NewsOK (http://stage.newsok.com/oklahoma-city-hasnt-sold-chains-on-its-strong-points/article/3452997?custom_click=pod_lead_business)

Well the article in my opinion really should be discussed has to an opportunity waiting to happen. The premise of "leakage" points out that there is a untapped need for those "chains" to make an effort to locate in OKC. Instead of being an also ran the could be the forerunner. Time and time againg the smart retailers that have built and invested have proven results that they will come.

To me, it seems like the chicken and the egg. If so many people are running to Dallas or Tulsa to buy things that aren't available in OKC, doesn't it make sense to make them available in OKC? Their reasoning for leakage shows the potential business in OKC - it's like they are arguing against the very reason they should come here.

The reasons for not locating here were completely lame. It's true, yes we go to Dallas to shop. It's not very far, and guess what they have all the stuff we want that's not in OKC. You want us to shop in OKC? THEN LOCATE A STORE HERE.... it is pretty simple. That article irritated me.

"OKC hasn't sold chains on its strong points."

My response: OKC lacks strong points. The bottom line is that the chains are looking at OKC. Instead they're going to Tulsa, Birmingham, Albuquerque, Richmond, and so on..because there is NOWHERE for them to go in OKC.

Tuscana, Quail Springs Ranch, Oklahoma Factory Outlets or whatever it was called, University North Park, and so on.. nice projects. Too bad none of them are ever gonna happen like we had hoped any time soon. UNP will be finished in the year 3045, but only if they pick up the pace from what it is right now.

Meanwhile there are NOOOO decent retail projects in the inner city. Grant Humphreys' awesome proposal for Crown Heights would have done wonders. But that too stalled.

[QUOTE=Spartan;317267
Meanwhile there are NOOOO decent retail projects in the inner city. Grant Humphreys' awesome proposal for Crown Heights would have done wonders. But that too stalled.[/QUOTE]

I used to work in the Cityplace building in Dallas at Central and Lemmon. The city of Dallas went into partnership with a developer, gave some incentives and saw a new retail development built just north of downtown at a time that no one was building in Dallas (early '90s). Later on, I worked in Denver and the City of Denver went into partnership with a developer to put in retail on S. Broadway about a mile out of downtown. Now Denver has several inner city grocery stores but the point is, in both cases, the city had to pony up significant money and guarantees to get the inner city retail projects built.

IMO, the only way this is going to be done is with a public/private partnership. I don't see OKC having the will to do this but if they were to do it, the uproar would be far MORE than what was heard from the Bass Pro project.

Whoops ,EDIT. MORE for less

ugh @ my computer acting screwwy. Ignore this post.

Tuscana, Quail Springs Ranch, Oklahoma Factory Outlets or whatever it was called, University North Park, and so on.. nice projects. Too bad none of them are ever gonna happen like we had hoped any time soon. UNP will be finished in the year 3045, but only if they pick up the pace from what it is right now.


Tuscana is on schedule. Quail Springs Ranch is cancelled (which makes sense because it was too close to Tuscana), and construction bids were opened last month for Oklahoma Factory Outlets, which is now called Outlet Shoppes in Oklahoma City. Nine West is one of the stores already on the list for the Outlets.

These are all multiphase projects. Oftentimes, tennants must be signed before construction can begin. As for Tuscana, they are getting upscale multifamily units in place on the outer parcels. The next phase will be the lifestyle center itself.

"OKC hasn't sold chains on its strong points."

My response: OKC lacks strong points. The bottom line is that the chains are looking at OKC. Instead they're going to Tulsa, Birmingham, Albuquerque, Richmond, and so on..because there is NOWHERE for them to go in OKC.

Tuscana, Quail Springs Ranch, Oklahoma Factory Outlets or whatever it was called, University North Park, and so on.. nice projects. Too bad none of them are ever gonna happen like we had hoped any time soon. UNP will be finished in the year 3045, but only if they pick up the pace from what it is right now.

Meanwhile there are NOOOO decent retail projects in the inner city. Grant Humphreys' awesome proposal for Crown Heights would have done wonders. But that too stalled.

So right, Nick. The Legends in Kansas City, Firewheel in Garland, we could go on and on. OKC is really lacking here. I've seen these things go up fast across the country. All of this, "It's coming, they're going to build housing and then......" That's not how it's done. And nobody in Oklahoma City has been able to get it done.

"OKC hasn't sold chains on its strong points."

My response: OKC lacks strong points. The bottom line is that the chains are looking at OKC. Instead they're going to Tulsa, Birmingham, Albuquerque, Richmond, and so on..because there is NOWHERE for them to go in OKC.

Tuscana, Quail Springs Ranch, Oklahoma Factory Outlets or whatever it was called, University North Park, and so on.. nice projects. Too bad none of them are ever gonna happen like we had hoped any time soon. UNP will be finished in the year 3045, but only if they pick up the pace from what it is right now.

Meanwhile there are NOOOO decent retail projects in the inner city. Grant Humphreys' awesome proposal for Crown Heights would have done wonders. But that too stalled.

I disagree, show evidence of one retailer that says their is no "decent retail project in the inner city of OKC and that's why we're not coming." Every instance I've seen talks about population density. Look at the population density of OKC and compare it to Tulsa, Shawnee, Durant, Chickasha. Because of our large area, it drives our population density wayy down compared to what it actually would be for our urbanized area. I currently work as a project manager on the marketing side for a retail chain that opens up about a store every month and am highly involved in things like this. Population density is the #1 factor. Lack of quality space is important, but retailers will build it if the statistics are strong enough. OKC needs to deannex more than anything.

I disagree, show evidence of one retailer that says their is no "decent retail project in the inner city of OKC and that's why we're not coming." Every instance I've seen talks about population density. Look at the population density of OKC and compare it to Tulsa, Shawnee, Durant, Chickasha. Because of our large area, it drives our population density wayy down compared to what it actually would be for our urbanized area. I currently work as a project manager on the marketing side for a retail chain that opens up about a store every month and am highly involved in things like this. Population density is the #1 factor. Lack of quality space is important, but retailers will build it if the statistics are strong enough. OKC needs to deannex more than anything.

Oklahoma City's urbanized area, less than a third of its area, holds 95% of the city's population. Not to mention Edmond, Moore, Del City and MWC are attached to the urbanized area, and Norman is next door to Moore.

So OKC deannexes 250 square miles. The rural area will still be rural and the urbanized area will still be the same size.

So right, Nick. The Legends in Kansas City, Firewheel in Garland, we could go on and on. OKC is really lacking here. I've seen these things go up fast across the country. All of this, "It's coming, they're going to build housing and then......" That's not how it's done. And nobody in Oklahoma City has been able to get it done.

Kansas City and DFW are both larger markets, so they are an easier sale. I'm not saying its wrong to try to compete with larger markets. I'm all for it. But using larger markets as a measuring stick to Oklahoma City's progress won't work.

Let's compare our progress to similar sized markets, which there aren't many. New Orleans, Memphis, Salt Lake City. How are those cities?

Tuscana is on schedule. Quail Springs Ranch is cancelled (which makes sense because it was too close to Tuscana)

Im not sure that it makes total sense because I think the Quail Springs Ranch might have been a better project. The site plan they had looked great, they apparently had some really good retailers on board early on, and a more visable and easier accessed location.


I disagree, show evidence of one retailer that says their is no "decent retail project in the inner city of OKC and that's why we're not coming." Every instance I've seen talks about population density. Look at the population density of OKC and compare it to Tulsa, Shawnee, Durant, Chickasha. Because of our large area, it drives our population density wayy down compared to what it actually would be for our urbanized area. I currently work as a project manager on the marketing side for a retail chain that opens up about a store every month and am highly involved in things like this. Population density is the #1 factor. Lack of quality space is important, but retailers will build it if the statistics are strong enough. OKC needs to deannex more than anything.

Deannex isnt the answer. And it pretty much does have everything to do with quality space in OKC. There is simply a large void of good upscale space. Tell me what space other than Penn Square would a, new to OKC, upscale national retailer locate in? And dont say Classen Curve, its just not big enough.

I don't understand the summary of this report either. We are not going to do without simply because it is not readily available in Oklahoma City. My wife makes out of town shopping trips many times a year, most frequently to Dallas and Tulsa.

Oklahoma City seems to lack a large, concentrated area with middle and higher level income, other than in the newer areas of the city. Even within the same square mile section, in many cases there seem to be blocks with larger homes and then adjacent blocks with smaller homes, new homes with older homes, kept homes of all sizes with unkept homes of all sizes. Within zip code areas, I suspect the variation among income and other kinds of factors is also high.

I may be wrong about this, but when we are in Tulsa, this kind of extreme variation is not as apparent to me.

The report was disheartening.

I have never figured out why Penn Square is such a coup, particularly in terms of design. Is it just because that is all we have?

The main thing that irks me about this article is calling OKC the Midwest.... ugggh.
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/US_map-Midwest.png

Translation: It's rough all over right now, and when things pickup, OKC may be high on the list anyway, but what fool would tell them that now; since they seem eager enough to bother asking what our dream setup would be, let's encourage them to bring their city\demographics closer in line with what our ideal new location would be......

Honestly, I see this kind of like the NBA dilemma. For whatever reason, the NBA didn't think OKC could support a team. We literally had to drag one here and show them. Then, we were fortunate enough to have a billionaire living here who was willing to put his own money behind it to make it happen. And of course now that the Thunder is here, there's no denying that they are a huge success and very likely will continue to be for OKC for years to come.

Sometimes when you're the low man on the totem pole you have to make things happen. That doesn't mean waiting around for some corporate ego to grant you the honor of having their awesomeness enter the room. It means finding a chain or franchise and buying it and opening shop here, or making a deal with them that is too crazy to refuse. Honestly the first one or two might be successful but financial losers for the owners because of what it might take to get them here, but I still think if we could just get a critical mass going then others would want to come too, and it's that second wave that business folks could make real money off of. So I think really it comes down to who is willing to commit money to that first wave. It would be awesome if another one of our city's billionaires had some cash burning a hole in his pocket he was ready to commit to this... but if not, then perhaps that is something the taxpayers should consider funding.

Honestly, I see this kind of like the NBA dilemma. For whatever reason, the NBA didn't think OKC could support a team. We literally had to drag one here and show them. Then, we were fortunate enough to have a billionaire living here who was willing to put his own money behind it to make it happen. And of course now that the Thunder is here, there's no denying that they are a huge success and very likely will continue to be for OKC for years to come.

Sometimes when you're the low man on the totem pole you have to make things happen. That doesn't mean waiting around for some corporate ego to grant you the honor of having their awesomeness enter the room. It means finding a chain or franchise and buying it and opening shop here, or making a deal with them that is too crazy to refuse. Honestly the first one or two might be successful but financial losers for the owners because of what it might take to get them here, but I still think if we could just get a critical mass going then others would want to come too, and it's that second wave that business folks could make real money off of. So I think really it comes down to who is willing to commit money to that first wave. It would be awesome if another one of our city's billionaires had some cash burning a hole in his pocket he was ready to commit to this... but if not, then perhaps that is something the taxpayers should consider funding.

Agreed. We're going to have to lure a high end retailer here first to prove the market. FYI, Bennett isn't a billionaire, but that point is moot.

Agreed. We're going to have to lure a high end retailer here first to prove the market.

So the question becomes, how do you do it when, according to Steve's article, the "leakage" issue seems to stop them all? I, too, am fully convinced the arguement is bogus and if that many people are shopping elsewhere, that a lot of it is BECAUSE we don't have those retailers here. But because a few people on here aren't in agreement with the "leakage" arguement, how do you change the minds of the people who count?

So the question becomes, how do you do it when, according to Steve's article, the "leakage" issue seems to stop them all? I, too, am fully convinced the arguement is bogus and if that many people are shopping elsewhere, that a lot of it is BECAUSE we don't have those retailers here. But because a few people on here aren't in agreement with the "leakage" arguement, how do you change the minds of the people who count?

I dont think its leakage that is stopping them. There are no official studies showing spending leakage that retailers look at. It has more to do with the income/density numbers. However, those leakage findings could be used to help lure a retailer showing them that many OKCers spend a lot of money on things not found in OKC. That was the biggest point made by whatshisname at the ULI luncheon. Make retailers aware that, although we are relatively sparsely populated, we can drive anywhere almost in 20 mins; that our low living costs give us more disposable income; and we buy nice stuff anyways but have to go elsewhere to get it. Couple that with a quality development and basically giving away the space and you will have Anthropologie/Urban Outfitters/Crate&Barrel/other cool stores we dont have.

I dont think its leakage that is stopping them. There are no official studies showing spending leakage that retailers look at. It has more to do with the income/density numbers. However, those leakage findings could be used to help lure a retailer showing them that many OKCers spend a lot of money on things not found in OKC. That was the biggest point made by whatshisname at the ULI luncheon. Make retailers aware that, although we are relatively sparsely populated, we can drive anywhere almost in 20 mins; that our low living costs give us more disposable income; and we buy nice stuff anyways but have to go elsewhere to get it. Couple that with a quality development and basically giving away the space and you will have Anthropologie/Urban Outfitters/Crate&Barrel/other cool stores we dont have.

OKC is certainly a little weird in that our areas of wealth are spread out all over in pockets rather than having a large area like most cities and I can see that as being a detrement. I am sure the Chamber of Commerce knows all of this but I would be interested in something from the COC or the DOK as to the efforts of the COC to get beyond this barrier. Every day people in this city are going to Dallas or Tulsa or KC or wherever to buy merchandise you may not be able to find here is another day we are losing tax money to pay for fire and police and MAPS and mowing parks, etc.

I may be wrong about this, but when we are in Tulsa, this kind of extreme variation is not as apparent to me.
OKC doesn't have the concentrated wealth like Tulsa does, some of it in part is due to the poor race relations that Tulsa historically had. North Tulsa has traditionally been less populated, poor and black while the south had higher density, was white and wealthy. The way Tulsa has grown in the last 100 years has pretty much held true to that form. Where as OKC has grown mostly west but there are still some wealthier pockets around the east side of OKC, probably more so than in North Tulsa. Dallas isn't much different in Tulsa in that regard, you have to go to the far south suburbs to get out of the traditional "poor areas" like South Oak Cliff.



I have never figured out why Penn Square is such a coup, particularly in terms of design. Is it just because that is all we have?
It had the most investment and was owned by the largest shopping mall developer at the time when it was redeveloped by the DeBartolo Corp. It has since become part of the Simon Properties which is the largest shopping mall owner. They had the clout to be able to attract the larger chains during the retail boom of the early 90's. So part of it was good ownership with connections and a massive redevelopment essentially creating a new mall at the right time.

So right, Nick. The Legends in Kansas City, Firewheel in Garland, we could go on and on. OKC is really lacking here. I've seen these things go up fast across the country. All of this, "It's coming, they're going to build housing and then......" That's not how it's done. And nobody in Oklahoma City has been able to get it done.

KC has multiple true town center developments...Legends West, Zona Rosa, Tiffany Springs, and so on and so on.. Country Club Plaza is one of the very first town center case examples from the same period as Utica Square. The DFW area has many times more than that..Firewheel, Southlake, just a ton of them. Highland Park Village is Dallas' version of Utica Square/Plaza. They are getting new retail tenants. OKC isn't.

OKC is too busy adding more strip malls. That's what Quail Springs Ranch was, good thing it didn't come to pass. The new Targets in the metro have also pretty much been strip malls. Moore is becoming a strip mall haven. Westgate, along the NW Expressway, and so on and so forth. Belle Isle. Etc.

So if all of your retail developments are strip malls but what you want is town centers.. the answer is simple. Ban strip malls. Worried about competition from Norman and Edmond? Simple, make it an ACOG solution. Banning strip malls would be popular with idiot voters, too, who are typically opposed to commerce. A lot of OKC's issues could be solved from the Planning Dept.

Stop requiring surface parking, stop requiring huge setbacks everywhere, get rid of building codes that make REAL downtown lofts impossible, stop letting people tear down any buildings that stand close to towers, and stop letting developers build crappy retail strip malls that will deteriorate quickly. You'd be amazed how all of OKC's problems will vanish and OKC suddenly joins the same league as Tulsa, retail-wise.

Or you can be like metro and others continuing to deny that OKC has a problem. Sprawlers Anonymous: Admitting that you have a problem is the first step.

Man! I disagree with you on a lot of things you have said, but you are spot on with this post.

KC has multiple true town center developments...Legends West, Zona Rosa, Tiffany Springs, and so on and so on.. Country Club Plaza is one of the very first town center case examples from the same period as Utica Square. The DFW area has many times more than that..Firewheel, Southlake, just a ton of them. Highland Park Village is Dallas' version of Utica Square/Plaza. They are getting new retail tenants. OKC isn't.

OKC is too busy adding more strip malls. That's what Quail Springs Ranch was, good thing it didn't come to pass. The new Targets in the metro have also pretty much been strip malls. Moore is becoming a strip mall haven. Westgate, along the NW Expressway, and so on and so forth. Belle Isle. Etc.

So if all of your retail developments are strip malls but what you want is town centers.. the answer is simple. Ban strip malls. Worried about competition from Norman and Edmond? Simple, make it an ACOG solution. Banning strip malls would be popular with idiot voters, too, who are typically opposed to commerce. A lot of OKC's issues could be solved from the Planning Dept.

Stop requiring surface parking, stop requiring huge setbacks everywhere, get rid of building codes that make REAL downtown lofts impossible, stop letting people tear down any buildings that stand close to towers, and stop letting developers build crappy retail strip malls that will deteriorate quickly. You'd be amazed how all of OKC's problems will vanish and OKC suddenly joins the same league as Tulsa, retail-wise.

Or you can be like metro and others continuing to deny that OKC has a problem. Sprawlers Anonymous: Admitting that you have a problem is the first step.

Spartan, I don't disagree with your concept about how things should be developed but how do you ban the things you propose and how does that help? Do Tulsa or Dallas or Kansas City ban strip malls? I don't think so. I' ve seen plenty of them there. What do those cities do to promote these kinds of developments that OKC doesn't do? Exactly what kind of building or zoning requirements do they have that we don't have here?

There are cities and towns that have pretty strict design standards that regulate what can and cannot be built in their city limits, Overland Park was one of the first with these type of design standards.

Developers in OKC are used to pretty much doing whatever they want because in many minds any retail is good retail, that has almost always been the case and they will fight any change to the ability to do what they want. Most will build they think they can get by with.

Spartan, I don't disagree with your concept about how things should be developed but how do you ban the things you propose and how does that help? Do Tulsa or Dallas or Kansas City ban strip malls? I don't think so. I' ve seen plenty of them there. What do those cities do to promote these kinds of developments that OKC doesn't do? Exactly what kind of building or zoning requirements do they have that we don't have here?

I don't know about Tulsa or KC, but Dallas does impose more restrictive construction requirements on their retail spaces. Nicer architectural designs and higher end exteriors. From what I see, OKC doesn't do anything like this.

I don't know about Tulsa or KC, but Dallas does impose more restrictive construction requirements on their retail spaces. Nicer architectural designs and higher end exteriors. From what I see, OKC doesn't do anything like this.

Maybe so, but I've seen a lot of strip mall areas in Dallas that look pretty crappy.

There are cities and towns that have pretty strict design standards that regulate what can and cannot be built in their city limits, Overland Park was one of the first with these type of design standards.



This is a good idea but Spartan's suggestion was banning strip malls, not dictating the design standards. There is a difference.

Spartan, I don't disagree with your concept about how things should be developed but how do you ban the things you propose and how does that help? Do Tulsa or Dallas or Kansas City ban strip malls? I don't think so. I' ve seen plenty of them there. What do those cities do to promote these kinds of developments that OKC doesn't do? Exactly what kind of building or zoning requirements do they have that we don't have here?

Different cities, different problems. Given OKC's unique problems, I think the Planning Dept needs to be a lot more involved than it currently is.. not just crouched in the fetal position whimpering in the corner of City Hall.

Maybe so, but I've seen a lot of strip mall areas in Dallas that look pretty crappy.
The time at which they were built makes a huge difference. The strip malls built by C.A. Henderson in the 70's in OKC were the lowest of the low when it came to standards, pretty much the same thing in Dallas with anything built in the 70's. Most of what has been built in recent years is better, but most are not anything great.


This is a good idea but Spartan's suggestion was banning strip malls, not dictating the design standards. There is a difference.
What he advocates will not happen, but I do think there needs to be some modifications to the development codes and neighborhood groups to allow better development and some mixed use development. In some areas where we do work (Central/South Texas) the traditional strip mall is effectively banned by the review boards, not through ordinance. Getting approval through some jurisdictions is pretty much impossible without some sort of mixed use. I do wish the developers would go to more structured parking in OKC like we do down here but of course that would raise development costs and most developers will resist anything they feel costs them more money.

I tend to think differently when it comes to parking though outside the urban areas, I think that development codes need to change in regards to restaurants and parking. The mercantile parking requirements are quite ridiculous when it comes to restaurants and the lack of parking and/or the impact on adjacent retail, they pretty much need their own classification.

Spartan, I don't disagree with your concept about how things should be developed but how do you ban the things you propose and how does that help? Do Tulsa or Dallas or Kansas City ban strip malls? I don't think so. I' ve seen plenty of them there. What do those cities do to promote these kinds of developments that OKC doesn't do? Exactly what kind of building or zoning requirements do they have that we don't have here?

Good question, hopefully I have some good answers, although you be the judge of that. I have a lot of things that this question makes me think of at once and I'll try to run through them..

1. A major point they teach in law school is "unwritten contract law" between people who verbally agree on something. Public policy and public administration has the same thing, and it's equally relevant as city planning and architectural guidelines in ascertaining how to get private developer buy-in to the city's goal of better, more sustainable development. Take Bricktown for example, when we allowed Bass Pro, Residence Inn, and all the other urban design atrocities we sent a message loud and clear that urban design guidelines are nice but not adhered to, not relevant, and not important. Then when BUD forced McDonald's to get their act together and raised the bar for the Hampton Inn and other projects, it also sent a message that we will occasionally enforce urban design guidelines.

2. When it comes to suburban development, there's this misconception that we are in competition with the ankle-biting suburbs for development. We're really not, because OKC still controls the most desirable development areas--Deer Creek, Memorial Road, I-40 west, Northwest Expressway, etc. It's true OKC has lost a proportion of sales tax revenues but the primary cause of that is the southside's deterioration and not so much the strength of other Cleveland County suburbs in my opinion. What's more is that the smaller communities typically have a history of following suit behind OKC, and a great example of this is tax structure. The only suburb whose tax rate is not nearly the same as OKC's is Warr Acres, which has virtually no important retail to speak of besides Walgreen's and Incredible Pizza. In order for change to come to the OKC metro it has to come from OKC City Hall and other communities WILL more than likely follow suit.

_________________
So to recap so far, it's not so much a specific code issue or that there is something we should ban. A lot of it just has to do with changing the precedent and requiring better in general. However you change the precedent, once we do so, OKC will start to see a shift in development philosophy.
_________________

3. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are a lot of development restrictions enforced by the OKC Planning Dept that need to be changed. These restrictions facilitated the sprawl we've become familiar with, because that was mistakenly seen as the desirable development trend for the latter portion of the 20th Century (a century which has become notable for its destruction of great cities as well as the misconception of what a great city is, more so than any other century so far). These requirements include but aren't limited to: building codes that dictate finish requirements on new development thus making true downtown lofts impossible, a ban on mixed-use development in the suburbs, required site development setbacks, requirements on the number of parking spaces you must have, and so on. So this is my question to sort of answer a question: If we can require parking spaces, why can't we reverse that and put a cap on surface parking in the city? If we can ban mixed-uses and require setbacks in other areas of the city, why can't we reverse that as well? If we can enforce suburbanism, why can't we have a shift of paradigm and just enforce urbanism instead?

4. As for banning strip malls outright, there are communities that do just this believe it or not although nobody will be surprised to learn that Tulsa, Dallas, or KC aren't among them--they mostly exist on the West Coast and primarily in California. A more common solution to making crappy development more difficult is to put a ban on EIFS/EFIS and other substandard building materials. I would also place a ban on steel structures anywhere in the city unless it's zoned industrial or rural/agriculture. Banning strip malls is feasible but an extreme solution where more moderate solutions exist such as I just mentioned.

I will make one observation about Dallas since I lived there for 13 years. Many of the strip centers that were built there have either been torn down and redeveloped in a "bigger and better use" or rebuilt or have undergone major renovations. I haven't seen a lot of that going on here - some, but not a major trend.

I will make one observation about Dallas since I lived there for 13 years. Many of the strip centers that were built there have either been torn down and redeveloped in a "bigger and better use" or rebuilt or have undergone major renovations. I haven't seen a lot of that going on here - some, but not a major trend.

Good point. I'm in Plano right now and the standards for Collin County are pretty high. Brick and stone rules this county. Any new retail is nice retail.

Good point. I'm in Plano right now and the standards for Collin County are pretty high. Brick and stone rules this county. Any new retail is nice retail.

You can hardly find a cheesy strip center in N. Dallas over to Lakewood. NW Dallas has even seen most of the bad ones replaced. Carollton, Farmers Branch and Richardson still have some but they pretty regularly replace facades and update them.

Good question, hopefully I have some good answers, although you be the judge of that. I have a lot of things that this question makes me think of at once and I'll try to run through them..

1. A major point they teach in law school is "unwritten contract law" between people who verbally agree on something. Public policy and public administration has the same thing, and it's equally relevant as city planning and architectural guidelines in ascertaining how to get private developer buy-in to the city's goal of better, more sustainable development. Take Bricktown for example, when we allowed Bass Pro, Residence Inn, and all the other urban design atrocities we sent a message loud and clear that urban design guidelines are nice but not adhered to, not relevant, and not important. Then when BUD forced McDonald's to get their act together and raised the bar for the Hampton Inn and other projects, it also sent a message that we will occasionally enforce urban design guidelines.

2. When it comes to suburban development, there's this misconception that we are in competition with the ankle-biting suburbs for development. We're really not, because OKC still controls the most desirable development areas--Deer Creek, Memorial Road, I-40 west, Northwest Expressway, etc. It's true OKC has lost a proportion of sales tax revenues but the primary cause of that is the southside's deterioration and not so much the strength of other Cleveland County suburbs in my opinion. What's more is that the smaller communities typically have a history of following suit behind OKC, and a great example of this is tax structure. The only suburb whose tax rate is not nearly the same as OKC's is Warr Acres, which has virtually no important retail to speak of besides Walgreen's and Incredible Pizza. In order for change to come to the OKC metro it has to come from OKC City Hall and other communities WILL more than likely follow suit.

_________________
So to recap so far, it's not so much a specific code issue or that there is something we should ban. A lot of it just has to do with changing the precedent and requiring better in general. However you change the precedent, once we do so, OKC will start to see a shift in development philosophy.
_________________

3. As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are a lot of development restrictions enforced by the OKC Planning Dept that need to be changed. These restrictions facilitated the sprawl we've become familiar with, because that was mistakenly seen as the desirable development trend for the latter portion of the 20th Century (a century which has become notable for its destruction of great cities as well as the misconception of what a great city is, more so than any other century so far). These requirements include but aren't limited to: building codes that dictate finish requirements on new development thus making true downtown lofts impossible, a ban on mixed-use development in the suburbs, required site development setbacks, requirements on the number of parking spaces you must have, and so on. So this is my question to sort of answer a question: If we can require parking spaces, why can't we reverse that and put a cap on surface parking in the city? If we can ban mixed-uses and require setbacks in other areas of the city, why can't we reverse that as well? If we can enforce suburbanism, why can't we have a shift of paradigm and just enforce urbanism instead?

4. As for banning strip malls outright, there are communities that do just this believe it or not although nobody will be surprised to learn that Tulsa, Dallas, or KC aren't among them--they mostly exist on the West Coast and primarily in California. A more common solution to making crappy development more difficult is to put a ban on EIFS/EFIS and other substandard building materials. I would also place a ban on steel structures anywhere in the city unless it's zoned industrial or rural/agriculture. Banning strip malls is feasible but an extreme solution where more moderate solutions exist such as I just mentioned.

Spartan, you make a lot of good points about things we could. Most of what I was talking about earlier was that you were comparing us to Tulsa, Kansas City, or Dallas and suggesting that they had some kind of ordinances that were causing them to have superior developments. I still don't see any evidence that that is true.

The main thing that irks me about this article is calling OKC the Midwest.... ugggh.
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/US_map-Midwest.png

No kidding. Oklahoma has never been midwest. It has never been the south either. We Okies occupy a largely unrepresented part of the country known as the south central US or southern plains(Texas with more Indians and less Mexicans, culturally), a part of the plains occupied by southern influences. Midwest does not mean "almost west". Some people need a geography lesson and some world experience. Combine equal parts Cowboy(a mexican influence), southern transplants, and throw in a dash of native american culture(a big distinction from Texas), and you get Okie culture. The only reason Ok was not part of the true south is because it was unsettled. The only reason that OK is a state today is because my ancestors sided with the confederacy. Take a history lesson people. OK is the Kentucky of the West. The first state geographically that blends the South and the West. Screw Ft. Worth, OKC is the embodiment of this. Equal parts of both the South and the West yet not either. 0% midwest. Travel people!!

As far as development goes, all of it will come (nordstrams, whole foods, the whole lot) it's all based on business models not prejudice. If OKC continues to market itself as a good place to live (which it is) then all else will come as new residents come. Grow the population as the last untapped city in the "sun-belt" and everything else will come. This is capitalism. Manipulate the market don't dictate it. People want to make money. And they will regardless of their prejudices. Money talks. The bottom line.

No kidding. Oklahoma has never been midwest. It has never been the south either. We Okies occupy a largely unrepresented part of the country known as the south central US or southern plains(Texas with more Indians and less Mexicans, culturally), a part of the plains occupied by southern influences. Midwest does not mean "almost west". Some people need a geography lesson and some world experience. Combine equal parts Cowboy(a mexican influence), southern transplants, and throw in a dash of native american culture(a big distinction from Texas), and you get Okie culture. The only reason Ok was not part of the true south is because it was unsettled. The only reason that OK is a state today is because my ancestors sided with the confederacy. Take a history lesson people. OK is the Kentucky of the West. The first state geographically that blends the South and the West. Screw Ft. Worth, OKC is the embodiment of this. Equal parts of both the South and the West yet not either. I still consider Oklahoma to be more of a Southern State. It is not the "deep" South but what I consider the Upper South. Even dictionaries will define the state as a "South Central geographically. Agree, Oklahoma is "not" the midwest.

The main thing that irks me about this article is calling OKC the Midwest.... ugggh.
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/US_map-Midwest.png


Midwest equals:

brown gravy (wtf gravy comes in one color, white)
nasal overemphasis on vowels
Only one choice of tea: Unsweet and instant
Lutheren/Methodist/Catholic majority over Southern Baptist
hockey (or LaCrosse, come the **** on)
big ten (eleven?)
basements (we have independent storm cellars)
black clay (we have mostly red to tan sandy soil)
manufacturing
corned beef (uhm pork chops and okra please)
paisley white folks eating bland food, (yes, i want lett, tom, and jalepenos on my burger not just a soy patty and white buns you fuktard)
wolverines
the north woods
fishing for musky (never heard of them)
farming (we are mostly an oil and natural gas/cattle state, although we do produce a large farm export, but how many "midwest" states produce our amount of COTTON) Spend some time in Southwest OK.
woody cars
closer ties to canada than mexico
Ice fishing
A large Scandanavian and Polish population

Or this chick:

http://www.altfg.com/Stars/f/fargo-frances-mcdormand.jpg

when our sheriff's dress like this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3260/2917344380_1dd3f119ea.jpg?v=0



I have never experienced any of these things in OK.





Modern South:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/US_map-The_South_Modern_.png

United States South Central States:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/US_map-South_Central.PNG

Midwest equals:

brown gravy (wtf gravy comes in one color, white)
nasal overemphasis on vowels
Only one choice of tea: Unsweet and instant
Lutheren/Methodist/Catholic majority over Southern Baptist
hockey (or LaCrosse, come the **** on)
big ten (eleven?)
basements (we have independent storm cellars)
black clay (we have mostly red to tan sandy soil)
manufacturing
corned beef (uhm pork chops and okra please)
paisley white folks eating bland food, (yes, i want lett, tom, and jalepenos on my burger not just a soy patty and white buns you fuktard)


Sounds like you have a problem with the Great Midwest. Not to mention you need to grow-up and act like an adult on this forum.

Different cities, different problems. Given OKC's unique problems, I think the Planning Dept needs to be a lot more involved than it currently is.. not just crouched in the fetal position whimpering in the corner of City Hall.

Agree, among other things their population is so much larger they just have bigger niche market segments to draw from.

But even though Dallas might not be a really strict code city, their codes are a lot stricter than OKC's. For example the last time I checked you had to put about 3x as much landscaping into any new building project in Dallas compared to here.

The main thing that irks me about this article is calling OKC the Midwest.... ugggh.
http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/Platemaker_photos/US_map-Midwest.png

i don't understand how it's not part of the Midwest. Midwest City anyone.
OK definitely isn't a part of the Southwest.

/tangent

You could debate forever on what region Oklahoma is in. In reality we are a sub-region unto itself sharing a lot of similarities with Texas but with more Midwestern and definitely Native American influence. We politically and culturally align with the South and that can't be denied. Tulsa with its heavy industry and river, as well as a much larger percentage of Methodists and Presbyterians than the rest of Oklahoma, is more similar to Midwestern cities in that regard but as a whole is still Southern. OKC and Ft. Worth are literally where the South and West meet.

I think is a back burner issue (matter a fact an off the stove and in the freezer issue).

It was just a short time ago when the focus of conversations on this board and everywhere else in the world was how people were just too poor to afford healthcare.

Now we want to whine about the lack of upscale retail. I think we could all do without upscale retail for a little while. The last thing we need is more crap to put on over extended credit lines that will go in a closet, on a shelf or some other corner of the house to collect dust until we give it to Goodwill.

I think the new focus needs to be pay off your debts, build a emergency savings fund and only buy the things with cash.

We can worry about upscale retail when the majority of the population understands the value of a dollar and practices the concepts of a debt free household.

Spartan, you make a lot of good points about things we could. Most of what I was talking about earlier was that you were comparing us to Tulsa, Kansas City, or Dallas and suggesting that they had some kind of ordinances that were causing them to have superior developments. I still don't see any evidence that that is true.

Okay, fair enough...

Where are OKC's equivalents to the following developments:

1 Utica Square
2 Highland Park Village
3 Country Club Plaza
4 Southlake Town Square
5 Zona Rosa
6 NorthPark Mall (Dallas..not OKC lol)
7 Dallas Galleria
8 Tulsa/Dallas/KC Whole Foods locations
9 RiverWalk Crossing
10 Tulsa/Dallas/KC IMAX Theater locations
11 Stonewood Hills (the suburbs..where Bass Pro belongs)
12 Legends/Village West
13 Crown Center
14 18th/Vine new urbanist center (I forget the name)
15 Oak Park Mall
16 Town Center Plaza
17 One Nineteen in Leawood
18 Mockingbird Station
19 Stonebriar Centre
20 Grapevine Mills
21 Neiman Marcus (their flagship original store is still in DTD)
22 Crescent Court

Here's what OKC has. Penn Square Mall, eh..not really cutting it. Nichols Hills Plaza gets an LOL. And 50 Penn Place is long gone. That's IT. Now, Classen Curve really has the chance to be something nice for OKC but only because of its tenant base. Balliet's and some of these awesome restaurant concepts have been desperate for quality space in OKC for a long time and have really settled with Classen Curve IMO. Classen Curve still amounts to maybe Crescent Court (Dallas) or One Nineteen (KCK burbs) and nowhere near the Plaza or Utica Square.

Evidence that Tulsa/Dallas/KC have better retail space available?

Not to mention that OKC still has NO equivalent of upscale urban neighborhood shopping that's available en masse in Brookside (Tulsa, or KC) or Greenville Ave in Dallas. However major major kudos for The Plaza District.. if you haven't checked out this area, you guys have to it's NW 16th between Classen and Penn. Probably 4/5 new local clothing shops, tons of live music, some new urban living options, 2 new coffee shops, art galleries and much more. I was sorta surprised and thought I was back in Calgary when I checked it out recently. This is one bright spot that OKC has on the horizon and a lot of it just has to do with Jeff Struble just making it happen and raising the bar on his own. Why can't more developers other than in OKC other than AMC just make stuff happen on their own and raise the bar?

Okay, fair enough...

Where are OKC's equivalents to the following developments:

1 Utica Square
2 Highland Park Village
3 Country Club Plaza
4 Southlake Town Square
5 Zona Rosa
6 NorthPark Mall (Dallas..not OKC lol)
7 Dallas Galleria
8 Tulsa/Dallas/KC Whole Foods locations
9 RiverWalk Crossing
10 Tulsa/Dallas/KC IMAX Theater locations
11 Stonewood Hills (the suburbs..where Bass Pro belongs)
12 Legends/Village West
13 Crown Center
14 18th/Vine new urbanist center (I forget the name)
15 Oak Park Mall
16 Town Center Plaza
17 One Nineteen in Leawood
18 Mockingbird Station
19 Stonebriar Centre
20 Grapevine Mills
21 Neiman Marcus (their flagship original store is still in DTD)
22 Crescent Court

Here's what OKC has. Penn Square Mall, eh..not really cutting it. Nichols Hills Plaza gets an LOL. And 50 Penn Place is long gone. That's IT. Now, Classen Curve really has the chance to be something nice for OKC but only because of its tenant base. Balliet's and some of these awesome restaurant concepts have been desperate for quality space in OKC for a long time and have really settled with Classen Curve IMO. Classen Curve still amounts to maybe Crescent Court (Dallas) or One Nineteen (KCK burbs) and nowhere near the Plaza or Utica Square.

Evidence that Tulsa/Dallas/KC have better retail space available?

Not to mention that OKC still has NO equivalent of upscale urban neighborhood shopping that's available en masse in Brookside (Tulsa, or KC) or Greenville Ave in Dallas. However major major kudos for The Plaza District.. if you haven't checked out this area, you guys have to it's NW 16th between Classen and Penn. Probably 4/5 new local clothing shops, tons of live music, some new urban living options, 2 new coffee shops, art galleries and much more. I was sorta surprised and thought I was back in Calgary when I checked it out recently. This is one bright spot that OKC has on the horizon and a lot of it just has to do with Jeff Struble just making it happen and raising the bar on his own. Why can't more developers other than in OKC other than AMC just make stuff happen on their own and raise the bar?

Spartan, you're not reading what I'm saying. I'm not talking about comparing the current development in the cities listed. I'm talking about city zoning, ordinances, requirements that make a difference. You keep talking like the city government is responsible for this because of a lack of something

Sounds like you have a problem with the Great Midwest. Not to mention you need to grow-up and act like an adult on this forum.

Lighten up, its an internet message board not a courtroom. Its not healthy to go through life wound so tight.

Lighten up, its an internet message board not a courtroom. Its not healthy to go through life wound so tight.

Another Roderick puppet? I'm so sick of people thinking they can throw around random words like "Fuktard" where it is completely unnecessary just because it's an "internet message board." If a courtroom is the only place you don't act and talk like you do, that says a lot about you. I'll say it again, it's clear you need to grow-up. Wanting to see a successful city forum free from juvenile crassness is not being "wound too tight."

i don't understand how it's not part of the Midwest. Midwest City anyone.
OK definitely isn't a part of the Southwest.

/tangent

Actually, many do consider us part of the southwest.... all you have to do it go west of OKC... i'm from Altus... cactus and sagebrush.

Midwest City's name has nothing to do with Midwest region.

Okay, fair enough...

Where are OKC's equivalents to the following developments:

1 Utica Square
2 Highland Park Village
3 Country Club Plaza
4 Southlake Town Square
5 Zona Rosa
6 NorthPark Mall (Dallas..not OKC lol)
7 Dallas Galleria
8 Tulsa/Dallas/KC Whole Foods locations
9 RiverWalk Crossing
10 Tulsa/Dallas/KC IMAX Theater locations
11 Stonewood Hills (the suburbs..where Bass Pro belongs)
12 Legends/Village West
13 Crown Center
14 18th/Vine new urbanist center (I forget the name)
15 Oak Park Mall
16 Town Center Plaza
17 One Nineteen in Leawood
18 Mockingbird Station
19 Stonebriar Centre
20 Grapevine Mills
21 Neiman Marcus (their flagship original store is still in DTD)
22 Crescent Court

Here's what OKC has. Penn Square Mall, eh..not really cutting it. Nichols Hills Plaza gets an LOL. And 50 Penn Place is long gone. That's IT. Now, Classen Curve really has the chance to be something nice for OKC but only because of its tenant base. Balliet's and some of these awesome restaurant concepts have been desperate for quality space in OKC for a long time and have really settled with Classen Curve IMO. Classen Curve still amounts to maybe Crescent Court (Dallas) or One Nineteen (KCK burbs) and nowhere near the Plaza or Utica Square.

Evidence that Tulsa/Dallas/KC have better retail space available?

Not to mention that OKC still has NO equivalent of upscale urban neighborhood shopping that's available en masse in Brookside (Tulsa, or KC) or Greenville Ave in Dallas. However major major kudos for The Plaza District.. if you haven't checked out this area, you guys have to it's NW 16th between Classen and Penn. Probably 4/5 new local clothing shops, tons of live music, some new urban living options, 2 new coffee shops, art galleries and much more. I was sorta surprised and thought I was back in Calgary when I checked it out recently. This is one bright spot that OKC has on the horizon and a lot of it just has to do with Jeff Struble just making it happen and raising the bar on his own. Why can't more developers other than in OKC other than AMC just make stuff happen on their own and raise the bar?

Let's please stop comparing OKC (1.3 million) do DFW (6.7 million). That's a giant difference.

Now, as for Tulsa. Utica Square has a good thing going. We need something similar and won't me surprised to see it come about in the near future. We have the market.

As for Whole Foods? Let's not go there. You cannot count that against OKC. Ask Whole Foods. They're the ones dragging their feet.

Spring Creek in Edmond is a very great start.

IMAX has a location in Quail Springs Mall.

And KC is almost twice the size of OKC's market. So again, comparisons are pointless. KC and Dallas are both well-established markets. OKC is just getting started.

I am of the impression that we've taken the good ol' "We're not gonna maker it... poor us" approach.

I do agree, however, that local developers need to be nailed to the wall. They are partially responsible for a city's quaility of life, bottom line or not. We are just being vocal in the wrong place... an internet message board that they a) don't give a crap about and b) don't even know about.

Spartan, I don't know why you LOL at Nichols Hills Plaza. It has the ideal location and the perimeter is a good size. If some infill were added, and it were spruced up and modernized, and marketed agressively, there's no reason it couldn't turn into a Utica Square. Obviously it's not there right now. I likewise think Western from 36th practically all the way to Wilshire has similiarly good bones. It just takes people doing it rather than talking about it like we all tend to do. (I'm as guilty as anybody).

I think is a back burner issue (matter a fact an off the stove and in the freezer issue).

It was just a short time ago when the focus of conversations on this board and everywhere else in the world was how people were just too poor to afford healthcare.

Now we want to whine about the lack of upscale retail. I think we could all do without upscale retail for a little while. The last thing we need is more crap to put on over extended credit lines that will go in a closet, on a shelf or some other corner of the house to collect dust until we give it to Goodwill.

I think the new focus needs to be pay off your debts, build a emergency savings fund and only buy the things with cash.

We can worry about upscale retail when the majority of the population understands the value of a dollar and practices the concepts of a debt free household.

You can do this if you like but let other people do what they wish with their money/credit. Besides, upcsale stores arent usually kept in business by broke credit card using shoppers. Its from the ones that have alot of spare cash to throw around, and OKC has a large, although ignored, population of these types.

Spartan, I don't know why you LOL at Nichols Hills Plaza. It has the ideal location and the perimeter is a good size. If some infill were added, and it were spruced up and modernized, and marketed agressively, there's no reason it couldn't turn into a Utica Square. Obviously it's not there right now. I likewise think Western from 36th practically all the way to Wilshire has similiarly good bones. It just takes people doing it rather than talking about it like we all tend to do. (I'm as guilty as anybody).

Infill added? And where would people park? There just isnt enough room. You cant compare Utica to NHP, mainly because of the size of the two, with Utica being much bigger.

Onthestrip-Chespeake bought those apartments on 63rd, right? Couldn't they do a nice structured garage there (with retail on the bottom level), or the same thing across 63rd adjacent to the building where Varsity used to be? For that matter, if I remember correctly (and I might not), I think there is excess space in the middle of the plaza itself. Of course all this costs money and they have to be convinced it would be worth it.

Perhaps better questions to ask would be...

Why is Albuquerque significantly smaller in population than OKC, yet already has a couple of Whole Foods, several cool "districts" or lifestyle destinations or whatever you want to call them, etc.? Same question about Tulsa? New Orleans (pre-disaster)?

Why is the Austin MSA population say maybe a third bigger than OKC yet the city seems to have 10x as much commerce? Same question about Louisville... not much bigger yet more of everything... why? Same question for Raleigh-Durham CSA?

Honestly I think it is because those cities have lots of congregations of smart people. I didn't even plan it out this way... but I Google'd "most educated cities" after typing the above and what I found yields some interesting, relevant results....

America's smartest cities - Aug. 31, 2006 (http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/29/real_estate/brainiest_cities/index.htm)

I think the New Mexico Whole Foods were originally Wild Oats locations like the Tulsa location. So WF inherited those in the takeover.

Perhaps better questions to ask would be...

Why is Albuquerque significantly smaller in population than OKC, yet already has a couple of Whole Foods, several cool "districts" or lifestyle destinations or whatever you want to call them, etc.? Same question about Tulsa? New Orleans (pre-disaster)?

Why is the Austin MSA population say maybe a third bigger than OKC yet the city seems to have 10x as much commerce? Same question about Louisville... not much bigger yet more of everything... why? Same question for Raleigh-Durham CSA?

Honestly I think it is because those cities have lots of congregations of smart people. I didn't even plan it out this way... but I Google'd "most educated cities" after typing the above and what I found yields some interesting, relevant results....

America's smartest cities - Aug. 31, 2006 (http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/29/real_estate/brainiest_cities/index.htm)

Bingo. You've answered your own questions. For urban-focused, modestly educated, moderately progressive people, living in OKC is a challenge. My theory is that OKC is actually the most progressive place in the state, but the state itself is so miserably backward that it is pulling OKC down. I should add that I earnestly hope this is true, though I'm often confronted with things in OKC that challenge this thinking.

Bingo. You've answered your own questions. For urban-focused, modestly educated, moderately progressive people, living in OKC is a challenge. My theory is that OKC is actually the most progressive place in the state, but the state itself is so miserably backward that it is pulling OKC down. I should add that I earnestly hope this is true, though I'm often confronted with things in OKC that challenge this thinking.

Don't you think it has to do with what people's perceptions are of "progressive?" Most people who call themselves "progressives" are like pseudo-snobs back east that think of themselves as "intellectuals" when in reality, aren't any more well read or well educated than anyone else. One person's "progressive" is another person's socialist. One person's "backward thinking" is another person's off-the-deep-end thinking.

Don't you think it has to do with what people's perceptions are of "progressive?" Most people who call themselves "progressives" are like pseudo-snobs back east that think of themselves as "intellectuals" when in reality, aren't any more well read or well educated than anyone else. One person's "progressive" is another person's socialist. One person's "backward thinking" is another person's off-the-deep-end thinking.

To answer. No. I know you're a Republican apologist, but it's really not about party politics. Look around a bit and you might get an idea.

It's not snobbery. There's nothing inherently wholesome and all-American about ignorance and illiteracy. Unfortunately, our state has both of those in spades. This has nothing to do with "snobs back east."

To the contrary, a lot of people in this part of the world (and I'm a native) are very suspicious of educated people. This isn't very attractive to other educated people. They tend to move where other really educated people are, just to break it down a bit.