Well they're fixing to be priced like they would be in Lawton. (almost)

If that is true then they will start to sell them.

I went by on a walk the other day and they were working on the ones with unfinished exteriors that face west. I wonder if they sold a few and are using the proceeds to finish the other. It definitely looks better than it did, and perhaps with spring coming they'll sell some more. Although I don't love the look of them, I would rather see them full than empty.

How many units have been started?

How many would you say are occupied?

Pete, I'll see if I can do an update. Canfield isn't an easy guy to get to talk about anything, especially when things aren't going well.

In their ads in some of the local magazines they show 2 sold and one pending. There are three that appear to be occupied.

I did notice, on my recent walks, that they're finishing the exteriors of the units facing the street. That's a good idea, IMO, as I would be reluctant to purchase anything there with those units unfinished on the exterior. I don't know if they're going to move on to the units facing north or not, but I would think it would be a good idea.

Well at least Canfield thinks he can attract people with deep pockets from the East Coast, at least that's what he told OCURA when he won the bid for the land. Man that meeting was depressing...especially for all of us who could see this outcome before the land was awarded.

I wonder if this is still controlled by Canfield or if it's now in the hands of a lender or someone else?

In researching the county assessor's site, it looks like four units have been sold.

The price range was from $333,000 to about $370,000. All of them were about 1,650 square feet.

Also, it shows that Canfield's LLC still owns the blocks where development was started (or completed) but OCURA still owns the balance, which is about 2/3 of the property:


http://www.oklahomacounty.org/assessor/Searches/SubdivSearch.asp?SubDivision=THE+HILL+AT+BRICKTOWN

The price range was from $333,000 to about $370,000. All of them were about 1,650 square feet.

Way, way overpriced ... at this point anyone who buys is taking a big risk on the future property value. I would want to see a much steeper discount if I were on the market for one.

I wonder if the few buyers to date will have any recourse since it's pretty obvious the share amenities -- like the clubhouse and pool -- will never be built.

I would imagine that if they are finishing the remaining units (there were a total of 32 that were started) they are going to have to drop their asking prices substantially. Again, the existing owners may have a course of action if that is the case.

At least the two on the page linked above were sold in the last couple of months. So, I'm sure it's pretty obvious to them that the clubhouse and pool probably won't be built.
Again, I'm not a huge fan of the Hill, I don't really like the location, they're stick built and I don't think the interiors look that expensive so I agree, I don't think I'd pay $200+ a square foot for them. I'd think they should probably be in the $150 a square foot at most.

Pete, I'll see if I can do an update. Canfield isn't an easy guy to get to talk about anything, especially when things aren't going well.

Well, there's always the old paradigm that "no news is still news," especially with someone like Canfield that won't talk.

Downtown dreaming
Urban housing developers find reasons for hope
By Brianna Bailey

OKLAHOMA CITY – From the master bedroom in the crown molding-bedecked model home at The Hill at Bricktown, prospective homebuyers have a view of downtown Oklahoma City’s skyline. The windows on the other side of the two-story home on Russell M. Perry Avenue look out onto rows of recently poured concrete foundations where more of the brick town houses are being built.

Construction on the 157-unit, $75 million complex wedged between Bricktown and Interstate 235 stalled when the housing market crashed two years ago. The project’s financing dried up, but resumed late last year.

Downtown’s housing market has cooled in the last few years, but developers are optimistic that demand will grow again as the economy gets better.

The high-end town houses at The Hill, which range in price from $350,000 to $815,000 for 1,650 square feet to 3,700 square feet, are attracting young professionals and empty nesters, said real estate agent Matt Marcacci.

Out of the 24 units at The Hill that have been completed, seven have sold so far, five of them this year. Marcacci said he is pleased with the pace of sales and expects demand for downtown housing to grow as more people get used to the idea.

“Urban living is new to Oklahoma, and people need to be familiarized to it,” Marcacci said.

Downtown housing in the lower price range is faring better in a down housing market than higher-end properties, said developer Pat Garrett.

Garrett is a member of Triangle Development Partners, which has developed several blocks of urban dwellings in the Deep Deuce area.

Sales have been slow in Triangle’s Brownstones at Maywood Park development, Garrett said, where prices start at $645,000 for a 2,371-story, 2.5-story condominium.

However, Triangle’s Second Street Lofts, which are in the $100,000 price range, are faring better, with 26 of the 55 units there selling in less than a year, Garrett said.

About half of the 30 units in Triangle’s Central Avenue Villas have sold, which start at about $187,800 for a 791-square-foot condominium.

“We’d love to see them all going right now, but for this market, it’s really going well,” Garrett said.

Architect Anthony McDermid, principal of TAP Architecture and also a partner in Triangle, believes downtown Oklahoma City still needs more housing and demand will eventually grow, once developers and planners figure out the right formula to recruit new urban dwellers.

“We have not nearly recognized the potential for housing downtown,” McDermid said. “It’s a puzzle we have not been able to solve yet.”

Developer Chuck Wiggin, president of Wiggin Properties, predicts downtown’s housing market will expand once the housing market recovers.

“The housing business is in the dumps, but that’s going to change,” Wiggin said. “Downtown has emerged in the last few years as a legitimate location for people to live and I think that’s a long-term trend with legs. I think it will accelerate over time. Housing looks like it’s a good investment place to be over time more than anything.”

These are overpriced for Oklahoma City.

How many are occupied out of how many total units?

These are overpriced for Oklahoma City.

How many are occupied out of how many total units?

Doesn't the article say they've sold five this year? Overpriced means no one will buy them. Price is relative. If people are buying, then they're not necessarily overpriced.

Prices of $220/sq ft and higher are a joke, as for literally less than half that cost per sq ft you can get a nice house in a nice part of OKC that's 20 minutes or less to downtown. Moreover, downtown OKC hasn't yet gotten to the point of having offering the environment and amenities to charge those kind of prices relative to the rest of the city. I'd love to see these places fill up with residents--which would only serve to spur new development due to a "strong" demand for downtown housing--and I think they would if prices were lower.

It may be that builders need these kinds of prices to break even. I don't know that, but I would think that if a builder has a lot of fat built into prices and their houses aren't selling, he or she would drop prices to make sales. If they're not doing that, perhaps their costs are higher than in those $100 per square foot houses 20 minutes away. I know that the materials used in some of the downtown housing are quite a bit nicer than what you see in a house half that price in other parts of the city. I suspect that $100/square foot prices in downtown would require using materials that might not stand the test of time, just as will happen with many of the cheaper houses farther north and south. I've not been very impressed with most of the new construction in Oklahoma City, in terms of quality and durability. We'll see if the current downtown housing withstands the test of time better, but if it does, then perhaps the prices are warranted.

Doesn't the article say they've sold five this year? Overpriced means no one will buy them. Price is relative. If people are buying, then they're not necessarily overpriced.

wow...

It may be that builders need these kinds of prices to break even. I don't know that, but I would think that if a builder has a lot of fat built into prices and their houses aren't selling, he or she would drop prices to make sales. If they're not doing that, perhaps their costs are higher than in those $100 per square foot houses 20 minutes away. I know that the materials used in some of the downtown housing are quite a bit nicer than what you see in a house half that price in other parts of the city. I suspect that $100/square foot prices in downtown would require using materials that might not stand the test of time, just as will happen with many of the cheaper houses farther north and south. I've not been very impressed with most of the new construction in Oklahoma City, in terms of quality and durability. We'll see if the current downtown housing withstands the test of time better, but if it does, then perhaps the prices are warranted.
Good post and it does lead one to believe their costs are high. But the market in OKC makes it quite difficult to sell homes at 200+/sq ft no matter how nice they are.

Good post and it does lead one to believe their costs are high. But the market in OKC makes it quite difficult to sell homes at 200+/sq ft no matter how nice they are.

Depends on the neighborhood. I know someone who's asking price for their house here is 500+/square foot. Look at housing prices in Nichols Hills, Gallardia and some of the nicer neighborhoods in OKC and you'll find $200/ft is low end.

Depends on the neighborhood. I know someone who's asking price for their house here is 500+/square foot. Look at housing prices in Nichols Hills, Gallardia and some of the nicer neighborhoods in OKC and you'll find $200/ft is low end.

$500/sq ft sounds downright crazy for Oklahoma, and I find the idea of average prices over $200/sq ft in even the nicest neighborhoods hard to believe. Trulia lists $146/sq ft on average in Nichols Hills, $96/sq ft in Edmond, and $73/sq ft for all of OKC.

http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Nichols_Hills-Oklahoma/
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Oklahoma_City-Oklahoma/

Obviously, the prices are going to vary substantially depending on the neighborhood--but, looking around on this map (http://www.trulia.com/home_prices/Oklahoma/Oklahoma_City-heat_map/), I can't find any OKC neighborhoods listed where homes are going for over $140/sq ft on average.

Especially in light of these numbers I think those prices in downtown OKC are simply too high.

These, post recession, are all about $300/sq foot in Nichols Hills, which I know is less than they were selling for pre-recession on the average. If the average in Nichols Hills is $146/sq foot, that's probably because the majority of houses that have sold in the last year are the small not completely updated ones on the perimeter. And there is one, not in the multilist, that has an asking price of over $500 a square foot, and I happen to know that this family paid over $400 a square foot for it a few years ago.

http://www.zillow.com/homes/nichols-hills,-oklahoma_rb/#/homes/for_sale/Nichols-Hills-OK/26151_rid/pricea_sort/35.568574,-97.465286,35.526674,-97.622184_rect/12_zm/1_rs/1_fr/

Here's one in Crown Heights that recently sold for about $221/sq foot

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/716-NW-40th-St-Oklahoma-City-OK-73118/21849457_zpid/

Also, you have to remember that asking price is not selling price and frequently negotiations result in a slightly lower price per square foot after sale. If people are buying, and that article said that they've sold just over half of the Maywood Lofts and 5 of the townhouses on the Hill this year, then someone thinks that price per square foot isn't outrageous. I don't, personally, and I've bought ten different houses since moving to Oklahoma City. But again, if they don't sell, at some point in time the builders will have to adjust the price to make them sell. The market ultimately determines what an appropriate price is.

If you are the developer and have inventory that has not sold then you are either paying interest to carry that inventory or you are losing investment income or both. In the latter case of lost investment income that figure is about as near to zero as one can get. In the former case of interest paid we are in one of the lowest rate periods of history. The lender or lenders certainly do not want any properties back.

Another issue in an area that is still developing is that reducing prices now would have the effect of reducing prices for future projects -- a cheapening of the brand so to speak.

Besides that this is a rather small geographic area and there will be a limited number of units available. Unless one is entirely pessimistic about Oklahoma City urban development it makes sense to believe the future holds more economic opportunity than the present. And it is hard to be entirely pessimistic given the state of Oklahoma City development downtown in the midst of the worst economic climate since the Great Depression.

Then there is the fact that this is new construction and better than average quality which adds to the cost of the product.

And the price itself is not that far out of line with other new construction around the area for the same target audience.

Unless we are willing to only build developments that are heavily subsidized by government (and I don't mean TIFs) then the market will decide but the market is far more elegant than we generally recognize.

I do agree with the overpriced argument. When they developed Harbortown and South Bluffs in downtown Memphis, they were MUCH cheaper and the construction was superior to what they are building on The Hill. I don't know what happened down there...

The several Harbor Town listings I viewed were all above $150 per sf and claimed big discounts from built price.

$100-125 a sq foot seems fair to me, but i'm not a pioneer...

Suburban lot prices now are above $50,000 and can easily exceed $100,000.

This is the problem...people here don't want to pay for a lifestyle. In other cities, it is normal to pay more to live downtown. Here, people expect to pay suburban prices for an urban lifestyle. And we wonder why we can't get developers interested in high density downtown development. We are spoiled as to real estate prices here, but it is a two edged sword. Unless it is the cheapest rent/purchase in the country, people won't buy in here.

This is the problem...people here don't want to pay for a lifestyle. In other cities, it is normal to pay more to live downtown. Here, people expect to pay suburban prices for an urban lifestyle. And we wonder why we can't get developers interested in high density downtown development. We are spoiled as to real estate prices here, but it is a two edged sword. Unless it is the cheapest rent/purchase in the country, people won't buy in here.

This is the gripe. OKC's downtown doesnt offer the urban lifestyle that most cities do. You arent getting a real urban, live/work/play lifestyle in OKC and therefore nobody will pay a huge premium to live downtown. Until people can walk to a bar, bookstore, drugstore, or grocery store or catch a streetcar to a play at the civic center, you will get people complaining about the prices.

This is the gripe. OKC's downtown doesnt offer the urban lifestyle that most cities do. You arent getting a real urban, live/work/play lifestyle in OKC and therefore nobody will pay a huge premium to live downtown. Until people can walk to a bar, bookstore, drugstore, or grocery store or catch a streetcar to a play at the civic center, you will get people complaining about the prices.Not really disagreeing with you but any new development area is like that. Developments do not start out mature. So a new subdivision may not have the club house and pool and parks and common area landscaping at the beginning. So those initial buyers are having to imagine what the area will be like when all the lots are sold and the amenities added. Not everyone can do that or will do that or wishes to exercise the patience necessary to see it through.

Every development has some demographic in mind when it is conceived. That simple thing alone reduces the size of the potential market.

Additionally in order to really achieve substantive savings for new construction there has to be economy of scale and what constitutes scale continues to increase. In other words the builder buys 100 toilets of the same kind or 100 units worth of carpet or whatever the magic number is to find volume discounts. Smaller developments that require longer time horizons just do not very well lend themselves to that kind of efficiency.

I completed a condo project in downtown Bellevue, WA and visited it two weeks ago. The economy is slow there so they units have been severely discounted and one tower is turned into a "for rent" tower. In them, a 650 foot for rent goes for approximately $2,100/mo and since going for rent about 60 days ago is about 40% occupied. The condo tower is going for a discounted amount of approximately$750/ft.

Now I understand this isn't Washington here, but this is also downtown Bellevue, not Seattle. And while it is more developed than OKC, it hasn't been that way all that long and there are probably 15 condo towers downtown that were built because people would pay. Stores followed, not preceded.

All over the country, new urban construction will go for $300 up to $1,000. When I hear that people want to pay $110 and then complain when no developer wants to consider building a mid-high rise, I wonder why they would expect them to. At some point the people in this city need to put some $ where their opinions are and encourage developers to do their job. I see it happening in Austin, Kansas City and other cities in the region, but I don't see it in OKC. Unless it is cheap, cheap, cheap, the "urbanists" don't want to participate. Of course, I would love a fully developed urban experience in a quality building environment with completed infrastructure for $100 ft. But it won't happen.

And, no city in their right mind wants to fill the urban core with cheaply constructed buildings or build-outs that will create slums in 20 years. They want the upwardly mobile, young professionals, and the executive class to be in the center to promote a good economic model. They don't want people who won't spend money to take up cheap space. The "creative" class and those who can't afford it tend to live in places like Soho and Chelsea in Manhattan, not on Park Avenue.

That said, the developers we have need to learn to build projects appealing to the right people. To ask 60 year olds to live in a 3 or 4 story townhouse and climb two floors of stairs to go to bed is also asinine. They need to decide who they really are appealing to and design accordingly. To build a project with a floor plan appealing to 20-30 somethings and the wallets of 50-60 somethings is just bad business and a lack of understanding of your target market.

And, no city in their right mind wants to fill the urban core with cheaply constructed buildings or build-outs that will create slums in 20 years. They want the upwardly mobile, young professionals, and the executive class to be in the center to promote a good economic model. They don't want people who won't spend money to take up cheap space. The "creative" class and those who can't afford it tend to live in places like Soho and Chelsea in Manhattan, not on Park Avenue.

This is an important point, IMO. Cities like Chicago and New York have buildings that were intially built for upper and middle class people with high quality materials. Many of them then became slums or lower income housing but the quality was still there. They were then rediscovered by young people because of the inexpensive prices who made the neighborhoods chic. Then, the middle and upper class people returned to take part. The buildings have to be well built to withstand that peak and valley and if we start cheap, we'll never get back to the neighborhoods being desirable to the more well-heeled. We'll just end up with construction that has to be torn down to make way for more cheap construction. There are plenty of places like the Plaza District and SoSA that have older houses that can be refurbished to give a downtown or near downtown experience for those who want to spend less. Because we never had the masses of row houses and apartment buildings that older cities have, living in an urban environment in OKC by definition has to be different.


That said, the developers we have need to learn to build projects appealing to the right people. To ask 60 year olds to live in a 3 or 4 story townhouse and climb two floors of stairs to go to bed is also asinine. They need to decide who they really are appealing to and design accordingly. To build a project with a floor plan appealing to 20-30 somethings and the wallets of 50-60 somethings is just bad business and a lack of understanding of your target market.

I know that you can have an elevator in Maywood Park because I have one. You can get one in either the three or four story townhouse. To get it in the 2 and a half story townhouse you would have to reconfigure, but it's still possible because most of them are only framed, not finished out. I remember looking at the blueprints for the Hill when I was trying to decide which one appealed to me more and I noticed that the four story townhouses can have elevators. I'm not sure if the three story ones have that option or not. I'm not sure whether that point has been emphasized to people looking to buy or not.

All over the country, new urban construction will go for $300 up to $1,000. When I hear that people want to pay $110 and then complain when no developer wants to consider building a mid-high rise, I wonder why they would expect them to. At some point the people in this city need to put some $ where their opinions are and encourage developers to do their job. I see it happening in Austin, Kansas City and other cities in the region, but I don't see it in OKC. Unless it is cheap, cheap, cheap, the "urbanists" don't want to participate. Of course, I would love a fully developed urban experience in a quality building environment with completed infrastructure for $100 ft. But it won't happen.

And, no city in their right mind wants to fill the urban core with cheaply constructed buildings or build-outs that will create slums in 20 years. They want the upwardly mobile, young professionals, and the executive class to be in the center to promote a good economic model. They don't want people who won't spend money to take up cheap space. The "creative" class and those who can't afford it tend to live in places like Soho and Chelsea in Manhattan, not on Park Avenue.


Forget Seattle. If you wanted to live in the Inner Loop portion of Houston, one of America's cheapest cities, you will need at least $300K to get your foot in the door for a condo that doesn't need a lot of work and at least $400K for a townhouse. Granted the Inner Loop area is way more advanced than anything in downtown OKC, but then again you can go get a nice new 2500+ sq ft home in their suburbs for 175K or less. You will also a have a hellish commute if you work in the central city.

Pricing something in this market in this time is probably very challenging. Central OKC a lot of inward pulls on people, like easy access to amenties, but there's no "push" (ex: traffic delays, land constraints to suburban development) to force people to want to live in the inner city. $4 gas was about the closest we had to that, and even still a shocking number of people just put up with it. I think that we would be having this discussion here even if there were those push factors. I hate to say this, but the local culture here is a bit "cheap", i.e. it puts a high value on present "bang for your buck" independent of any long term savings. And its been like that way before the recession hit. When I tell friends what I pay for my new place in midtown, they balk at it without realizing that my gas savings alone make it a financial saver for me.

I know that you can have an elevator in Maywood Park because I have one. You can get one in either the three or four story townhouse. To get it in the 2 and a half story townhouse you would have to reconfigure, but it's still possible because most of them are only framed, not finished out. I remember looking at the blueprints for the Hill when I was trying to decide which one appealed to me more and I noticed that the four story townhouses can have elevators. I'm not sure if the three story ones have that option or not. I'm not sure whether that point has been emphasized to people looking to buy or not.

I agree that the elevators are nice features and make it more possible, but the projects so far really aren't what I would call "urban" development. I have been involved in a couple of condo developments in Austin and they are mid-rise urban core buildings with flats and not multi-levels. If the Founder's Tower Condo building was in downtown I bet it would be a hit. It has a concierge service, doorman, secure parking, workout area, etc. It appeals to people who can actually afford a lifestyle. I lived in Center Plaza in downtown Tulsa...same kind of services with security, free van service, access to grocery shopping, etc., and it has stayed full since being built. That is what appeals to those who will pay $200+/ft and will live downtown.

Should there be buildingsw that houses those who want to spend less or have less to spend.....absolutely. That is what Deep Deuce should be about. Build cheaper buildings of to-rent apartments and then bulldoze them in 20 years when downtown grows out and makes the land more valuable. But don't expect row houses on the edge of downtown or cheap lofts in the core to be the entire engine of residential growth.

This is the gripe. OKC's downtown doesnt offer the urban lifestyle that most cities do. You arent getting a real urban, live/work/play lifestyle in OKC and therefore nobody will pay a huge premium to live downtown. Until people can walk to a bar, bookstore, drugstore, or grocery store or catch a streetcar to a play at the civic center, you will get people complaining about the prices.

Exactly my point. I could see the justification for paying such a premium if downtown had all the amenities that one might expect of an urban lifestyle. Another factor is the commute: the adage "you can get anywhere in OKC in 20 minutes" is mostly true and so if you work downtown, living in Edmond or far NW OKC is a viable option. Since OKC has done such a good job of accommodating suburban sprawl, there's less "inherent demand" for urban living as exists here Austin for example.

And just for comparison's sake, I used to rent out a newly-renovated small condo that recently sold for $250/sq ft near downtown Austin, where I could walk to several local shops/restaurants and was a short bike ride to the downtown Whole Foods and chain retail like REI, BookPeople, etc (with a bike path or bike lanes the whole way). Hence you can see my puzzlement when similarly-outfitted condos near downtown OKC are supposedly going for comparable prices. Not saying it won't get to that point but it isn't there yet.


And, no city in their right mind wants to fill the urban core with cheaply constructed buildings or build-outs that will create slums in 20 years. They want the upwardly mobile, young professionals, and the executive class to be in the center to promote a good economic model. They don't want people who won't spend money to take up cheap space. The "creative" class and those who can't afford it tend to live in places like Soho and Chelsea in Manhattan, not on Park Avenue.

I do understand and agree with the argument for having quality housing downtown that caters to a more upscale population. However, I do not like the idea of downtown being exclusively for the upwardly-mobile crowd. I'd rather see the "creative class" move into places like Deep Deuce to start, then once an actual community is developed (i.e., local shops and basic amenities), follow with higher-end, high-rise developments in the CBD. Moreover, it's not unreasonable to think that a place that started selling at $150/sq ft could go for double that price ten years down the road when demand is high. Just because a place isn't outfitted like a Fifth Avenue penthouse when it's built doesn't mean it will be a slum in twenty years.

http://realestate.msn.com/slideshow.aspx?cp-documentid=24747226#2#q=How%20much%20house%20can%2 0you%20get%20for%20%24200%2C000%3F%3A%20Atlanta

Go see what $200,000 buys in other cities...even today.

And just for comparison's sake, I used to rent out a newly-renovated small condo that recently sold for $250/sq ft near downtown Austin, where I could walk to several local shops/restaurants and was a short bike ride to the downtown Whole Foods and chain retail like REI, BookPeople, etc (with a bike path or bike lanes the whole way). Hence you can see my puzzlement when similarly-outfitted condos near downtown OKC are supposedly going for comparable prices. Not saying it won't get to that point but it isn't there yet.

It depends on what is important to you. From where I live, I can walk to any of the restaurants in Bricktown, Deep Deuce or the CBD, as well as 9th street restaurants and any store on Broadway. I can easily bike to Midtown, without having to worry about significant traffic in the evening. I have my choice of Starbucks, Coffee Slingers or Cocoa Flow, all reachable in a few minutes if I want to sit and drink coffee. Before renovation, I used to walk to the Myriad Gardens (and sneak my dog in) and I can easily ride my bike to the river if I want some exercise. I live a block from the downtown YMCA, and can walk to the movies or the Ford Center in about 5 minutes. Within 5 minutes of me is my bank and my dry cleaners. It's true, I have to drive to the grocery store, but from where I used to live, the Albertsons was no closer than it is now. Although a closer grocery store would be nice, I don't cook enough that it's really that high on my list of priorities. I don't walk to work, but I could if I wanted, or I could easily walk to the Health Sciences Center shuttle (2 blocks). I don't use it because I come home for lunch to walk my dog most days and so I need to get from work to home and back again fairly quickly. I would love to be able to do more shopping downtown, but I had to drive to retail before I moved as well. I'm happy I have so many places to walk to, and I don't dwell on the few things I'm missing.

In addition, because my townhouse has concrete construction, my utilities are one tenth what they were when I lived in my suburban house. I've calculated that I save at least $30,000 a year on utilities, taxes, yard work expenses and gas. That starts dropping the price per square foot rather rapidly.

And my point is that the prices seen today are low because downtown is not fully developed and so that discount is already factored in. In 10 years when the city is more mature, these prices will seem down right cheap.

The other thing is that with today's cost new construction is still expensive. A developer can't do development of project site work, infrastructure and construction for the same as they can in the suburbs pouring a slab (that will crack in 10 years) and nailing sticks together to make a house of questionable quality. When you have neighbors across the wall, a foot above your ceiling and underneath your feet, you can't make the same quality of structure and get by with it..

And my point is that the prices seen today are low because downtown is not fully developed and so that discount is already factored in. In 10 years when the city is more mature, these prices will seem down right cheap.

The other thing is that with today's cost new construction is still expensive. A developer can't do development of project site work, infrastructure and construction for the same as they can in the suburbs pouring a slab (that will crack in 10 years) and nailing sticks together to make a house of questionable quality. When you have neighbors across the wall, a foot above your ceiling and underneath your feet, you can't make the same quality of structure and get by with it..

Aside from having luxury fixtures, appliances, etc, I don't think the construction itself is of that much quality.I hope they are better than Legacy Woods apartments, but they are definitely not the same construction quality seen in for ex. Manhattan.

I believe that @ 220s/sq ft. they are overpriced, specially when the area is still deserted. Bricktown is still not the entertainment hub one would wish, especially with competition from Western Ave, and the ever growing Memorial Rd.

They should have started their projects in phases, where you would offer a good starting price (around $150 for my preference) and then, once sold, start building the next phase at higher prices, bringing the total value up.

As they are right now, those condos gives you a perception of urban living, but like many other people have suggested, the area is not "Urban" yet. So you are basically buying a perception, a very pricey perception. At least that's how i see it. If they had similar condominium constructions in the busiest and better looking parts of Edmond, like certain parts of Broadway Ave, on 2nd St (from Broadway to Bryant) and/or 15th and Bryant, I would buy them without thinking I am missing out. Those sections of Edmond have more life than Deep Deuce's current developments.

While there might be more "life" in Edmond and on Memorial Rd, a concept I disagree with considering the variety of entertainment options downtown, ranging from restaurants and movies, to sporting events, music and theatre venues as well as art galleries and a museum, I have yet to see people walking to or between venues on Memorial or in Edmond. Even Western is difficult to walk. It's very much a car driven society up there, and personally, I chose downtown as much for its walkability as entertainment and dining options. To me, walking is as important a part of an urban lifestyle as anything.

As far as prices go, people who think $220/sq foot is too much to spend aren't being forced to buy. People buying may disagree, and again, the market is certainly influenced by demand. If lower priced options are offered, it will be interesting to see how many of those criticizing current prices put their money where their mouth is.

And my point is that the prices seen today are low because downtown is not fully developed and so that discount is already factored in. In 10 years when the city is more mature, these prices will seem down right cheap.I think this is very true. The problem for a lot of people is how long that time line might be.

They should have started their projects in phases, where you would offer a good starting price (around $150 for my preference) and then, once sold, start building the next phase at higher prices, bringing the total value up.The problem with that is the way lending works. And at least some lending will be necessary although some transactions may undoubtedly be for cash. The lending is based on appraised values and the appraisals will be based on similar, recent sales.

Betts.... You do a great job selling urban living in downtown Okc. I'm surprised you are the only one that posts on this topic. Do we not have more people on OkcTalk that live in downtown?



I feel like Betts is always having to defend where she chooses to live.

While there might be more "life" in Edmond and on Memorial Rd, a concept I disagree with considering the variety of entertainment options downtown, ranging from restaurants and movies, to sporting events, music and theatre venues as well as art galleries and a museum, I have yet to see people walking to or between venues on Memorial or in Edmond. Even Western is difficult to walk. It's very much a car driven society up there, and personally, I chose downtown as much for its walkability as entertainment and dining options. To me, walking is as important a part of an urban lifestyle as anything.

I don't disagree with you. This will be the ideal. I just think the entertainment area is not developed to its full potential. The whole urban lifestyle which I like (and don't disagree with you with the concept of urban) is not there yet. My opinion is that there is a potential of urban lifestyle, but what is being sold right now, it just potential. Can you honestly say that living in those properties today gives you a full experience of urban lifestyle?


As far as prices go, people who think $220/sq foot is too much to spend aren't being forced to buy. People buying may disagree, and again, the market is certainly influenced by demand. If lower priced options are offered, it will be interesting to see how many of those criticizing current prices put their money where their mouth is.

Nobody is talking about forcing anyone. In fact, I believe price is more of a factor on why those units aren't sold than the housing market itself. I think some of the units that were sold intially had to do more with the hype and belief that prices will eventually soar, making it a good investment. I do not buy one, because I think it'll be a bad investment on my part. If prices were around $150 - $175 sq. ft, I'll be looking into purchasing a unit.

Aside from having luxury fixtures, appliances, etc, I don't think the construction itself is of that much quality.I hope they are better than Legacy Woods apartments, but they are definitely not the same construction quality seen in for ex. Manhattan.

Are you referring to The Hill specifically? Because The Brownstones at Maywood Park are extremely well-built. I'd say as good as any residential in the country.



As they are right now, those condos gives you a perception of urban living, but like many other people have suggested, the area is not "Urban" yet. So you are basically buying a perception, a very pricey perception. At least that's how i see it. If they had similar condominium constructions in the busiest and better looking parts of Edmond, like certain parts of Broadway Ave, on 2nd St (from Broadway to Bryant) and/or 15th and Bryant, I would buy them without thinking I am missing out. Those sections of Edmond have more life than Deep Deuce's current developments.

What exactly would you be walking to from a condo on 2nd Street? Some antique stores? Around the Corner? That crappy Homeland (oh wait, that's gone)? Only thing I can think of that appeals to young professionals in that area is the Jazz Lab.

From any of the Deep Deuce area condos or apartments, you can reasonably walk to

Sage
The Wedge
Deep Deuce Grill
Jimmy John's
OBU Graduate School
Maywood Park
[Untitled] Artspace
Iguana
Pachinko
Sara Sara
Coffee Slingers
Rawhide
Broadway Wine Merchants
Red Prime
Bicycle Alley
Schlegal's Bikes
Downtown YMCA
OU Health Science Center
The Mantel
Nonna's
Crabtown
The Store at Bricktown (convenience store)
Tapwerks
Bricktown Brewery
America's Pub
SkkyBar
Mickey Mantle's
The Bricktown Ballpark
Wormy Dog
Bolero
RedPin
Drinkz
Biting Sow
Abuelos
Coco Flow
City Walk
Harkins Theatres
Starbucks
Ford Center
Civic Center Music Hall
Stage Center
Myriad Gardens
OKC Museum of Art (including Cocktails on the Roof and art/indie films)
deadCENTER Film Fest
Festival of the Arts
all the Bricktown music festivals
Ghouls Gone Wild
and numerous employers

Nobody is talking about forcing anyone. In fact, I believe price is more of a factor on why those units aren't sold than the housing market itself. I think some of the units that were sold intially had to do more with the hype and belief that prices will eventually soar, making it a good investment. I do not buy one, because I think it'll be a bad investment on my part. If prices were around $150 - $175 sq. ft, I'll be looking into purchasing a unit.

Construction in Midtown for single new homes are being built at $200 sq/ft not including lot price. Material costs are inflating and if you can get construction financing it comes with strings making it very expensive. Quality multi housing construction is more costly. Good Luck with that $150 to $175 sq. ft. Maybe you should consider Sycamore Square.

Betts.... You do a great job selling urban living in downtown Okc. I'm surprised you are the only one that posts on this topic. Do we not have more people on OkcTalk that live in downtown?



I feel like Betts is always having to defend where she chooses to live.



Being Bett's neighbor, I feel qualified to respond. All of her points are on target and having lived in the Brownstones for a year and a half now, my wife and I couldn't be happier.

- No more commute from Oaktree every day, which saves us ~$10,000/ year.
- Association dues 80% less.
- No need to pay for parking.
- Due to quality of construction and foot thick walls our utility bills are 1/2 of previous
- More peace of mind during tornado season, again due to foot thick walls.
- Geothermal heat and air, with no noisy, expensive to maintain outside condenser.
- Cheaper homeowner's insurance.
- Outdoor living area overlooking downtown
- No trees to trim.
- No lawn to care for and waste precious water.
- Walking distance to our Doctors, pharmacy, cleaners, tag agency, museums, cafes, movies... etc.
- Bike trail access, in lieu of dodging rude and dangerous drivers.
- More social interaction due to a more walking friendly environment.
- Live concerts in BT on Thursday nights.
- Thunder games without the hassle of parking.
- Baseball games 2 blocks away
- Great neighbors.
- Various parades nearby.
- No maintenance to speak of, slate roof, concrete casement windows, All brick exterior, copper guttering, etc.
- Commercial grade fire sprinkler system.
- Elevator for our senior years, which in the meantime is used for elderly relatives and to carry groceries.

I could go on and on but a couple of important points - Quality is quality no matter where you buy. I travel extensively for business and pleasure and have compared what we have here with other cities. To replace our home with one of the same quality in Denver is $3M, Houston $2M, Manhattan $12-15M, San Francisco $8-10M, Dallas $2M. And before I get flamed about quality of life and amenities in these cities, let me say I have lived in Dallas and Denver and choose to live here and visit there. Without exaggeration, I have regained 2-3 hours of my life EVERYDAY since moving downtown!

Second, One of the most common questions I get from visitors is, "don't you get tired of the stairs"? After questioning them, most admit they pay $50- $100 a month to work out on a stair-master at a health club.

For 7 years my offices were located on McKinney Ave. in the uptown area of Dallas. I saw it transform from what looked like Berlin after the war, to a bustling vibrant area with thousands of residents. I'm convinced the same will happen here. We have gone as much as 3 weeks without needing to start the car, I would recommend this lifestyle to anyone, except those with children needing a yard.

Great testimony Soho! Thanks for that.

Without exaggeration, I have regained 2-3 hours of my life EVERYDAY since moving downtown!


Wow, what a quote.

It still shocks me that urban tenets such as downtown living and mixed-uses still need convincing. Sheesh people. Join the 21st Century already.

As for The Hill, not my favorite downtown project, but I will say its success is very important to downtown--especially now that it has eaten up virtually all of the usable street frontage available on that site. With Ellison Park we would already have had a development that is bustling, but as least it's moving forward and sales have impressively defied logic, so maybe it will be finished within the next 20 years at this rate. That's great news. The last 5 years..24/157 units done..7 sold. Obviously no presales are going on, but that is to be expected when the price tag is this high.

In defense of people critical of this project, I will say it's not about criticizing urban living or paying a LOT to live downtown, we all GET that..hopefully, or at least people should, it's really not that hard to understand. What makes me critical of this project is that I'm really not that big a fan of the urban design, I think the facades are kinda cheesy, I think they look cheap esp compared to the similarly priced Brownstones, and I am still sour over the selection process..the project should not have been chosen when there are so many questions over whether downtown can actually absorb so many $600,000 condos, when what we know downtown NEEDS is apartments (96% occupancy rate downtown) and mixed-use...

According to OKC.biz Executive Home sales, 2 more units sold at The Joke, err I mean The Hill at "Bricktown"

From the County Assessor's site, it looks like they've now sold 7 of the 32 built.

Last one sold was for $381K.

I have a question with people that have beef with The Hill. I've driven by and around the site many times before. I understand that before the proposal was chosen there was another that was many times "better" with mixed-usage and the sorts, but what is so entirely bad about The Hill that you guys call it suburban and "The Joke"? Especially when the next street over you've got the Deep Deuce Apartments that have an open paved parking lot behind EVERY building. It seems to me that The Hill is in fact more urban. It fronts all of it's respective streets, it hides it's parking via interior garages and corridors. It's design is quality and very urban looking even if it's perpetuates the "faux" look. I just don't understand how we can attack one development when in the same exact neighborhood you've got lesser quality construction, open parking lots, gated parking, and stucco-backed apartments? And please, because I know some one will think this, I am not degrading the Deep Deuce Apartments; I genuinely appreciate their aesthetics and pioneering of the Deep Deuce District.

I don't love The Hill either, but come on. Some of the criticism holds no water. Just a long-lingering thought.

I think we're getting too defensive here anytime someone criticizes downtown. Fact is, while it will be truly urban very shortly, as long as there are just as many mud pits as developed sites left downtown, it's far from achieving a sufficiently urban feel, or at least enough to satisfy people who are looking for that little bit of Seattle in OKC.

The biggest problem with The Hill is the size of this project being awarded to one developer for one single type of housing unit. The overall quality and design is not the problem, but having one developer sitting on this size of development is. Okc needs developers to compete for customers, either buyers or renters.

The problem is: no one anticipated the economic meltdown, especially in the housing market. Real estate is so faddish. A few years ago everyone was gaga about the concept of people buying higher density real estate than is usually available in Oklahoma City. Now everyone thinks rentals are where it's at, and the level of enthusiasm for them reminds me of that we saw for downtown "for sale" housing a few years ago. The market could quite easily turn and people will again be looking to buy downtown and the rental market could end up overbuilt, with developers having empty units they can't rent. This whole trend of following the latest fad needs to be tempered by the realization that building projects like this take several years, and in the space of several years, the real estate market can change. I don't think it's unreasonable to build smaller units, since that is what seems to be selling best downtown, but if I were a developer, I'd be thinking of the sales and rental market and I'd build for flexibility.

I agree with Architect. Although The Hill is not my favorite project, and I really dislike the way they look from the rear, I think in the end we'll all be glad there is some residential housing in that area that's not rental. They've done a very nice job of landscaping, and it's nice to see people there, walking their dogs, participating in the neighborhood. Deep Deuce is not very well maintained in terms of landscaping and trash pickup. People who rent are less concerned about dropping trash in their yard and on the street, we've noticed. When we walk our dog, we basically spend the walk picking up trash left by residents of Deep Deuce. We don't see that in the developments that are for sale.

I think we're getting too defensive here anytime someone criticizes downtown.

I wasn't getting defensive. Like I said, that was a long-lingering thought on my part and I wanted to see input. I see now, that the criticism of The Hill wasn't based on it's aesthetics and layout like I had thought, but merely the programming and development of the plot itself.

There are lots of lingering bad feelings for how OCURA handled the selection process, which has been well covered in other threads.

Also, now "the economy" is getting blamed for every failure but this project was well underway before any of that and was doomed from the start for lots of reasons. They opened and closed a sales/design center before the mortgage meltdown and just couldn't market the properties. Which, of course, was not surprising to those of us that followed this from the beginning.

And finally, the once-developers chose to put townhouses in the only area where mixed-use would make sense, completely f-ing up the remaining property.


Now that they are built, I hope they sell but this whole process has been a calamity and still infuriates me.

It seems to me that the mixed use planned next to the new ALoft hotel is in a much better location than the Hill anyway. It will be more central to all the housing developments. I don't think the Hill is an abomination like some people. It is an alternative that will be part of the quilt that is "downtown" OKC. Until the infill completes we will continue to have these types of developments. When land is gone and the land becomes more valuable then the structures will go multi-floor and the urbanists will get their desire for high density and mixed use. It will be driven by demand economics. Til then, there is plenty of open space to build the mixed use so many want to see. The Hill is gone, so let's get on to the next one and make sure we support it properly.

I agree Rover but the point should be made that only 25% of The Hill property has been developed, so there needs to be a plan for the remainder:

http://www.tnttri.com/OKCTalk/hillaerial.jpg