approved and land use changed you go through the Planning Department first. Is that how it works in OKC? once the planning dept hears it they recommend 'yea' or 'nay' to council to approve the land use changes. Thats why I'm confused about the bickering NIMBYs being given any attention at this point, unless its all about lobbying the councildude.

Maybe I'm unclear on the process for OKC development approvals.....

In Oklahoma City, the process is: Developer brings the proposal to the Planning Department. Staff has meetings with the applicant, reveiws the request, makes a determination if the proposal is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, then writes a Staff Recommendation on the proposal, to the Planning Commisssion.

The PC holds a public hearing on the request, then votes to make a recommendation of approval or denial, to the City Council. CC then makes the final decision.

The zoning process normally takes 3 months. Of course it's longer if continuances are granted - a usual thing in cases like this.

I live just a few blocks from there in "Baja" Crown Heights. Which is to say S and W of NW 36th. I drive by the proposed area everyday to go to work. I can see where some would get upset. It is bounded by Crown Heights and Edgemere housing areas. Not sure how I feel. I like the quiet of the area and green zone is nice. But, it could be a nice venue. I will be interested to see how this plays out.

:sofa:

talked with a friend who knows a lot about city development and OKC development as well. The thing he mentioned is that there has to be approval for rezoning that area for the project to be built. However, what happens if the rezoning goes thru and Mr Humphrey's financing falls thru and he wants to sell? The rezoning is " fait accompli" and can't be unzoned. Then we have property sold to the highest bidder who want to put in a Walmart or a Dollar Store, etc.

:sofa:

You don't have to even worry about his financing falling through. He is very experienced with these types of projects and I'm sure he gets financing very easily compared to other people and projets.

Hope so!!

I was sorry to see the comment about plans to lure Whole Foods being scrapped. If downtown (or Bricktown) doesn't have an interest in Whole Foods then I suppose they'll end up in Edmond, or maybe Norman even.

This isn't a matter of "downtown" no longer being interested. All he meant was that plans to put a Whole Foods in this development were scrapped.


Property values going up? Has anyone ever paid attention to what happens when you build rental units directly by an all-owner area? Values go down. It would also almost certainly raise the crime rate

He's not putting in section 8 housing, for goodness sake. This is going to be expensive rentals.


This is a good project that will hopefully go through. I can see allowing for more of the greenbelt to remain along the creek, but other than that, their concerns are unfounded.

Personally, I think (and hope) that he scrapped Whole Foods for the project because it will be built somewhere in downtown! that only makes sense, especially since Grant is in-the-know and is a prime developer for OKC.

I think this should happen, this will be a HUGE asset to inner OKC and certainly will spruce up the area. Heritage residents need to recognize that the city needs to add to the city, and as long as they are involved in the development and make it high-class, I don't see what else needs to be debated!

Let's move on, we need WAY more of these developments in OKC and it would be nice to have this one as our 'starter' or demonstration project.

Oh, as long as the zoning is PUD, that prevents a Wal-Mart/Dollar Store type development (since aren't those CD-1/2?).

We need WAY more of these PUD's in inner Oklahoma City. That will improve the city significantly - bring tax base to the city, provide something-to-do-without-driving-to-the-suburbs, and a bona-fide boutique hotel (meaning high class) to the inner city besides downtown.

Grant should market this as a town-center pud development and make it more accessible to the neighbourhoods (not less). Making it less just makes it seem like a gated community development - which should never appear in the inner city.

If downtown (or Bricktown) doesn't have an interest in Whole Foods then I suppose they'll end up in Edmond, or maybe Norman even.
i think it's safe to assume they are looking at downtown... especially since there are finally enough residential units to support one. however, i would think their second choice would be somewhere close to western inbetween 36th and 50th. that is where a great number of their target demographic of patrons reside.
btw... the whole foods in dallas isn't in an upscale neighborhood. it's off of lower greenville and that area reminds me of what western is yearning to become.

i think it's safe to assume they are looking at downtown... especially since there are finally enough residential units to support one. however, i would think their second choice would be somewhere close to western inbetween 36th and 50th. that is where a great number of their target demographic of patrons reside.
btw... the whole foods in dallas isn't in an upscale neighborhood. it's off of lower greenville and that area reminds me of what western is yearning to become.

Lower Greenville ainb't that nice...I wouldn't say Western is currently that far off of it. Maybe size-wise it's less, but not quality-wise.

Lower Greenville ainb't that nice...I wouldn't say Western is currently that far off of it. Maybe size-wise it's less, but not quality-wise.

I agree with you. People in Dallas talk of its decline and how it's gone so far downhill. But then again, in Dallas any district is going to probably have its cycles - they have so many.

i hope you don't think i was making a case for it being upscale... it's not as bad as deep ellum became, but you do have to watch your back. all the m streets closer toward mockingbird aren't bad and there are a lot of mcmansions being built in the area.
a lot of people are starting to hang out and party in uptown now tho.

i hope you don't think i was making a case for it being upscale... it's not as bad as deep ellum became, but you do have to watch your back. all the m streets closer toward mockingbird aren't bad and there are a lot of mcmansions being built in the area.
a lot of people are starting to hang out and party in uptown now tho.

Last time I was in Dallas we partied in Uptown. Definitely good to get away from OU-Texas retardedness in the West End (not a fan of either team).

i hope you don't think i was making a case for it being upscale... it's not as bad as deep ellum became, but you do have to watch your back. all the m streets closer toward mockingbird aren't bad and there are a lot of mcmansions being built in the area.
a lot of people are starting to hang out and party in uptown now tho.

You're right. Uptown is the deal right now. But, districts in Dallas are like clubs in Oklahoma City (and Ed can relate to this) - they'll be hot for a given time and then dropped cold for a newer, brighter, trendier place. Rinse and repeat. The DFW metroplex just has the population to sustain and withstand the constant shifts. If a district dies in OKlahoma City - it's probably going to be dead for a very long time.

You're right. Uptown is the deal right now. But, districts in Dallas are like clubs in Oklahoma City (and Ed can relate to this) - they'll be hot for a given time and then dropped cold for a newer, brighter, trendier place. Rinse and repeat. The DFW metroplex just has the population to sustain and withstand the constant shifts. If a district dies in OKlahoma City - it's probably going to be dead for a very long time.

WOO HOO! we agree on something!

Western is not upscale?

No. Drive one block west of Western between 36th and 50th.

I guess everyone's definition is different...

i would say that it's getting classier tho. i've seen multiple friends of mine score decent paying jobs and buy houses in that area. if i were into reality and flipping houses... i'd concentrate my dealings right there.

Other than some pockets near the Asian district, I'd say it's a pretty desirable area. Crown Heights, Edgemere, Paseo, Brookhaven...

Western is not upscale?

Crown Heights is one of the highest per sq ft housing in the state...pretty upscale to me.

Even west of Western between 36th and 50th isn't that bad. Unless you consider working-class, small homes that don't have an SUV in the driveway a bad area. But, looking back up-thread, Mallen only made the case that west of Western isn't "upscale," so, actually, that part is true.

But Western itself, the restaurants, shops, and clubs along it are generally upscale.

is there news on this one yet? is it still going to built?

Yes it was just contingent on completion of that part of I-235 that runs beside the site.