I know there are other downtown living threads. However, a vibrant city forum should show multiple threads on the topic, as all questions aren't general.

My scenario is this: I live part time in Plano and part time in Oklahoma City. We decided to look at downtown OKC after a trip to Kansas City to look at their downtown/midtown offerings. We are prepared to buy a small, emphasis again, small downtown condo. I have $110,000.00 cash ready to drop. There is Nothing. Zip. Nada in downtown OKC. In downtown Kansas City, near numerous amenities, it's a matter of which do we pick? But we have family and strong ties to OKC and we wanted the urban lifestyle here, even if it's not as developed and vibrant. After two days of looking around and talking, the only thing that comes close is something for $65,000 way over on Classen. It's that Condo that looks completely out of place for the area and looks like a ski lodge in New Mexico, I can't remember the name.

What is going on when you can't find a studio condo or a very small one bedroom for a hundred grand in downtown Oklahoma City? It's not that they're not there, or close to being there, they're available at absurd prices in a downtown area with almost ZERO amenities (beyond the arts, theater, culture, etc.).

Where is a developer who could buy one of the smaller highrise buildings, make them studio - one bedroom sized (like what we saw tons of in KC) sell them for One Hundred Grand and make out like a bandit?

Instead, the real estate agent basically said as much, they are stupidly looking past young people and marketing at people who are 50+ and in his words, "It's hard to build an urban core neighborhood with those demographics." He was fully aware of what's available in other cities with the small "starter condos" that get people moving and living downtown and said "Oklahoma City is missing out by looking past the future and focusing on what's in it as "get rich quick" and that's marketing to people who buy even as "second homes!" Second homes? He said that there were/are a few in one particular place, but they are so small as to be laughable and as a matter of principle he didn't dare show them for other reasons as well. ???

I'm really just kind of blown away at what's in our pockets, ready to buy, and Oklahoma City, which must think it's Madison Avenue West, when in reality, there's less to bring a person downtown than other similar cities, has so little to offer except at very high prices. How can other cities manage these "starter condos" to bring a critical mass downtown manage to do it, and this city cannot? I'm just speechless after a full-day of looking at real estate.

So my question, does anyone know of a developer who is planning anything like I described above? Because, right now, downtown Oklahoma City is locking its future out; and I'm sure there's others, like us, who will move right along. I-35 holds many an attractive city and OKC prices downtown are just absurd.

By the way, when I called a friend in Denver in real estate to bitch and moan, I said, "And you see OKC on all these affordable lists!" He laughed and reminded me we've always been on those lists, even pre-maps, pre-Renaissance, whatever, because well, draw your own conclusion.

Sorry for the negative vibes, I'm just sad and disgruntled.

There is another option: Classen Glenn condos. They're in an area of MidTown that is on cusp but has its share of problems (you've seen it referred to as the Cottage District or SoSA). The condos feature an innovative award-winning design, but they include a mix of originals that had some finish problems when the 80s bust hit, and those who had buyers who fixed up such problems. Either way, from what I've heard, this may be the last good buy downtown.
On another note: I've asked this of another poster here as well. I want to do a story with people like yourself and get some answers. Please email me at slackmeyer@oklahoman.com.

915 Nw 7Th 203, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102 - MLS ID#379264 - Condo/Townhome/Row Home/Co-Op real estate - REALTOR.com® (http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/915-Nw-7Th-203_Oklahoma-City_OK_73102_1105371342)

Thanks for saving me the search Pete!

Thank for the link Pete, but that's the "ski lodge" I was talking about. It's at the corner of 7th and Classen. For us, that's not downtown. But I appreciate your help.

I share your frustrations and I agree about the steep prices, MikeOKC. But here's my problem. What amenities are missing? What needs to be there?

Information is very valuable, especially in these cases. It's okay to vent, but your wasting your breath on OKC if you're not sharing what amenities are missing.

I've got to keep on wondering if Rick Dowell doesn't have a gold mine on his hands with the old Midland Mortgage/Kermac Building. He got it at a cheap price, and it sure does seem as if he could turn it into condos at these terms and still make a killing. Trick is, buyers would have to accept using nearby public parking ...

Here some cheaper options where you may be able to negotiate down:

Unit 205 (http://www.centralavenuevillas.com/205.html)

Unit 101 (http://www.harveyloftsokc.com/Unit101.html)

The Lofts at Maywood Park (http://www.theloftsatmaywoodpark.com/)

The Leslie (http://theleslieatmaywoodpark.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=8)

Good point Plansit. And before last summer, there would have been no delay on The Leslie. It needs a higher minimum buyers signed up before construction can begin....

It's pretty much the same thing here in Austin, the efficiency sized ones were priced about 180,000 and the sky's the limit from there. From what I can gather on the Austin forums is the bulk of them are in the 260,000-340,000 range. That doesn't include the new tallest under construction (The Austonian (http://www.theaustonian.com/)) which starts at around 500,000 (1,200 sf) and goes up to the several millions. It seems that downtown developers only care about the high end, there needs to be much more of a spread instead you are just creating vertical gated communities.

We need more of everything downtown. We need neighborhood deli's and meat markets, grocery stores, bakery's, donut/pastery shops, high end dining options, more ethnic dining options, art museums, trinket shops, but most of all we need more activities besides drinking and eating. Red Pin and the movie theater are great starts, but we shouldn't stop there.

To me, even though there is far less there, Midtown strikes me as a place having a lot more promise (eventually) than Bricktown. Midtown just reminds me of other cities I have been to. I'm not sure why.

Also I think Mike makes a fair point about demographics... I really have no idea who downtown OKC is trying to attract.

I share your frustrations and I agree about the steep prices, MikeOKC. But here's my problem. What amenities are missing? What needs to be there?

Information is very valuable, especially in these cases. It's okay to vent, but your wasting your breath on OKC if you're not sharing what amenities are missing.

That's a very fair question, okcpulse. Here's just a few examples comparing to what we just looked at in KC.

Walgreen's - There's 2 downtown. One down from one of the Marriott's on Holmes and another the other direction on Broadway.

CVS: There's one right below one of the condos we look at at 912 Main Street and another on the other side of downtown on Independence.

There's several grocery stores: One of the biggest being a Hy-Vee on State Line. Oh, and a Whole Foods on Main Street.

Many restaurants that were open late, some chains, but many nice little independent restaurants, including a delicious Italian place we ate at on Troost.

Trolleys running back and forth from Power & Light District which is Bricktown on steroids. Many other dining and nightlife options there.

There were two bookstores. One was a used.mixed and the other was a Walden's Express Bookstore.

There was a Family Dollar and a Dollar General both. I know they're not Neiman Marcus but are enormously convenient for little things that you just need at a moment's notice.

I'm sure I'll think of more, but even the above stores gives you a feeling of not having to drive out of the urban core to get basic things at reasonable prices. Having the drug stores, (especially Walgreen's) is nice when if you take away the pharmacy, they are basically like old TG&Y stores, lots of variety merchandise. You have basically four major pharmacies and two right in the city core around all the living and hotels.

I hope that gives you some idea of what I meant by amenities. It was actually a very good question and I should have elaborated in my first post.

The Harvey Lofts in Midtown were near your price range. I'm pretty sure they sold out, but might hit the market from time-to-time. Not exactly downtown, but close.

And here's what others are saying:
Brown's Bakery and Prairie Thunder Baking Co: We need more customers and people who will come week after week, not just every once in a while.
Sage: We need more and more customers to clean off our grocery shelves.
Nonnas, Mickey Mantle's, The Mantle, Tratoria il Centro, Red Prime (Tuck correct me if I'm wrong): We need people to quit going to the national chains and make our upscale eateries their No. 1 pick every time they want to go out for a great evening.
The ethnic restaurants (The Olive Branch Cafe, Thai Kitchen) want more adventuresome folks to come and try out their great food.
And the museums - yeah, they want all of you to quit saying how much you love them and plan to visit again, and instead actually come in for each new exhibit. And the shops - the Painted Door and Oklahoma's Red Dirt Emporium - they need more of you to make them a first stop for buying gifts for birthdays, holidays, etc.
It's a two-way street dismayed. And if you want more of all this, forgive me for asking, and I hope you can make me eat crow ... but how many of these places have you visited in the past six months?

It's pretty much the same thing here in Austin, the efficiency sized ones were priced about 180,000 and the sky's the limit from there. From what I can gather on the Austin forums is the bulk of them are in the 260,000-340,000 range. That doesn't include the new tallest under construction (The Austonian (http://www.theaustonian.com/)) which starts at around 500,000 (1,200 sf) and goes up to the several millions. It seems that downtown developers only care about the high end, there needs to be much more of a spread instead you are just creating vertical gated communities.

I've heard that bluedog. The comparison ends though when we think about how far along Austin's downtown is compared to Oklahoma City. One could argue the downtown can command those prices because a lot of amenities are there and the rooftops (chicken or the egg thing) isn't an issue so much as Oklahoma City. Here, we need people downtown and not just a few people with high incomes, but a lot of rooftops that build the critical mass to attract things we need. I understand the chicken or the egg problem, but that's just an argument to get people moving downtown!

Great city, Austin, by the way. I love it. I have a cousin who lives in Round Rock and wants to move closer in. I know traffic can be a bear.

MikeOKC-I agree with everything you have said but I also think Steve has made some excellent points. Too many people in OKC think of downtown as a field trip, maybe they go to a Thunder game a couple of times a year, the symphony once, Bricktown when they have visitors in town, and they think that is sufficient. A high percentage of OKC residents never go downtown. I do think it has something to do with how sprawling OKC is - a huge percentage of the population lives 20, 30, 45 minutes from downtown and they don't work down there because their companies abandoned it a long time ago. I am familiar with KC (I live in STL) and know that the central part of that city is just much more dense. I have had urban developer friends (in STL) tell me that high-end condos are generally the first residential options built when a downtown area starts to gentrify. Perhaps the national recession clipped OKC's wings before the second wave got going, in which case there may be some more options in the coming years. I know that doesn't help you in the here and now.

Austin has the same issues, there is a CVS and the Whole Foods HQ store but other than that there is restaurants and clubs, no "real" shopping, that is the gripe of many who want an HEB downtown. Many of the boutique stores that opened a few years ago have closed up. There are more than OKC but it also got a big boost by the (Silicon Valley) Californians moving here here who thought 1,100sf condos at 250-300 sf were a bargain. Most of the Texas "natives" that I know think the pricing is ridiculous even though they would like to live downtown. Right now it would be hard to live in downtown Austin without a vehicle.

The "chicken & egg" argument will always be around and it always seems to end up in a standstill. I still wish for the smaller, local shops to move in and do well, I really like that aspect of NYC and Boston, I still think a concentration of stores to be co-located and marketed like the Chelsea Market would help raise awareness of the local stores. With them kind of scattered around I think they tend to get lost. It seems everyone focuses on a national name to signal the "beginning" much like what Spaghetti Warehouse dod for Bricktown, but that was their model.

Most everyday living stores (like grocery & drug stores) wait until things are established and demographic patterns are set. If people "wait" they will never come. I went through the architect/developer seminar at Walgreens where they went into great detail about demographics and store locations, it was insightful. CVS has their location criteria (http://www.cvscaremarkrealty.com/new-location-criteria) online. People are going to have to move down there to get the retail back into downtown, that is just a fact of life in most places outside the major cities. It is just part of rebuilding the core.

I know there are other downtown living threads. However, a vibrant city forum should show multiple threads on the topic, as all questions aren't general.

My scenario is this: I live part time in Plano and part time in Oklahoma City. We decided to look at downtown OKC after a trip to Kansas City to look at their downtown/midtown offerings. We are prepared to buy a small, emphasis again, small downtown condo. I have $110,000.00 cash ready to drop. There is Nothing. Zip. Nada in downtown OKC. In downtown Kansas City, near numerous amenities, it's a matter of which do we pick? But we have family and strong ties to OKC and we wanted the urban lifestyle here, even if it's not as developed and vibrant. After two days of looking around and talking, the only thing that comes close is something for $65,000 way over on Classen. It's that Condo that looks completely out of place for the area and looks like a ski lodge in New Mexico, I can't remember the name.

What is going on when you can't find a studio condo or a very small one bedroom for a hundred grand in downtown Oklahoma City? It's not that they're not there, or close to being there, they're available at absurd prices in a downtown area with almost ZERO amenities (beyond the arts, theater, culture, etc.).

Where is a developer who could buy one of the smaller highrise buildings, make them studio - one bedroom sized (like what we saw tons of in KC) sell them for One Hundred Grand and make out like a bandit?

Instead, the real estate agent basically said as much, they are stupidly looking past young people and marketing at people who are 50+ and in his words, "It's hard to build an urban core neighborhood with those demographics." He was fully aware of what's available in other cities with the small "starter condos" that get people moving and living downtown and said "Oklahoma City is missing out by looking past the future and focusing on what's in it as "get rich quick" and that's marketing to people who buy even as "second homes!" Second homes? He said that there were/are a few in one particular place, but they are so small as to be laughable and as a matter of principle he didn't dare show them for other reasons as well. ???

I'm really just kind of blown away at what's in our pockets, ready to buy, and Oklahoma City, which must think it's Madison Avenue West, when in reality, there's less to bring a person downtown than other similar cities, has so little to offer except at very high prices. How can other cities manage these "starter condos" to bring a critical mass downtown manage to do it, and this city cannot? I'm just speechless after a full-day of looking at real estate.

So my question, does anyone know of a developer who is planning anything like I described above? Because, right now, downtown Oklahoma City is locking its future out; and I'm sure there's others, like us, who will move right along. I-35 holds many an attractive city and OKC prices downtown are just absurd.

By the way, when I called a friend in Denver in real estate to bitch and moan, I said, "And you see OKC on all these affordable lists!" He laughed and reminded me we've always been on those lists, even pre-maps, pre-Renaissance, whatever, because well, draw your own conclusion.

Sorry for the negative vibes, I'm just sad and disgruntled.


Not to be a pill, but this is the way things always work in this city. Always. There are a handful of developers that run the town. Usually, OKC misses the boat on forward-moving trends due to simple stupidity and greed.

What's weird is that we screw stuff up even when we know what we need to do. We just can't execute.

I'm beginning to think the positive improvement our city has witnessed the last few years is the result of simple dumb luck.

No, no, no...
I wrote about all this two years ago. Here's what they were thinking:

Why downtown condos cost $250,000

By Steve Lackmeyer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Edition: CITY, Section: BUSINESS, Page 4B

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the past two years, the question has lingered among those watching the emergence of housing in downtown Oklahoma City: "Why are so many of the new units priced at $250,000 and up?

Such pricing left a lot of young urban professionals who rent downtown frustrated. They could afford to jump from a $750 a month rental payment to a $1,000 condominium payment. But $1,000 a month doesn't get you past $200,000 without a hefty down payment.


It's not as if downtown developers haven't known all along about this pent-up demand. While they might make more money on a half-million-dollar condo, they would be assured a quick sale with units averaging $150,000. Yet in almost every major downtown development announced to date, the prices continue to hover at $350,000. The Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority, recently given a choice between a mixed-use development of lower-price condos and apartments versus high-price residential towers for MidTown, went with the upscale product.


Credit Brett Hamm, president of Downtown Oklahoma City Inc., for offering an explanation that sheds light on the question of high-price housing.


The slant toward higher-price housing isn't by coincidence — it is a grand conspiracy. Well, that's not exactly how Hamm worded it. But here's his take: you have to start somewhere. You can start with expensive housing in an area and then eventually add lower-price choices to the mix. But you can't start developing an area by building a lot of lower-price housing and then hope to add more expensive units later.


Downtown housing really was a blank slate as late as 2000. It was then that a study by Houston-based CDS Market Research reported 6,000 people desired to live in downtown Oklahoma City but their interests were thwarted by a lack of available housing. That was the match that lit the fuse.


Much of the development involves land controlled by the Urban Renewal Authority. The Hill, Block 42, The Centennial and now Overholser Greens all are Urban Renewal projects, all involving products generally priced north of $200,000. Also priced higher than $200,000, but developed privately, are the Brownstones at Maywood Park. On the other side of this equation are the Central Avenue Villas, the Harvey Lofts and the just announced Lofts at Maywood Park as developments offering at least half of their units below $200,000. But the number of higher-price units far out-number the ones that will be sought after by all those aspiring homeowners living in the Deep Deuce apartments.


And that's just fine with Hamm. One of the often-told rules of buying a home is to avoid the highest-price house on the block. Take that wisdom downtown and you can see why it's so important to get the high-end housing under way. You don't want to buy a $400,000 house surrounded by $150,000 homes. But who doesn't want to buy a $150,000 house surrounded by $400,000 homes?


Of course, the next question is whether all of this expensive housing downtown will sell. The results aren't quite in yet, but with The Centennial a virtual sell-out and half the units sold at Block 42, the grand conspiracy is far from a failure.

There is another option: Classen Glenn condos. They're in an area of MidTown that is on cusp but has its share of problems (you've seen it referred to as the Cottage District or SoSA). The condos feature an innovative award-winning design, but they include a mix of originals that had some finish problems when the 80s bust hit, and those who had buyers who fixed up such problems. Either way, from what I've heard, this may be the last good buy downtown.
On another note: I've asked this of another poster here as well. I want to do a story with people like yourself and get some answers. Please email me at slackmeyer@oklahoman.com.

Steve,

No offense, but the original poster refers to them in his thread, and he clearly hates them, saying they look out of place, are "way over on Classen," and look like a New Mexico ski condo.

It's pretty much the same thing here in Austin, the efficiency sized ones were priced about 180,000 and the sky's the limit from there. From what I can gather on the Austin forums is the bulk of them are in the 260,000-340,000 range. That doesn't include the new tallest under construction (The Austonian (http://www.theaustonian.com/)) which starts at around 500,000 (1,200 sf) and goes up to the several millions. It seems that downtown developers only care about the high end, there needs to be much more of a spread instead you are just creating vertical gated communities.

Bluedog, I realize those prices are outrageous, but at least downtown Austin offers a lot of cultural, dining, and even some shopping opportunities. At least there's a large market there for that kind of housing.

That said, the people who have been drawn to live in those pricey condos provide virtually zero street life. I was shocked how quiet it was in the 'hood beneath that massive condo tower.

Message received Sooner and this became apparent in a follow-up post. I didn't realize he was referring to Classen Glenn. I've never seen ski lifts in New Mexico.

No, no, no...
I wrote about all this two years ago. Here's what they were thinking:

Why downtown condos cost $250,000

By Steve Lackmeyer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Edition: CITY, Section: BUSINESS, Page 4B

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the past two years, the question has lingered among those watching the emergence of housing in downtown Oklahoma City: "Why are so many of the new units priced at $250,000 and up?

Such pricing left a lot of young urban professionals who rent downtown frustrated. They could afford to jump from a $750 a month rental payment to a $1,000 condominium payment. But $1,000 a month doesn't get you past $200,000 without a hefty down payment.


It's not as if downtown developers haven't known all along about this pent-up demand. While they might make more money on a half-million-dollar condo, they would be assured a quick sale with units averaging $150,000. Yet in almost every major downtown development announced to date, the prices continue to hover at $350,000. The Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority, recently given a choice between a mixed-use development of lower-price condos and apartments versus high-price residential towers for MidTown, went with the upscale product.


Credit Brett Hamm, president of Downtown Oklahoma City Inc., for offering an explanation that sheds light on the question of high-price housing.


The slant toward higher-price housing isn't by coincidence — it is a grand conspiracy. Well, that's not exactly how Hamm worded it. But here's his take: you have to start somewhere. You can start with expensive housing in an area and then eventually add lower-price choices to the mix. But you can't start developing an area by building a lot of lower-price housing and then hope to add more expensive units later.


Downtown housing really was a blank slate as late as 2000. It was then that a study by Houston-based CDS Market Research reported 6,000 people desired to live in downtown Oklahoma City but their interests were thwarted by a lack of available housing. That was the match that lit the fuse.


Much of the development involves land controlled by the Urban Renewal Authority. The Hill, Block 42, The Centennial and now Overholser Greens all are Urban Renewal projects, all involving products generally priced north of $200,000. Also priced higher than $200,000, but developed privately, are the Brownstones at Maywood Park. On the other side of this equation are the Central Avenue Villas, the Harvey Lofts and the just announced Lofts at Maywood Park as developments offering at least half of their units below $200,000. But the number of higher-price units far out-number the ones that will be sought after by all those aspiring homeowners living in the Deep Deuce apartments.


And that's just fine with Hamm. One of the often-told rules of buying a home is to avoid the highest-price house on the block. Take that wisdom downtown and you can see why it's so important to get the high-end housing under way. You don't want to buy a $400,000 house surrounded by $150,000 homes. But who doesn't want to buy a $150,000 house surrounded by $400,000 homes?


Of course, the next question is whether all of this expensive housing downtown will sell. The results aren't quite in yet, but with The Centennial a virtual sell-out and half the units sold at Block 42, the grand conspiracy is far from a failure.

Steve,

Hamm, hardly an expert on building great downtown residential neighborhoods, provided this information years ago. Things have changed since then.

This development strategy appears to be failing. Why?

Perhaps there are only so many "second homes" folks, or "empty nesters" in Edmond, willing to overpay for real estate.

The pricing of these pads is sheer fiction. It's not grounded in reality. Anyone who would pay rack rate for, say, Maywood Park or The Hill, obviously has more money than brains.

Our city leaders have moved too slowly on this, and speed kills. We are YEARS away from developing the critical mass necessary for a basic downtown neighborhood. And this process is prolonging it, stupidly. Why not address the largest potential market of buyers now?

Just think, if they had teed up more mid-price options, all of these young professionals could be buying them with the $8000 new buyer stimulus credit. This is a stupid lost opportunity. Shall we tell it like it is?

And, finally, a question: has The Hill managed to sell a single unit yet?

Urban Renewal has proven itself to be a ruinous cancer. Every move they make turns to **** before our eyes.

I lived at Classen glen many years ago. The might sell for what they orginally sold for.... Might being the operative word here. Yes they are dated back to the eighties which is when they were built. But I do agee that if SOSA of Midtown gets a view more redeveloped properties in place this could become a hot area. Timing is everything.

And here's what others are saying:
Brown's Bakery and Prairie Thunder Baking Co: We need more customers and people who will come week after week, not just every once in a while.
Sage: We need more and more customers to clean off our grocery shelves.
Nonnas, Mickey Mantle's, The Mantle, Tratoria il Centro, Red Prime (Tuck correct me if I'm wrong): We need people to quit going to the national chains and make our upscale eateries their No. 1 pick every time they want to go out for a great evening.
The ethnic restaurants (The Olive Branch Cafe, Thai Kitchen) want more adventuresome folks to come and try out their great food.
And the museums - yeah, they want all of you to quit saying how much you love them and plan to visit again, and instead actually come in for each new exhibit. And the shops - the Painted Door and Oklahoma's Red Dirt Emporium - they need more of you to make them a first stop for buying gifts for birthdays, holidays, etc.
It's a two-way street dismayed. And if you want more of all this, forgive me for asking, and I hope you can make me eat crow ... but how many of these places have you visited in the past six months?

That seems rather personal and rude to me. Yes, I'm very fortunate and I often eat out twice a day every day for months on end. I've hit many of the places you've just listed, even though I don't live in that area.

I'm going to try to say this in a way that doesn't specifically identify the businesses above... but honestly, some of the places you mention I go to and I wonder why I even bother. If it weren't for the fact that they are locally owned I probably never would return. One place in particular... I am always astounded at the poor quality and taste of the food. Another, I am shocked that their wait staff regularly ignores customers who step foot in their business.

Maybe my expectations are too high, but we need more places that really care about the quality of the product and experience like Nonnas. It's the one place down there that I go to and think, you know this is starting to get into that class of restaurant that is shared by the likes of Emeril Legasse's or Masuharu Morimoto's places, to which I have been. I've spent a lot of money at Nonnas during a single setting, so yeah of course it is going to be good... it better be. But I've done the same at at least one other place you listed above, that is supposedly "nice" and "swanky," and frankly the food was abysmal.

I think a lot of what you listed is of those businesses' own doings.

If you're going to be in an area that has no residential population nearby, you darn well better have fantastic service and even better food. That's just the way it is.

It's also the reason I want to see more of everything downtown. Maybe a bit of competition would do downtown some good. Don't you agree?

Just one other thing I should note, I have looked at selling my house and moving downtown just about every year for the past several years. Price has not been the issue, the issue has been "livability." We really just need more amenities in the core. Unfortunately it is probably a Catch 22, people have to move downtown in order for business to appear, but people don't want to move down there until businesses and people appear.

I moved in shortly after Deep Deuce was built. All of these issue do stem from a "chicken/egg" problem. There is an opportunity that seems to absolutely never gain traction even though I bring it up often- even on this blog. We still have several undeveloped Urban Renewal super blocks. How much does it actually (raw cost) to build a home today. My guess is between $80,000 and $140,000.

My idea is not complicated. Subdivide an Urban Renewal super block into single or double lots. Write a design overlay for the superblock. Offer the lots to individuals for redevelopment.

Home owners can hire architects of their choice as long as the design falls within the overlay requirement thus approved by a committee similar to Urban Design.

You get to build the house for the price and the ammenities you want as long as the committee will approve it. Just think, the architect is the broker to YOUR dreams rather than some mega developer "shall I name names?" lol

For good measure have a home owners covenant for the district for regular maintenance.

Blocks available at 13th/Walker, Shartel/4th, Sheridan/Walker. From talking with Joe Van, what they lack is the staff to handle the presumed quantity of applications/contracts.

Imagine, your own space, your own budget, your own design.

maybe i'm wrong, but i thought that sycamore whatever place had units in the low 100's. but it is kind of like old-ish. oh my

Steve,

Hamm, hardly an expert on building great downtown residential neighborhoods, provided this information years ago. Things have changed since then.

This development strategy appears to be failing. Why?

Perhaps there are only so many "second homes" folks, or "empty nesters" in Edmond, willing to overpay for real estate.

The pricing of these pads is sheer fiction. It's not grounded in reality. Anyone who would pay rack rate for, say, Maywood Park or The Hill, obviously has more money than brains.



Some of your points are well taken. There may be only so many "empty nesters" willing to "overpay" for real estate. But there may be some obvious factors why.

As one of the people who apparently has more money than brains, who has built several homes, it's pretty obvious to me that you don't get build-block construction, slate roofs, copper guttering, heat pumps, all brick and cast stone construction and high end interiors for nothing. At the time these were priced, $200 a square foot was a reasonable asking price. Houses in Nichols Hills and Edmond were selling for $300-$400 a square foot. It's a fallacy to look only at square feet when estimating what prices should be. Also, moving downtown is a new concept for middle and upper middle class individuals, empty nesters or not. Clearly, it's going to take time for people to see the advantage. I talk to a lot of people who are fascinated by the concept, but nervous about making that kind of move.

People who want to pay $100 a square foot have to be willing to live in stick built units with a different finish out, as the above amentities cannot all be included at that price point.

The economy has stalled what sounded like a very reasonable plan for a diverse range of price points in Maywood Park, with the Leslie being the next project, and one which would make downtown living more affordable. If people truly want to live downtown, and that's their price range, they need to talk to the developers, put their money where their mouth is and reserve a unit. Until the economy improves, I suspect nothing will be built that doesn't have a reasonable number of pre-sales.

Doesn't the market set the price? To complain about the cost due to lack of amenities doesn't make sense to me unless the owners are just not renting or something. If the units are making money, doesn't that mean that they aren't overpriced?

If it isn't worth it to someone to spend that much, go elsewhere. To say OKC just isn't worth it as compared to someplace else makes about as much sense to me as just getting aggravated because I can't afford to live in particular neighborhood. If something is overpriced, don't pay it. If something is truly overpriced, the cost will come down or it will sit, empty.

That's a very fair question, okcpulse. Here's just a few examples comparing to what we just looked at in KC.

Walgreen's - There's 2 downtown. One down from one of the Marriott's on Holmes and another the other direction on Broadway.

CVS: There's one right below one of the condos we look at at 912 Main Street and another on the other side of downtown on Independence.

There's several grocery stores: One of the biggest being a Hy-Vee on State Line. Oh, and a Whole Foods on Main Street.

Many restaurants that were open late, some chains, but many nice little independent restaurants, including a delicious Italian place we ate at on Troost.

Trolleys running back and forth from Power & Light District which is Bricktown on steroids. Many other dining and nightlife options there.

There were two bookstores. One was a used.mixed and the other was a Walden's Express Bookstore.

There was a Family Dollar and a Dollar General both. I know they're not Neiman Marcus but are enormously convenient for little things that you just need at a moment's notice.

I'm sure I'll think of more, but even the above stores gives you a feeling of not having to drive out of the urban core to get basic things at reasonable prices. Having the drug stores, (especially Walgreen's) is nice when if you take away the pharmacy, they are basically like old TG&Y stores, lots of variety merchandise. You have basically four major pharmacies and two right in the city core around all the living and hotels.

I hope that gives you some idea of what I meant by amenities. It was actually a very good question and I should have elaborated in my first post.

Okay, I see what you are getting at. And this is a problem happening in OKC where it's hard to tell where to point the finger. My feelings are to point the finger at both retailers and developers. All of the amenities you mentioned exist over on NW 23rd. Bookstores are a couple of more miles out at Penn Square. My best guess goes to traffic counts, because the immediate neighborhoods along NW 23rd can support Dollar Tree, at best.

My problem with retailers is this... they look at OKC, and a few weeks later we are suddenly a demographic that can't support this or support that. On what criteria do they rely? What are the prerequisites that OKC must meet? They never share that information. It's frustrating.

Then there are the developers. Inept and inaggressive.

Steve,

Hamm, hardly an expert on building great downtown residential neighborhoods, provided this information years ago. Things have changed since then.

This development strategy appears to be failing. Why?

Perhaps there are only so many "second homes" folks, or "empty nesters" in Edmond, willing to overpay for real estate.

The pricing of these pads is sheer fiction. It's not grounded in reality. Anyone who would pay rack rate for, say, Maywood Park or The Hill, obviously has more money than brains.

Our city leaders have moved too slowly on this, and speed kills. We are YEARS away from developing the critical mass necessary for a basic downtown neighborhood. And this process is prolonging it, stupidly. Why not address the largest potential market of buyers now?

Just think, if they had teed up more mid-price options, all of these young professionals could be buying them with the $8000 new buyer stimulus credit. This is a stupid lost opportunity. Shall we tell it like it is?

And, finally, a question: has The Hill managed to sell a single unit yet?

Urban Renewal has proven itself to be a ruinous cancer. Every move they make turns to **** before our eyes.

Good points all, Sooner. I only posted the column to show the thinking process that was underway at the time. As for The Hill - I don't think so. But there are a lot of issues involved with that development that go beyond sales.

soonerguru, well said!!

khook, many owners at Classen Glen have fixed up their units and they are selling for well more than original price. They range from $30,000-$116K right now. Oh, and MikeOKC, I sold my snowboard last week....

The Harvey Lofts in Midtown were near your price range. I'm pretty sure they sold out, but might hit the market from time-to-time. Not exactly downtown, but close.

There are two Harvey Loft units for sale right now. One happens to be mine, which is 1,300 sq. ft. I'm asking $175K for mine. The other is around 1,050 sq. ft. and the price is $180K.

I've always had an issue with attitude of civic leaders expressed in the column posted by Steve.

Of course developers are going to want to build units at the high end because 1) that's more prestigous and 2) it's potentially more profitable.

But as guru pointed out, that now seems very much like a failed strategy. There is now a track record and here's what we know: The less expensive and rental units are all full/sold and the expensive units are almost completely floundering.

Yet, when the city does get involved in redevelopment and have choices to make, they consistently choose the expensive residential-only at the expense of mixed-use and affordable.

Time to stop promoting the idea that the first movers need to be at the high end because that is clearly not the case in OKC. We need urban pioneers at this stage and those people are going to look a lot like those already renting at the Montgomery, Deep Deuce and the Park Harvey.

It's not a coincidence that when you look at the current developments, the first units to go are the cheapest ones. THAT is clearly the market for downtown living at this point and OCURA and other city leaders need to promote that concept rather than keep furthering the myth of wealthy "empty nesters".

I've always had an issue with attitude of civic leaders expressed in the column posted by Steve.

Of course developers are going to want to build units at the high end because 1) that's more prestigous and 2) it's potentially more profitable.

But as guru pointed out, that now seems very much like a failed strategy. There is now a track record and here's what we know: The less expensive and rental units are all full/sold and the expensive units are almost completely floundering.

Yet, when the city does get involved in redevelopment and have choices to make, they consistently choose the expensive residential-only at the expense of mixed-use and affordable.

Time to stop promoting the idea that the first movers need to be at the high end because that is clearly not the case in OKC. We need urban pioneers at this stage and those people are going to look a lot like those already renting at the Montgomery, Deep Deuce and the Park Harvey.

It's not a coincidence that when you look at the current developments, the first units to go are the cheapest ones. THAT is clearly the market for downtown living at this point and OCURA and other city leaders need to promote that concept rather than keep furthering the myth of wealthy "empty nesters".

The more I think about it, the more Hamm's approach seems backward. In big cities, the opposite seems to occur. Young, forward-thinking hipsters and urban professionals "discover" a neighborhood (usually cheap enough for hipsters and artists) and move in. Then, gentrification occurs. Once the neighborhood has become "hip," prices go up, often astronomically, eventually forcing the hipsters to move to new environs.

In urban settings, the "high end" rarely if ever dictates hipness and appeal. Rather, the "high end" folks move into an area once it has already happened and become "safe."

Such a process rarely happens in OKC, because we have so much available land and little density. But we can all cite examples of neighborhoods in our city that have improved after urban pioneers moved in and began gentrifying them.

One other point...

I fully realize it's hard for developers to make money on these less-expensive units.

But that's exactly the purpose of OCURA... To be the civic arm that acquires and provides incentives to get these areas jump-started.

You have to have people before you have amenities and as has been demonstrated, very few people are going to pay $500,000+ for a condo where you still have to get into your car and drive everywhere.

What few amenities exist today are completely due to the younger people that have taken a chance and moved downtown without much really being there for a resident.

We need many more before we can expect a grocer or even a Walgreens. And OCURA and our civic leaders should recognize this and start putting their efforts into affordable lofts until such a time we have critical mass.

:bright_id Bravo! Well said soonerguru!!!!!

:bright_id Bravo! Well said soonerguru!!!!!

Agreed.

Too bad we can't snap our fingers and have a "Hunt family" or some such wealthy entity just come out and build a couple of projects to "prime the pump" for downtown residences. I have always thought the best area for this type of thing is up around 13th street bordering the big houses to the north and downtown to the south.

You know, I guess it's too much to ask to have OCURA members take a trip to Williamsburg in Brooklyn, or Noe Valley in San Fran, or even the "West Village" in Dallas. These are all neighborhoods that are thriving due to a gentrification model that is starkly different from anything our leaders have pursued. They all began with hipsters and young professionals moving in and transforming the neighborhoods. Then, once a critical mass of success was achieved, the high end was drawn and more expensive developments took off.

Once the neighborhood has become "hip," prices go up, often astronomically, eventually forcing the hipsters to move to new environs.

Sooo true. Look at any other city and you'll countless examples of this.

The big difference in OKC is there is almost no existing infrastructure. And what little we have is so scattered no one neighborhood can really take hold.

That's why OCURA and the city in general needs to facilitate this type of growth and stop choosing projects like The Hill and Overholser Green.

The big difference in OKC is there is almost no existing infrastructure. And what little we have is so scattered no one neighborhood can really take hold.

That is dead on. In many of the cases I cited, older building were rehabbed and repurposed, not built from scratch. Still, we have areas like Film Row and further west on Main Street that are dilapidated, but could provide the foundation for a transformative new neighborhood setting.

And the further point is made: quality developments that offer a mix of price points could be a middle road strategy where such existing infrastructure is lacking.

Another strategy would be to build large shells with the ability to combine/subdivide space as demand dictated.

But the bottom line is we don't have the buildings in place for the less affluent urban pioneers to occupy. Sadly, they have to be built first and that's why we can't get a ground-swell moving.

I have absolutely no doubt there is plenty of demand for $80 - $150K units. And truthfully, given that you can buy houses just a few minutes away for those prices, that's where the price points should be at.

The more I think about it, the more Hamm's approach seems backward. In big cities, the opposite seems to occur. Young, forward-thinking hipsters and urban professionals "discover" a neighborhood (usually cheap enough for hipsters and artists) and move in. Then, gentrification occurs. Once the neighborhood has become "hip," prices go up, often astronomically, eventually forcing the hipsters to move to new environs.

In urban settings, the "high end" rarely if ever dictates hipness and appeal. Rather, the "high end" folks move into an area once it has already happened and become "safe."

Such a process rarely happens in OKC, because we have so much available land and little density. But we can all cite examples of neighborhoods in our city that have improved after urban pioneers moved in and began gentrifying them.

These points and Pete's are all very good ones.

You can just FEEL the demand for lower-priced lofts and condos... Lots of people on this board have talked about wanting to own downtown and knowing lots of others that feel the same.

And regarding the empty nesters, not all of them are looking for luxury. My oldest sister and her husband just had their last son go off to college... They've been in Yukon for the low cost of living and good schools for about 20 years now, but really want to be in Midtown or downtown. But there is no way they are going to spend $400K to do so... Or every $250K. Especially when the house they already own isn't worth nearly that.

Many people in this age group are looking to retire and down-size. Who retires and moves to a much more expensive home?

I think we should start a letter writing campaign to the developers and the city about OCURA. It's time to stop them in their tracks and force them to pull their head out of their a$$.

It is funny to think that the origin of SOHO in New York was from starving artists converting buildings to affordable live/work spaces.

Now, the word SOHO has become synonymous with "really expensive loft apartments."

That seems to be the model our and other cities are going after. "How do we get the really super expensive loft apartments?"

As SOHO's own history proves, this is exactly the antithesis of why SOHO even exists. It was actually a cheaper, more run-down area where artists could afford to move in and transform.

Not just SOHO, but Chelsea, the Meatpacking District, The Tenderloin, TriBeCa, etc.

You could list similar neighborhoods in virtually any city and the common denominator is that urban pioneers (usually the creative class) moved in first, then the gentrification came later.

There is simply no place for the creative class to take root in central OKC, except perhaps The Paseo. And even that is over two miles from downtown and really nowhere near the museums and other cultural amenities.

The Paseo is a short bike ride from downtown. There are lots of cheap/rundown areas around Mesta Park or on the N border of Heritage Hills that fit the bill.

As a young professional, I would love to live downtown. I was priced out of the market.

I think we should start a letter writing campaign to the developers and the city about OCURA. It's time to stop them in their tracks and force them to pull their head out of their a$$.

I agree, let's get an email blitz going. It has worked in the past on a few issues.


Not just SOHO, but Chelsea, the Meatpacking District, The Tenderloin, TriBeCa, etc.

You could list similar neighborhoods in virtually any city and the common denominator is that urban pioneers (usually the creative class) moved in first, then the gentrification came later.

There is simply no place for the creative class to take root in central OKC, except perhaps The Paseo. And even that is over two miles from downtown and really nowhere near the museums and other cultural amenities.

While a valid point, the "Cottage District aka SOSA" really has this potential, as most properties are well under $100K. Parts of MidTown do as well. As soon as we get a decent mass transit system, the inner core is going to explode.

metro check again on the orginal classen glenn prices - the one bedroom with lofts sold for 60K when they first opened. They now go for 45K. per unit. The east building sold units at 160K back in the eighties and the most recent unit sold for 105K (april 2009). AS PER the ASSESOR OFFICE ( So your figures don't add up. The units are still not selling for what they sold for pre-oil bust days.

But my point was- yes- this area does contain the most potiential for appreciation if (and I do mean the big IF) new creative visions and developements are allowed to be generated and BUILT in that area. And I agree with soonerguru the creative people are the ones that will make the area fun - safe - and hot - but only if the their visions are allowed to be created.

The Paseo is a short bike ride from downtown. There are lots of cheap/rundown areas around Mesta Park or on the N border of Heritage Hills that fit the bill.

As a young professional, I would love to live downtown. I was priced out of the market.

I had to settle for J-Park, like many young professionals in this city.

khook, I'm well aware of many of the pre/post prices. I'm on the HOA board there. The ones selling now for $105-$116K have been gutted and modernized comparable to the newer units downtown. The majority of the ones with lofts are 2 bed -2 story plus a loft. Several of the original owners still own their units or live at the property. I have never heard of anyone paying $160K ever for a unit there, let alone they'd have to be stark crazy to pay that in the late eighties. I would love for you to send me a link to one on the Oklahoma County Assessor's site that sold for that much.

Back to agreeing, the area is being dubbed SOSA and many modern developments are under works in the area, and even the single family houses in the neighborhood are very affordable (under $100K), so anyone saying they wan't to live downtown but can't afford it, isn't willing to take a big enough risk. They basically want the higher end stuff, but want the low end price. As others stated above, that's not how it works. The SoSA area is similar to other cities in that it's where people are taking the risk because they can't afford the 350K plus condos.

.
I have absolutely no doubt there is plenty of demand for $80 - $150K units. And truthfully, given that you can buy houses just a few minutes away for those prices, that's where the price points should be at.

what should people expect in a condo at that price point? sq ft... amenities... finishes?

reasonably for a 150K can you expect more than a 900 sq ft 2/1 with basic finishes?

i agree the new construction options do a disservice in getting people to move downtown. but when i hear people complain on this board about prices, it seems they want to take the sq footage and price of a house in moore and get the same thing in a condo downtown.

what should people expect in a condo at that price point? sq ft... amenities... finishes?

reasonably for a 150K can you expect more than a 900 sq ft 2/1 with basic finishes?

i agree the new construction options do a disservice in getting people to move downtown. but when i hear people complain on this board about prices, it seems they want to take the sq footage and price of a house in moore and get the same thing in a condo downtown.

I don't think people expect a three bedroom, 1800 square foot home. Surely there's a middle ground between a quarter million dollar one bedroom and a 2,000 square footer for $150k.

One way to keep prices down and still provide a decent amount of space would be to provide units in different states of finish and allow the new owners to take it from there.

For example, a very basic bathroom could be provided that the owners could upgrade themselves over time. Or just provide the plumbing and electrical for a kitchen and let people buy their own cabinets and appliances... You can get that stuff pretty cheaply at Lowes or HD.

Polished concrete floors, exposed ductwork, very basic light fixtures, few walls, etc.


The rub is that developers make most their money on these add-ons.

One way to keep prices down and still provide a decent amount of space would be to provide units in different states of finish and allow the new owners to take it from there.

For example, a very basic bathroom could be provided that the owners could upgrade themselves over time. Or just provide the plumbing and electrical for a kitchen and let people buy their own cabinets and appliances... You can get that stuff pretty cheaply at Lowes or HD.

Polished concrete floors, exposed ductwork, very basic light fixtures, few walls, etc.
I still think there are enough existing buildings in the downtown/near downtown area that could be converted to loft style residential buildings for something other than a high end price.

Many of the residents that first moved into downtown Austin were apartment dwellers. There have been a few small high end condo buildings built before the condo boom here but what really got the ball rolling was some nice, but not super high end apartments. In fact one of the new towers (The Monarch) was built as apartments but the AMLI apartments in the Second Street area was the catalyst for the new boom, most tended to be the single, younger crowd that couldn't afford the high end condos like The Nokonah (11 stories) where some UT coaches and the late Gov. Ann Richards lived.



The rub is that developers make most their money on these add-ons.
I did some work with a Centex division, add-ons were their highest margin items, of course when they were financing the house and then selling off the loans, their incentive was always to sell add-ons.

I am in Bellevue, WA (developed suburb of Seattle) tonight on business, so I checked on prices downtown Bellevue. You would be hard pressed to find a downtown condo for under $500-600/ft. I am familiar with several of the condo projects in Austin as I am in the commercial construction business and I can tell you OKC downtown is still fair compared to Austin. Sometimes I think we in OKC are totally out of touch as to what prices really are in most of the US. Why do we always want it for free? And why do you expect a businessman to open a business if you won't go regularly and pay fair prices? Why do you expect them to lose money so the city can develop the way YOU want it.