Thoughts from this year's tour:

905/912 NW 12th, 1217 N. Francis - some of the best quality materials that I saw on the tour, not crazy about its location next door to a low-income housing high-rise! Doesn't appear to be well-occupied. You can rent a duplex (although of a lesser quality) in Heritage Hills (better location) for much less.

Park Harvey - probably the most desperate building I saw. Formica countertops? Are you kidding me? Pay extra for the health club? Ghost town trying to charge extra for "location". Tough sell. Ugly building.

Lofts at Maywood Park - I like the affordable price point (<$200,000) but where does anyone believe that affordable equals $200 per square foot? Seriously, for $200/SF you have a lot of choices in OKC. Why does it cost so much? Greedy....

Block 42 - First mover advantage for sure, but the tour unit was the same one they had several years ago. Looks like they have hit a brick wall.

Hard to believe all the developers/city, etc. were so greedy and short-sighted to not see that you have to have population to get an area going. It's great that a few units have sold in Brownstones at Maywood Park, but do you know that most of the units are unfinished? What happens when this turns into an apartment complex? What happens to property values then? Affordable housing needs to be that - affordable, not $200/SF or $1.50/SF rent. Young, hip people want cheap, fun space, not $300,000 and up! Ridiculous!

Young people with big trust funds probably love those spaces. I've said it before. I'm a young professional. I am these developers' target audience. I'm now a homeowner on the NW side of town because although I loved living downtown, I couldn't afford to stay there and be a homeowner. I spent less than half as much on housing, now have a decent sized yard and live in a neighborhood backing up to Lake Hefner. At $200/sq. ft (and way up) downtown housing just couldn't compete for my dollar.

I didn't take the tour but looked at all these places last summer. Im 26 and have wanted to move downtown. Block 42 was the only one I considered pulling the trigger on. But couldn't justify the price. SOmething is only worth the price someone will pay for it. 150-175 sq/ft is still reasonably expensive and I think if they dropped them to that price then they would sell quickly. You figure they would do that, get some cash flow, then regroup rather than sitting on thier hands being stubborn.

As for the lofts at maywood park (where are the lofts) I left my showing 5 minutes into it because the woman showing me around didn't take me seriously and acted like I was wasting her time. That left a lasting impression.

I love living downtown, and have for almost 5 years. I live at the Montgomery and love it, but I am also reminded that for what I pay in rent, I could easily purchase a great house. I always tell myself the benefits of living 2 blocks from work and in the center of the city, and the great concierge service justify the price, but it's something I think of often. I went and looked at the lofts at block42, etc, and I just cant imagine spending that much money to live next to the train. just my thoughts.

I was unpleasantly surprised by many of the units, particularly the Brownstones. They have a lot of space (major plus) but only two bedrooms in the units. Considering they are 3000+ square feet, this is a major design flaw, IMO. Strangely enough, I wasn't thrilled with any of the housing options, but somewhat ironically I liked The Hill best for what I saw. Yes, it's not as urban, but the living spaces are at least thoughtfully designed.

Actually, the Brownstones have three bedrooms, or at least the ones that are 3,000 square feet+ do. There's a first floor bedroom plus bath, a 3rd floor master plus bath and a small additional bedroom/nursery/study plus bath. Also, the ones which are not complete can be reconfigured to make a larger 3rd bedroom and smaller master if desired.

We have a small sleeper sofa in our third bedroom, which we usually use as a study. It has an adjacent full bath and we use it for visitors. For us, since there are only two living here, it would be a waste of space to have another full bedroom, which we would never use. If I had younger children, I would simply buy one of the incomplete brownstones and configure it to have a bigger third bedroom.

We changed the configuration of the second floor a bit and have a library, dine-in kitchen as well as dining room, so our main living area is on the top floor. It works well for us. I think that's one of the things that is misunderstood: because the brownstones aren't all finished, you can change them to suit your purposes if you wish.

Soonerguru - I had the same thoughts. I had been inside most of the units on tour numerous times except the ones at The Hill. I went into all four designs at The Hill and was very impressed, yet, I am still disappointed at the lack of middle-income availabilities...for rent and to buy.
I've felt that way for a good year now. Last summer i looked desperately to but in the dtown area buy no developer wanted to have a development built towards young up-and-comers. I had to buy about 4 miles to the NW. I'll try again in a couple years.

I wish these people would wake up. The apartments consistently hover in the upper 90% occupancy and they are incubators for housing.

Developers out there, build things that are a average rent payment $850 - $1,600 and you will sell out downtown.

Actually, the Brownstones have three bedrooms, or at least the ones that are 3,000 square feet+ do. There's a first floor bedroom plus bath, a 3rd floor master plus bath and a small additional bedroom/nursery/study plus bath. Also, the ones which are not complete can be reconfigured to make a larger 3rd bedroom and smaller master if desired.

We have a small sleeper sofa in our third bedroom, which we usually use as a study. It has an adjacent full bath and we use it for visitors. For us, since there are only two living here, it would be a waste of space to have another full bedroom, which we would never use. If I had younger children, I would simply buy one of the incomplete brownstones and configure it to have a bigger third bedroom.

We changed the configuration of the second floor a bit and have a library, dine-in kitchen as well as dining room, so our main living area is on the top floor. It works well for us. I think that's one of the things that is misunderstood: because the brownstones aren't all finished, you can change them to suit your purposes if you wish.

Betts, that smaller "bedroom or nursery" is barely larger than a closet, if memory serves.

I'm sure there is a market that wants the Brownstones and is willing to pay 3/4 of a million to pay for them, but it is a very limited market. And for the size, one would expect the property would have at least three full-sized bedrooms. Bizarre layout.

This is quite different from the real brownstones in Manhattan or Brooklyn, which are configured nicely and make excellent family homes.

Soonerguru, as I said, the layout is up to you. You can make the 3rd bedroom bigger if you want. That's how the model is laid out, but it's just one option. That option gives you an extremely large master, and it's designed for people who don't have more than one child living at home with them. But, it's just an option. There are renderings of a brownstone with more equitably-sized rooms that I'm sure they'd be happy to show you.

However, I've got quite a bit of family that lives in Manhattan, and at that price, you'd be lucky to have one bedroom and a galley kitchen. My daughters live in Chicago in one floor of a townhouse and their bedrooms are that size. It's not that unusual in a city to have very small bedrooms outside of the mega-million dollar range brownstones. That's what a "real family home" with bedroom sizes we're used to in Manhattan will cost you

Yes, the market is limited. But, as I've said before, the Brownstones will be the structures that will be present 100 years from now. They probably will have gone through several life cycles, including times when they've been divided up for low-income apartments and then again, they'll become desirable as renovatable downtown homes. They are the equivalent of what the most desirable close-in housing in places like New York, San Francisco and Chicago are. And when those townhouses were built 100+ years ago, they were very expensive then too. I don't think it was unreasonable for the developers to think OKC should have something like that. It's just that a lot of the people in OKC who want that size and are willing to spend that kind of money don't seem to want to live downtown. That's a difference in perspective that is probably related to what we've traditionally valued for housing in OKC: land.

People complain that developers aren't building lower-priced homes downtown. If someone thinks there's enough demand and they can actually make money at those prices, they will build. We can complain all we want, but someone is going to have to convince a developer that it's a viable option. When that happens, they'll get built.

Young people with big trust funds probably love those spaces. I've said it before. I'm a young professional. I am these developers' target audience. I'm now a homeowner on the NW side of town because although I loved living downtown, I couldn't afford to stay there and be a homeowner. I spent less than half as much on housing, now have a decent sized yard and live in a neighborhood backing up to Lake Hefner. At $200/sq. ft (and way up) downtown housing just couldn't compete for my dollar.

This is exactly what I did, and I am young professional. i got more for my money on the NW side.

This is exactly what I did, and I am young professional. i got more for my money on the NW side.

Same for me. Young, single professional. Would have loved to live downtown. I'm around 50th and Western now for a fraction of the cost in a *terrific* neighborhood with a yard for the pooch.

Park Harvey - probably the most desperate building I saw. Formica countertops? Are you kidding me? Pay extra for the health club? Ghost town trying to charge extra for "location". Tough sell. Ugly building.


Totally. "desperate" is the right word. Those apts simply aren't very good, extra money for the health club, parking, etc. Small spaces. 1/4th of them face into Leadership Square with *zero* view.

Yeah, we toured the Park Harvey when it opened. We were living in Sycamore Square at the time, wanted something a little newer. For more money, we would have lost our free parking, had to buy quarters to use the coin-op laundromat and had a lot less space. Sure, yes, the view was great. But otherwise, things looked cheap, but cost a bunch. And the layouts left a lot to be desired.

The city should have never commissioned that downtown housing study done about 6 years ago. It showed lots of demand and they all jumped on it. They just didnt realize the demand was from people who cant and dont want to buy a condo for $150+/ft.

A. there is just too many other housing options, even nearby DT, that can be had at much better prices.
B. Downtown doesnt offer the lifestyle and amenities that can command high living costs, yet. Streetcar and a grocery store in a walkable distance could change that some.

Watching "Selling New York" and saw a townhouse in Brooklyn for sale for 2.25 million. It was four stories and maybe 15 feet wide, no elevator. It had a nice kitchen but was kind of old house renovated shabby. There was only one living/dining area but 3 tiny bedrooms and one big master. It was cute but there was nothing gracious about it and while there were a lot of bedrooms, there was almost no living space. It was an interesting perspective, especially considering it was Brooklyn, not Manhattan.

4,000 square feet in Manhattan was 12.5 million.

Watching "Selling New York" and saw a townhouse in Brooklyn for sale for 2.25 million. It was four stories and maybe 15 feet wide, no elevator. It had a nice kitchen but was kind of old house renovated shabby. There was only one living/dining area but 3 tiny bedrooms and one big master. It was cute but there was nothing gracious about it and while there were a lot of bedrooms, there was almost no living space. It was an interesting perspective, especially considering it was Brooklyn, not Manhattan.

4,000 square feet in Manhattan was 12.5 million.

^^ I was watching that too,did you see that 25 million dollar place with that huge peice of granite in The kitchen?I like that show!

Yes. There were some incredible properties. The $25 million dollar one was my favorite.

Yes. There were some incredible properties. The $25 million dollar one was my favorite.

It is amazing but I'm going to save my $25 million dollars for something else.

Just out of curiosity, for those of you who may have looked: what is the typical price (either for rent or purchase) for a 600-700 sq ft one bedroom in a new development in downtown OKC?

there are quite a few condos for sale in midtown for closer to 160 a sqft .. and rent at $1.25 a sqft

I lived downtown at the Montgomery for several years and loved it. I bought a house and moved NW a few years ago, but plan on moving back downtown at some point. My dad lives downtown in a loft on civic center park and loves it. I hope more residential development comes to the west side of downtown as I believe that is the next frontier in downtown since going west is capped.

As for the lofts at maywood park (where are the lofts) I left my showing 5 minutes into it because the woman showing me around didn't take me seriously and acted like I was wasting her time. That left a lasting impression.

That's a mistake. I'm amazed by salespeople who think in this day and age they can tell by a person's appearance, age or background as to whether they're a serious buyer.

I lived downtown at the Montgomery for several years and loved it. I bought a house and moved NW a few years ago, but plan on moving back downtown at some point. My dad lives downtown in a loft on civic center park and loves it. I hope more residential development comes to the west side of downtown as I believe that is the next frontier in downtown since going west is capped.

Good for you Dirt Law. Again, if developers built stuff that captured people tired of paying rent, we would have a real lively downtown.

Good for you Dirt Law. Again, if developers built stuff that captured people tired of paying rent, we would have a real lively downtown.

I think they will, but the problem is that property is so expensive downtown that you have to build high end stuff to make the numbers work.

I think they will, but the problem is that property is so expensive downtown that you have to build high end stuff to make the numbers work.

That was a point brought up a couple of times in the ULI presentation. That there needs to be a mixture of residential price points. To do so, there will have to be public subsidy in some form, otherwise, like you said, the numbers don't work and all you get is the high dollar.

That is one point that I take issue with on the ULI presentation. It seems time after time, they were saying it was going to take public investment to get these things to happen...not just building the public elements (Park, Streetcars etc). Downtown retail (subsidized by $40M just to get ONE major retailer, IIRC); housing (see above); about $50M for the adjoining Convention Center hotel.

I see most of that as similar to the Bass Pro deal etc. The City shouldn't be putting itself in the position of being a landlord. IMO. Public investment for public projects is one thing but this more direct co-mingling of taxpayer funds, not so much. It would be one thing if OKC was flush with cash and had the extra $40M, $50M etc just laying around, but we don't.

Several mentions of The Montgomery. Are those apartments only or are some of them owned? Does anyone know the starting apt. rental rate? If any are condos, what the cost is? Just curious.

I think they will, but the problem is that property is so expensive downtown that you have to build high end stuff to make the numbers work.
Not really, it's just the investors have to look at the returns in a longer time frame than what the typical investor turnaround time seems to be, which is just another symptom of the short attention span society. The idea of "building high end" with a trickle down in pricing works in suburban apartments/rentals where there is an existing stock move down market like it also works in commercial properties but when there is no existing stock there is nothing there to move down market. In that case there needs to build properties built at different price points, which is done all the time in suburban residential. Investors need to understand not everything is going to have a 3-5 year payoff.

Or perhaps if land doesn't sell, prices for land will drop. I haven't really looked around at other smaller cities, but in big cities, there frequently aren't a variety of price points immediately adjacent to downtown. You have to move out a ways. But, those cities are so big that even moving out a ways, you still feel as if you're in an urban environment. That's why building in Midtown/SOSA might be a really good idea. I suspect the land is quite a bit cheaper right now in comparison to immediately adjacent to downtown, and if it's going to be on the streetcar line it's close enough to downtown to be a very reasonable location for almost everyone. That's where I'd be buying land, if I was a developer who wanted to build at cheaper price points.

Or perhaps if land doesn't sell, prices for land will drop. I haven't really looked around at other smaller cities, but in big cities, there frequently aren't a variety of price points immediately adjacent to downtown. You have to move out a ways. But, those cities are so big that even moving out a ways, you still feel as if you're in an urban environment. That's why building in Midtown/SOSA might be a really good idea. I suspect the land is quite a bit cheaper right now in comparison to immediately adjacent to downtown, and if it's going to be on the streetcar line it's close enough to downtown to be a very reasonable location for almost everyone. That's where I'd be buying land, if I was a developer who wanted to build at cheaper price points.

If things do not sell, people will just hold onto them even longer. My family has a few pieces of property downtown and it took us forever to finally acquire them because the people who owned them had been holding onto them for 30 or 40 years.