My latest guest blogger is being brutally open about how he sees things being done downtown.

Man, brutal but as far as I am concerned, spot on. I've long found the lack of emphesis on rentals Downtown distressing. Everyone likes to talk about these retail districts and dream stores to come in but without people actually living down there it will never be realized. In our market, rentals just make a lot more sense. Me and my wife are perfect examples. We would live downtown in a heartbeat. Being in our late 20's both with good professional employment and no kids, we are almost the perfect downtown tenants. However, in this market for that kind of money we could have a nice "historic" home with twice the square footage, close proximaty to groceries, services, etc. And with only older wealthier people moving in downtown, you'd have a lot hipper neighbors in the inner city. The other thing I'm glad to see addessed is the infill issue. I agree that core to shore is getting ahead of ourselves. Why don't we try and build 1 walkable district that someone would actually want to walk through before we start taking on yet another vast empty plot of land downtown. The closest we have right now is Bricktown and to a lesser extent midtown. Both of these places offer little to anyone other than dining and drinking. I think if we started filling in some of these empty spaces with rentals and get some beating hearts down there, the rest would kind of take care of itself. Maybe we'd get retail offering or even begging to come in rather than us having to "pitch" it to them.

Lots of common sense from Belanger:


We conducted a market study of 14 peer cities that had neither sexy mountains nor shorelines and found that each had between 2 percent and 8 percent of their MSAs’ population within the urban core. At the low end for OKC, that math translates to 24,000 people. Even counting the Jail, we are under 2,000 today

Just shows how far we have yet to go. People clamoring for a grocery store downtown need to read this a few times.

Also, he's echoing the growing sentiment of many on the board, which is that the Core 2 Shore stuff is too soon and bound to fail if we clear out big areas with MAPS 3 and then expect development to follow -- at least any time in the near future.


His take on the need for more rental units is interesting, but also makes a lot of sense. It's the one type of housing that has done well thus far.

He has his own agenda. Not exactly a neutral party.

Of course he has his own agenda. Sooner, there is no such thing as a neutral party on all this.

It's a Catch-22 in that I've heard from a lot of people that they don't want to move downtown until there is a grocery store, pharmacy, Target-like store and yet these stores don't see the demographics there allowing them to locate near the CBD. I think if you live downtown you have to be creative in your shopping. Most of us go north a few times a week for other things, and so it's easy to pick up what you need at that time. It would be nice to have a market that would allow one to buy fresh food for dinner, but still, with good planning, it's not that big of an issue. And 23rd St., as well as Classen provide a lot of the other requirements.

Neutral parties don't have that sort of insight. And to be fair, he's worked his tail off to try and get a variety of projects done downtown.

I respect the fact he was frank and named names.

His comments about The Hill and OCURA were particularly interesting. I don't mean to wish misfortune upon anyone but that one big failure may finally force some needed change in both personnel and attitudes.

I didn't think it was brutal at all. Why not make The Leslie for rent? Does that violate an OCURA requirement?

Of course he has his own agenda. Sooner, there is no such thing as a neutral party on all this.

I didn't mean for it to come across so harshly. His opinion is valid and warranted, and, in rereading his blog, he does make many excellent points.

Unfortunately, I get the idea he's really pushing rental housing only due to the failures of many of these overpriced projects (and I've never liked the look of The Hill aesthetically).

Is there no middle ground in this discussion? Does it have to be overpriced condos or rentals only? Can't there be some entry and midlevel to-own properties?

Yeah, I think the combination of more rental units and entry-level condos makes the most sense. You'll get a lot of renters eventually wanting to own in the same area.

But part of what he's saying is that apartments are much easier to get financed these days. Condos won't get built without lots of pre-sales and that's hard to do when you don't have anything people can physically see.

I agree with him, like I stated in the "buying downtown" thread that new apartments in Downtown Austin was really the catalyst to get the residential towers (one rental, the rest condo) that are built or being finished. There are many who would like to live downtown and for various reasons may not be able to finance a condo but can afford rent while they are building towards a time at which they can buy, especially in the current financial environment.

I also agree with his assessment that OKC has never been much of a condo market whereas many of the Texas cities have been for good and bad. In this part of the country lenders are more apprehensive to loan on condos than they are on detached single family homes in large part because they are traditionally a harder sell should they have to foreclose on them. My wife works for a non-profit doing affordable housing assistance and accessibility modifications, in the past they have had some lenders who were more critical of financing a condo than they were a single family home because of past experiences with them.

It is a chicken/egg thing, if people want the support stores to locate downtown they are going to have to move in first and just put up with having to drive somewhere to get groceries and such to get the demographics to a point where they will move in. Austin has a bit more of that support downtown but most of the downtown dwellers that I know still have to venture out of the core to buy some of the basics. People are just going to have to commit to the lifestyle to see results, stores don't move in based off the hope that something will grow, if they do they typically don't last long enough to reap the rewards.

Saying condos have not done well in OKC is an understatement.

The only ones I can think of that sold quickly (apart from The Centennial) are really more patio homes than condos; developments like The Waterford and Saint Martins that drew mainly retirees that want to park in an attached, private garage and live behind closed gates.

On the other hand I can list dozens of projects all over town that have completely floundered -- many have gone rental.


Here's an honest question: Has Oklahoma City EVER had a successful condominium project? (As opposed to townhomes and garden homes.)

Yep. There are plenty in the suburbs that have done well - far more than I can name.

Please name a couple.

Jamestown (I think that's the name) along NW 63 east of Penn, there's a condo development at Memorial Road east of Broadway that got expanded twice this past decade - a friend lived there and made a nice profit selling her unit, condos in Quail Creek (west side), and in the heart of downtown, the Sycamore Square condos have done quite well this past decade or so. Now if these don't fit your definition of condos, then I'm a bit perplexed as to what does.

Pete, I just know you're delaying responding here because you're furiously googling each project to prove I don't know a damn thing. Which of course is always a possibility.

Actually, I know all about all the projects because I looked at condos extensively all through the 80's and was in the real estate business. I promise not to use Google once on this topic (unless we just can't figure something other and need to look it up).

Not familiar with the ones on Memorial east of Broadway so they must be newer.

Another possible example is Nantucket on Britton east of May -- this was the first of a series of projects by Charles Givens but really the only one that could be considered condos. But I could just as easily point out the Hemingway, which was largely empty for several years after completion. I think they may have rented some of the units for a while.

But I would say, with the possible exception of Jamestown (west of May) which I believe are townhouses anyway, all those other developments were pretty disastrous for years on end.

The ones in Quail Creek may have even gone back to the lender at one point and Sycamore Square was a disaster anyway you slice it. I remember going to look at them when they were only a couple of years old and they still hadn't sold but a few of them... And of course, had to convert the southern complex to rental and it remains that way today.


My point is that there is almost no track record for profitable condo development in Oklahoma City. It seems we try a flurry of development every ten years or so only to experience wide-spread failures.

Off the top my head, I could name a dozen projects that were catastrophic failures and I'm really struggling to come up with any exceptions.

Well hell, wasn't everything here a disaster in the 1980s?

But I'm not just talking about the 80's... The 90's the 00's, even the 70's... Don't think there was anything before then.

And remember, there were long periods of the 70's and early 80's that were just as up as things were later down.

You can't blame the economy for never being able to develop profitable condos over a 40 year span.


For example, I mentioned the Hemingway... That was complete around 1981 which was definitely a go-go time in OKC.

It's an interesting question you're brining up.
Here's my take on the downtown housing market to date:
- The Centennial. Yes, it was a complete sell-out. But it's also lacking life and vitality. Why? Many, but not all of the units ended up being corporate pads bought by the usual suspects for entertaining clients, hosting employee recruits, etc.
- Block 42 is the second most successful, and does have a real community living there. But sales have pretty much stuck at having several units still on the market following the crash. I suspect Block 42 would be closer to full by now had the crash not happened.
- The Central Avenue Villas are doing ok considering the units became available after the crash. Again, however, the villas have several units just not selling.
- The Maywood Lofts, without a doubt, would be opening this fall completely sold-out had the crash not happened. Ron Bradshaw, however, lost a lot of investor sales with the crash and now just has the owner-occupant buyers. I'm not sure this is a bad thing. But the ground floor retail space may be a challenge due to configuration with the street. TIme will tell.
- The Brownstones at Maywood Park. Everyone raves about the quality of design. But the multi-levels turn off a lot of buyers.
- Sycamore Square: initially an 80s bust, now doing quite well.

Pete, there are a lot of people wanting to buy downtown. But there is a massive disconnect between what they want and what's been built. I'll be delving into this very, very soon.

To be fair, Block 42 has to be considered a success because it's sold all but 11 of it's 42 units (at least according to it's website).

And although it is only 17 units, the Harvey Lofts completely sold out.


Disconnect with buyers or no, the terrible track record of condo projects in OKC means that it will very difficult for any new projects to be financed. And pre-selling anything this is completely unbuilt is near impossible.

I'm just worried that the damage done by these failed projects will extend far beyond the investment made by the developers. It may cripple condo development downtown for quite some time.

Yes, and Block 42 has made its money back. Forgot about Harvey Lofts. Yep - that's a definite success as well.
As for financing... we might be entering an ice age on financing for quite some time to come. And people I talk to expect The Hill to be capped off with buildings already started, with no more to follow.
I'm not really arguing so much w/ you on this point - just questioning some of the reasoning.

I'm just worried that the damage done by these failed projects will extend far beyond the investment made by the developers. It may cripple condo development downtown for quite some time.

Bingo. That's why there was a wave of apoplexia when The Hill was awarded the Deep Deuce bid by the savants at Urban Renewal. What a DISASTER.

And, with such a large footprint, the Hill's failure is spreading the misery.

I've spoken to numerous city leaders about this stuff over the years, dating back to the beginning of the decade. Frankly, they just don't get it. Most of our "movers and shakers" live in Nichols Hills and Edmond. They don't really understand the downtown vibe, and have made poor decisions for the city because of it.

Allow me to summarize my two main points:

1. OKC has a terrible track record with condos; not just recently but going back to the very first projects. There are underlying reasons for this (such as inexpensive home prices in general, the huge amount of land available for development, and the almost total lack of traffic) that haven't changed much over the last 40 years.

2. Even with all the excitement of downtown, there have been more failures than successes in the downtown condo market -- and condos in general.


Both of these things conspire against future developers even in a healthy financial climate and we are very far removed from that.


I will say the nature of real estate development is that the money has to go somewhere -- too many people make their livings by lending money and building things. At various points it's been speculative office space, then retail properties, apartments, hotels, and light industrial... It seems to me that the money will now go back into rental units as that's the one area that seems quite strong.

I also doubt we'll see new condo development for quite some time.

Hefner Village has been a pretty successful condominium complex. 6000 Penn is partly leased, but overall, has over 50% ownership. Same with The Barington near Northpark Mall. There's Quail Springs Condos just east of Quail Springs Mall.

RE: CORE TO SHORE "Why don't we try and build 1 walkable district that someone would actually want to walk through before we start taking on yet another vast empty plot of land downtown.

This city just can't help itself. Sometimes our leadership seems so prescient and competent. But your comment reflects more of the norm. Land use, planning, and development in this city have been poorly conceived and executed for the better part of our history. And it looks like we may be rushing toward another blunder with Core to Shore.

Somebody should be shot over The Hill.

That project never should have been selected from the outset and now it looks like they can't even finish the first phase or pay their bills.

Worse yet, they've built a bunch of suburban-type townhomes on the only through street in the project, which will make it very difficult for someone to salvage the development with mixed-use.

What a complete cluster.

I enjoyed reading the post and thought a lot of what the blogger said was spot on.

I still don't understand why someone doesn't plop either a big rental property or affordable condos down there and market the crap out of it. If someone would just put something geared towards the younger folks there... affordable, geared towards a 'party atmosphere' e.g. 'free' shuttles Thursday through Saturday nights all night long to and from the Bricktown core, and ensure that the interior of the places do not look like the suburbs and instead look modern (read: developers please pick up copies of Dwell magazine or Metropolitan Home, thanks) then maybe that would spur enough activity down there that we'd start seeing retail develop. Then once that happens maybe the second wave of folks, probably including myself, would be ready to buy buy buy.

I agree with a lot of the blogger's points, and, although I don't hear the trains at night, I think the Quiet Zone is a must. Most of the grade crossings between 6th, 10th and 13th are rarely utilized, and would not be missed. My parents live in a town that has a very active railroad, and they've only got two below grade crossings in about a one mile stretch downtown. The rest of the streets deadend at the railroad. We never think much about planning our trips to utilize those two available streets, and it's a much busier area than the one we have here.

As far as the Hill is concerned, the one advantage I see to it is that the homes don't feel like townhomes, since the two models I've been in have a lot of the living spaces on the first floor. It's got what I call the "Edmond look", and that seems to be popular with buyers in the Oklahoma City area. I can see that some people might like that, although I find the design unattractive, and I like the townhouse concept personally. I think its biggest problem is that it is unfinished, and if I were thinking about living there, I'd be afraid to buy until they finish what they've started. To have tarpaper hanging off the balconies and unfinished exteriors would be incredibly offputting to me as a buyer.

We have stalled condo developments that are in various states of development in areas around Downtown Austin. It is a nationwide thing at this point since most of the developers relied on short-term loans (quick paybacks usually for lower interest) and incremental financing to get them through the end of construction, when the credit markets dried up they couldn't get the next loan to finish the next phase of construction so now they sit there stalled. In many cases someone with cash could step in and pick up many of these for a bargain and finish them out, the problem is most people don't build with their own money even if they have it. You think people are bad about being reliant on consumer credit, the developer side is even more reliant on credit.

Being that I am not from Oklahoma I really don't know much about it's history or development. But, downtown OKC reminds me a lot of what San Diego looked like back in the 1950's and early 1960's.

There is one improvement I think OKC ought to consider undertaking...the Greyhound Bus Terminal. I do believe that is perhaps the biggest eyesore in the immediate downtown area. Not being critical. Only putting in my 2 cents.

Downtown Greenville, SC and Bricktown have a lot in common. They (Greenville) built a new combined Amtrak and Greyhound terminal back in early 2000 that incorporated the architecture of the surrounding River Place or River Park? At least I think it was Greenville. It was a looooong bus ride from NC to OK.

The Brownstones at Maywood Park. Everyone raves about the quality of design. But the multi-levels turn off a lot of buyers.

I've always wondered about this. Why do you think that might be? Coming from a different part of the world, anything with multi-levels is surely a plus, usually because it means you have more space (because land square foot is always a premium). Take a look at housing prices out east. Usually from what I've noticed, ranch style homes seem to sell for less, even for similar square foot (usually because they are correlated to areas where land is cheaper though and the need to build up just wasn't there).

Anyhow, we tried looking for two story homes in the OKC suburbs and mostly just couldn't find many where we were looking. I understand that there is more space out here and so there is not a "need" for multiple stories. However, this is downtown, and I would think that if you're looking to live downtown and want more space, having multiple levels is a benefit. Plus to me, it gives the "apartment" more of a "house" feel. But that's me. Personally I think the Maywood Lofts look awesome. If we were in the market to buy downtown property, I would look at these first.

So in short, educate the east coast girl - why are multiple levels so frowned upon? Is this a culture thing? Or am I making false assumptions?

Oh unless you mean the Maywood lofts are split level? (its sort of hard to tell from the floor plans, but I'm no good at reading those). If that was the case, I could see that being a turn off. Noise travels fast. We looked at some split level homes and decided against them when we saw how some split level rooms are wasteful of space (for example, you don't have privacy of a room but you can't have a conversation with someone in another room either).

However, my question is still out there - is there a true "aversion" to multiple story homes in OKC? And if so, why? Is there a reason other than the "well there's plenty of space" explanation?

Oh I was looking at the Lofts and not the Brownstones. So nevermind the last post.

Oyoyoy...sorry about that...I'll stop the posting-festival on here after I just say this,

Those Brownstones look very cool indeed, and those are the ones I keep driving past and thinking "gosh I wish we were looking at moving downtown" - if there were more amenities of course. Not crazy about the lofts. See not many of them have sold either.

JerzeeGrl, your question, I think, remains a valid one. Here's what I've heard and observed: people really love the look of the Brownstones. A couple of the units, in particular, are more stunning than anything I've seen anywhere in this city. But the demographic most likely to adapt to this multi-level, small lot approach tend to be younger and are looking for less expensive units. And the demographic that can afford these units are less apt to see themselves "going upstairs for breakfast" as one potential buyer explained to me.

- The Brownstones at Maywood Park. Everyone raves about the quality of design. But the multi-levels turn off a lot of buyers.

I think, at least partially, this results from unfamiliarity with this type of home. In bigger cities in the east, multi-levels are not unusual at all. Also, a lot of people don't realize there's an elevator, or if they know an elevator is an option, they don't know it can go to the top floor. That's probably because the people running the decorator showhouse were almost obsessive about not letting people use the elevator, and keeping it secret was the best way to do that. The decorators chose not to have the elevator go to the top floor, because they could add an extra fireplace in that location. It was better for their design, but far less practical. Even when you go into the model, the existence of the elevator is not emphasized.

Since the first floor is a spare bedroom, entry and garage, one actually goes downstairs for breakfast (third floor master, 2nd floor kitchen). This is precisely how many 2 story homes are set up, so again, I think people aren't thinking this through clearly.

Yes, and Block 42 has made its money back. Forgot about Harvey Lofts. Yep - that's a definite success as well.
As for financing... we might be entering an ice age on financing for quite some time to come. And people I talk to expect The Hill to be capped off with buildings already started, with no more to follow.
I'm not really arguing so much w/ you on this point - just questioning some of the reasoning.

pete just a note on Harvey Lofts ..( where i live) ... we are 13 units .. with 12 sold to date .. and a couple that have been resold successfully ..

the 1 remaining unit is a good one .. 4th floor almost 1100 sqft .. asking 180k

I just spent the last few days in Vancouver, BC. It is a vibrant city with about the same population as OKC and about 500,000 more in the metro area. Downtown is filled with people because the city set zoning standards and made preferrences that encouraged living and working together in the same area. Hi-rise rentals and condos sit next to hi-rise offices. Residential buildings have rentals/condos for all levels of residents. Biking and walking are facilitated greatly. There is a a great vibe. But it wasn't done by picking favored developers, rather by putting together citywide zoning.

Why not put development taxes on outreaching areas that pay for infrastructure downtown. Stop the inefficient growth and promote the efficient central city.

I enjoyed reading the post and thought a lot of what the blogger said was spot on.

I still don't understand why someone doesn't plop either a big rental property or affordable condos down there and market the crap out of it. If someone would just put something geared towards the younger folks there... affordable, geared towards a 'party atmosphere' e.g. 'free' shuttles Thursday through Saturday nights all night long to and from the Bricktown core, and ensure that the interior of the places do not look like the suburbs and instead look modern (read: developers please pick up copies of Dwell magazine or Metropolitan Home, thanks) then maybe that would spur enough activity down there that we'd start seeing retail develop. Then once that happens maybe the second wave of folks, probably including myself, would be ready to buy buy buy.

I completely agree.

...the demographic that can afford these units are less apt to see themselves "going upstairs for breakfast" as one potential buyer explained to me.

Thanks Steve. Hmmm. Demographic - what age are you referring to? And you mean that due to their age they maybe don't want to walk up stairs? I hope I'm not thinking too elderly here. It is sort of odd that the kitchen is not on the bottom floor. But as Betts said all the bedrooms are above that so to me it doesn't seem like a big deal.

I like them though, the layout is very neat. Chicken and egg though like everyone says - we'd be down there in a heartbeat if there were more amenities, we have money but don't have enough money to take a risk that that won't happen in the near future. And maybe we're the target demographic - late 20's to early 30's, no kids....?


Also, a lot of people don't realize there's an elevator, or if they know an elevator is an option, they don't know it can go to the top floor.

Betts, are you saying that there's an elevator within the unit (Brownstones not Lofts)? I'm confused. That would be very weird...if people are so old that they need an elevator to get from the bottom floor to the to top floor of their home I would suggest a cheaper option - stair-lift chairs...

Betts, are you saying that there's an elevator within the unit (Brownstones not Lofts)? I'm confused. That would be very weird...if people are so old that they need an elevator to get from the bottom floor to the to top floor of their home I would suggest a cheaper option - stair-lift chairs...

The larger 3 and 4 story brownstone units (not lofts, which are all on one floor) can all accomodate an elevator easily, and I believe it's built into the asking price. The smallest one, in the traditional configuration, can have an elevator, but it is awkward. However, many of the brownstones are only framed, and you can move walls around, and even change which floors have which rooms. So, you could eaily put an elevator in any of them.

As far as the elevator goes, it certainly makes moving in easier. I almost never ride in mine, although I do put groceries on the elevator and move things around that are a pain to lug up and down. Going from the first to fourth floors, however, is excellent exercise :).

I like them though, the layout is very neat. Chicken and egg though like everyone says - we'd be down there in a heartbeat if there were more amenities, we have money but don't have enough money to take a risk that that won't happen in the near future. And maybe we're the target demographic - late 20's to early 30's, no kids....?

I think there should be two target demographics for the brownstones: People without children, or one child. That means you've got married couples of all ages who can easily live there if they have no children, singles, married people with either a young child/baby or a single teenager. That usually translates to younger couples or empty nesters. It works well for both.

As far as amenities goes, I used to drive a couple of miles to shop for groceries and I still do. I used to drive a mile to go to the pharmacy and I still do. I haven't found a drycleaners yet, but it's primarily because I haven't looked. We walked to the Harkins Theater to go to a movie last night, and then we ate in Bricktown. This morning, my dog and I walked to Starbucks. I'm not really missing anything.

Sounds like you're really enjoying the experience, Betts, and that's great to hear. BTW, I use the Fashion Cleaners on the south side of NW 6th, near Broadway, and have for years. Good people and close to where you live.

Sounds like you're really enjoying the experience, Betts, and that's great to hear. BTW, I use the Fashion Cleaners on the south side of NW 6th, near Broadway, and have for years. Good people and close to where you live.

Good call, Doug. Fashion Cleaners is reliably good and they have SAME DAY SERVICE.

It is a godsend.

But fair warning: they do not accept plastic. Not sure why. They do, however, take checks.

Good call, Doug. Fashion Cleaners is reliably good and they have SAME DAY SERVICE.

It is a godsend.

But fair warning: they do not accept plastic. Not sure why. They do, however, take checks.
They don't take plastic because they don't want to pay the bank fees on both ends of the transactions. I am old enough to remember when taking cards was a hit or miss proposition and it really wasn't that long ago.

JerzeeGrl, your question, I think, remains a valid one. Here's what I've heard and observed: people really love the look of the Brownstones. A couple of the units, in particular, are more stunning than anything I've seen anywhere in this city. But the demographic most likely to adapt to this multi-level, small lot approach tend to be younger and are looking for less expensive units. And the demographic that can afford these units are less apt to see themselves "going upstairs for breakfast" as one potential buyer explained to me.

I would LOVEEE to move to the Maywood Brownstones, my only problem is I don't have 500K or more to plop down on one. The problem is the steep price point. As others have said, these really appeal to us young professionals, but unless you own a very successful high income business, who can afford it other than people who have serious cash and have worked for it their whole life? You're not going to get too many of the Edmonite families that can afford this to move their 5 person family downtown to a brownstone. Poor marketing on all the Triangle projects.



I just spent the last few days in Vancouver, BC. It is a vibrant city with about the same population as OKC and about 500,000 more in the metro area. Downtown is filled with people because the city set zoning standards and made preferrences that encouraged living and working together in the same area. Hi-rise rentals and condos sit next to hi-rise offices. Residential buildings have rentals/condos for all levels of residents. Biking and walking are facilitated greatly. There is a a great vibe. But it wasn't done by picking favored developers, rather by putting together citywide zoning.

Why not put development taxes on outreaching areas that pay for infrastructure downtown. Stop the inefficient growth and promote the efficient central city.

OKC has been talking about doing this for a year or so now. There is a pretty good thread on this. We need to continue to encourage the city to do this. Write your councilperson and the Mayor a letter on this and show up at the meetings in support of this!


I think there should be two target demographics for the brownstones: People without children, or one child. That means you've got married couples of all ages who can easily live there if they have no children, singles, married people with either a young child/baby or a single teenager. That usually translates to younger couples or empty nesters. It works well for both.

As far as amenities goes, I used to drive a couple of miles to shop for groceries and I still do. I used to drive a mile to go to the pharmacy and I still do. I haven't found a drycleaners yet, but it's primarily because I haven't looked. We walked to the Harkins Theater to go to a movie last night, and then we ate in Bricktown. This morning, my dog and I walked to Starbucks. I'm not really missing anything.

Again, price is prohibitive for many buyers, not the layout, etc. As far as amenities, I agree. I've lived/owned downtown for about 4 years now and have never regretted it once. Sure I'd like more stores and such downtown, but I'm not stopping it from me being an urban pioneer. I still think downtown has more to offer than the burbs, even without all the amenities we want it to have. You still have more amenities in a compact, walkable area than you do in suburbia where you have to drive to each store. Come on folks this is a crappy excuse not to move downtown. You either have enough vision to live downtown or you don't. Now the price issue is a whole other issue.