I am thinking if it costs the same to buy in the Wheeler District that it does in Deep Deuce, that property is going to sell slowly. Part of the proposal was that it would be less expensive than the downtown options.

Isn't the Hill like $250-265 ft^2 for the new stuff.

It can and will be cheaper than deep deuce.

Again…so many variables…If the Humphries could raise $600M, they could build an instantly successful community overnight. If they are working with a variety of investors who demand the ability to put their own stamp on things, then it will be a little more arduous and time-consuming. It seems to me very simple: The Humphries need to focus on developing the amenities and safety of the district and act as a design review board for the majority of the residential/office.

In terms of PPSF of residential, they need to shoot for sales in the $150/sf - $220/sf. If they want to find a way to subsidize $125/sf, great, but the proximity to downtown alone makes the values of a brand new neighborhood significant, and one in which savvy investors and people who want an urban living environment will pay for.

The entire neighborhood will be finished by 2030 if the bones of the neighborhood are good. If they present a great plan and they get their ducks in a row, they'll have both home-owners and home-investors knocking down their door to give them their money. People need to keep in mind that as soon as the neighborhood becomes viable in and of itself, the prices are going to skyrocket, and there are a lot of investors who are aware of that and a lot of home-owners who would like to take advantage of that.

Why would the success or failure of a private developer who owns the land they intend to develop have anything at all to do with nearly any those other projects? The street car maybe since there's always the chance it could impact Wheeler in future phases, but none of the rest of that is relevant to this discussion in the slightest. We weren't jumping on justifiable skepticism, we were jumping on pointless nay-saying.

David,
You are actually making a VERY GOOD ARGUMENT FOR MY POSITION. OKC historically has not experienced SIGNIFICANT PRIVATE investment IN ANY ONE PROJECT OF THIS SCOPE.. Speculative building is non existent due to the volatile oil and gas industry and good but not hyper growth DOES NOT MAKE INVESTERS WANT TO SPEND BIG MONEY. STILL WAITING ON FIRST NATIONAL PRIVATE INVESTORS?. THE 20-30 YEAR PROJECTIONS TELL THE STORY, BUT KEEP HOPE ALIVE

During the charettes they stated that they hope/intend to build a high-quality school to serve Wheeler and surrounding neighborhoods. Seems doable, considering Kirk's involvement with Rex.

I understand that way of thinking but it would sure be nice if we could incorporate kids from the surrounding neighborhoods OR invest in existing schools that would serve this neighborhood.

David,
You are actually making a VERY GOOD ARGUMENT FOR MY POSITION. OKC historically has not experienced SIGNIFICANT PRIVATE investment IN ANY ONE PROJECT OF THIS SCOPE.. Speculative building is non existent due to the volatile oil and gas industry and good but not hyper growth DOES NOT MAKE INVESTERS WANT TO SPEND BIG MONEY. STILL WAITING ON FIRST NATIONAL PRIVATE INVESTORS?. THE 20-30 YEAR PROJECTIONS TELL THE STORY, BUT KEEP HOPE ALIVE

Having some problems with your shift key?

Edmond is about safety and schools. The biggest hurdle isnt price. It is safety and schools. If they can address these two areas they will not need to be competitive on price vs Edmond.

Did you tell them that people are more likely to be murdered by a stranger in a suburban environment than an urban one? (Source: Walkable City) Maybe that'll change their minds. Lol.

During the charettes they stated that they hope/intend to build a high-quality school to serve Wheeler and surrounding neighborhoods. Seems doable, considering Kirk's involvement with Rex.

Or move into the community and invest in the area elementary school. The biggest problem with urban public schools is people run from them instead of investing in them. Most schools have the ingredients for success, but suffer from economic and racial segregation that transfers social problems to schools in communities where many working poor families cannot make the same kind of investment due to financial and job restraints.

I understand that way of thinking but it would sure be nice if we could incorporate kids from the surrounding neighborhoods OR invest in existing schools that would serve this neighborhood.

Just saw you beat me to the punch.

It really is frustrating as an educator how primarily white families still run scared from diverse schools. It's a huge problem that comes up often.

The units have to be more affordable than downtown. If they are too pricey folks will just choose to live downtown or stay in the suburbs where they can have sidewalks, greenbelts, and a lot more square footage for the same money. Also, there ought to be some reward for the early investors who choose to stake their claim before the property values increase. You have to consider the current conditions of the surrounding area.

Pete and Dan, did you just miss the part where I said that the hoped-for school (as described in charettes) would also serve surrounding neighborhoods? The school might have new facilities but would be intentionally diverse. I'm not sure how I could have said it any more plainly.

You guys have to get away from the price per sq foot thinking. Suburbia is based on price per size. Urban is based on access per price. The objective in urban living is to go as small as you can and still be comfortable while the main selling point is the view and how close you are to work, entertainment, shopping, and dining.

I gotchya and I'm sure a new school could be beneficial to the area... But if a new group of primarily white developers (assumption) and white residents (assumption) enter the area and build a new school - it certainly sends the message that YOUR school wasn't good enough for our kids so we'll get a new one built and your kids can come too OUR school too. I guess I'd rather see new residents invest time, energy, and money in what the community has already built.

I'm making a few assumptions and I dont know the area really well so I could be off. My observations are more based on situations I've seen play out in many other areas. Feel free to correct my errors...

This development certainly has my interest. I like the location and it would shorten my commute. However, I'm not sure how I feel about a new school for this area. I would hate for OKCPS to develop a two tier system school system. I don't think it is diverse schools that families flee as much as impoverished schools and the resulting issues. Though diversity can present its own challenges. The last "white" family with young kids we had in my previous neighborhood gave up on OKCPS because teachers were spending so much time with kids for whom English was not their first language that their "Anglo" kids were not receiving the educational experience they needed.

You guys have to get away from the price per sq foot thinking. Suburbia is based on price per size. Urban is based on access per price. The objective in urban living is to go as small as you can and still be comfortable while the main selling point is the view and how close you are to work, entertainment, shopping, and dining.

Only to a certain extent. I would like to live in the Wheeler District if it turns out like I think it's going to turn out. But it has to meet my requirements. I have to have X number of bedrooms for no more than Y cost. If you are going to have families move in and not have it be a playground for wealthy retirees and young singles, you're going to have to supply housing those families can afford.

The Wheeler District currently has zero access to entertainment, shopping, and dining. It soon will, but exactly how much is still up in the air. It also has very inexpensive housing stock right next to it. This is a relatively poor area. You can't justify established downtown neighborhood prices when you're 3 blocks away from Will Rogers Courts.

I gotchya and I'm sure a new school could be beneficial to the area... But if a new group of primarily white developers (assumption) and white residents (assumption) enter the area and build a new school - it certainly sends the message that YOUR school wasn't good enough for our kids so we'll get a new one built and your kids can come too OUR school too. I guess I'd rather see new residents invest time, energy, and money in what the community has already built.

I'm making a few assumptions and I dont know the area really well so I could be off. My observations are more based on situations I've seen play out in many other areas. Feel free to correct my errors...

My guess is they'll try to cut some deal with Mount St Mary's. But even if they start up a new school, I don't see why that should bother you too much. If the kids from the surrounding neighborhood get to go to the new "rich" school, doesn't that accomplish the same goal of better education for everyone in the area? It's probably more politically feasible that way.

This instance doesn't bother me that much. It's the larger issue that does. I don't have a big problem with a new school, but it's at least worth considering what's there and what it might mean for the community.

This development certainly has my interest. I like the location and it would shorten my commute. However, I'm not sure how I feel about a new school for this area. I would hate for OKCPS to develop a two tier system school system. I don't think it is diverse schools that families flee as much as impoverished schools and the resulting issues. Though diversity can present its own challenges. The last "white" family with young kids we had in my previous neighborhood gave up on OKCPS because teachers were spending so much time with kids for whom English was not their first language that their "Anglo" kids were not receiving the educational experience they needed.

Sounds like the area could use some two way bilingual schools, which research has indicated have a lot of academic success aside from (both English language learners and native English speakers) students learning a language from their peers and teachers. Anyone know how many two way bilingual schools OKCPS has? This area would be a fantastic spot for such a school.

dan and I are on the same page!


A dual-immersion school would be a grand slam. Super impressive vision on their part.

Even better, it appears that Blair Humphreys is as well:


From Steve's chat today.



Blair/Todd: how do you plan to tackle the public schooling issues within the boundaries of Wheeler? Meaning, do you have long term thoughts for families that might want to live there but don't feel like there are good options for their kids (if they can't do private and don't want to home school)?

Blair- how does your dad's work with MAPS for Kids affect your thinking around public education?

Blair Humphreys; Yes, we have thought a lot about education. We would definitely like to see a public school option. South OKC has an existing crowding situation at some of their public schools. We believe there is potential for a new charter school to serve families living on the southside and families moving into Wheeler. We are very excited about the potential of a duel emersion charter school that would be able to serve children with English as a first language and Spanish as a first language. We are still in the very early stages, so there needs to be a conversation with city and community leaders and elected leadership and administrators of the school district. We are certainly interested in offering a site and we would be thrilled to have such a school in our community.


There seemed to be a lot of interest in Wheeler during the chat today.

Education and a potential school for the area was one of the universal desires at the charette. Nearly everyone was concerned about it and integrating the new with the existing neighborhoods surrounding the proposed development. I really think Blair and the Humphries group will do this right.

Well, there you go...

I said as much on the previous page but only got argument for my trouble.

I said as much on the previous page but only got argument for my trouble.

You're being punished by the board for your views on the convention center ;)

As much as the Humphreys will allow..? I don't understand that comment. First of all, they invited the entire community to the design charettes (hundreds attended, from all walks of life and parts of the community) and encouraged unprecedented public comment and suggestions during planning phases.

Second, the development is being master planned by one of the foremost New Urbanism-focused planning firms in the world. I'm not sure forcing OKC's planning and design values into the situation at this point would help; as a matter of fact I'm quite convinced that doing so would be detrimental.

I think the better use of public input would be to encourage City officials to cooperate as much as humanly possible in the creation of Oklahoma's most walkable and human-scaled new neighborhood to be built in generations.

There's not much to not understand.
If you read some of the previous comments before my post, there are a few people insisting that this won't be what it's planned up to be.
So, I responded by saying (and already knowing that Humphreys wanted public opinion and hosted several forums) that everyone who's interested, or those who are already losing faith (for whatever reason... again, read some of the comments and maybe you can answer why), to remain active in it as much as possible. As much as will be allowed by Humphreys... Take advantage.
It was not an indictment against Humphreys, rather, against the naysayers and doubters.

Only to a certain extent. I would like to live in the Wheeler District if it turns out like I think it's going to turn out. But it has to meet my requirements. I have to have X number of bedrooms for no more than Y cost. If you are going to have families move in and not have it be a playground for wealthy retirees and young singles

If you need 3 bedrooms fine, just expect those bedrooms to be 8' x 10', not 12' x 14' but cost the same price.

I think some confuse input with control. This isn't, and other private endeavors aren't exercises to take a vote and execute the results of the vote. It is INPUT, but decisions have to be made by the people who OWN the project. The WANT it to be the most successful it can be. They take the input seriously. But they have to weigh everything. I guarantee that after it starts according to plan, if it isn't trending successfully they will make whatever changes they have to make to make it so. So, yes there is a chance it won't complete as the early comps look. But it doesn't prove intent to deceive, just that they are a private business with investors and other stakeholders who expect, in the end, to reap the right level of profits for their risk. Though everyone on here seems to think otherwise, this is far from a slam dunk for them.

But it doesn't prove intent to deceive, just that they are a private business with investors and other stakeholders who expect, in the end, to reap the right level of profits for their risk. Though everyone on here seems to think otherwise, this is far from a slam dunk for them.

This is the scary part in general. What is the right level of profits? Longevity and Sustainability are expensive in the short-run. If they want to build a quality urban neighborhood, they're not making their money back in 10 years. If they have to play the short-term game (by their choice or their stakeholders), this has a 0% chance to reach its potential. The reason I think so many of us are hopeful is that Humphreys has expressed a sense of patience and understanding that it may not happen over night.

This is the scary part in general. What is the right level of profits? Longevity and Sustainability are expensive in the short-run. If they want to build a quality urban neighborhood, they're not making their money back in 10 years. If they have to play the short-term game (by their choice or their stakeholders), this has a 0% chance to reach its potential. The reason I think so many of us are hopeful is that Humphreys has expressed a sense of patience and understanding that it may not happen over night.

Money is a commodity and the cost and availability of it influenced greatly by perception of risk. When you ask "what is the right level of profits", it is generally commensurate with that risk and what other investments are out there.

This isn't a quick flip project so obviously their play is for long term. They are incentivized to make it go right so that the last pieces developed and sold bring the highest level return possible to pay for the deficits they will face up front with all the infrastructure and other costs. If they don't build it according to demand then it isn't just short term they fail, they fail in the long run too.

I think that sometimes it is hard to understand the levels of risk developers face....both short and long term. There are lots of moving parts.

If you need 3 bedrooms fine, just expect those bedrooms to be 8' x 10', not 12' x 14' but cost the same price.

I think a lot of people are talking past one another on this thread. Surprise surprise, people on the internet are failing to express their ideas clearly to each other.

The Humphreys probably have an idea as to what income range they are going to target. If the goal, as was mentioned earlier in the thread (maybe by Pete?), is to supply housing to those who have been priced out of the downtown market, then the options are to either 1) offer smaller units than are available downtown, or 2) charge cheaper rates per square foot. Now that might not actually be their goal. For all I know, they plan on pushing the envelope of housing costs and everything there will be half a million or more. Who knows.

Regardless of how much money I have (or don't have), I wouldn't pay downtown rates to live in a not-yet downtown area. The Wheeler District is a big empty field right now, that happens to be next to a poor neighborhood and a really really bad public housing project. If they are going to charge the same price as the Brownstones, then if I get the money I will just live in the Brownstones. Now some people on this thread have indicated that if you pay less than $200 per square foot for new construction, then your house will blow down as soon as the Big Bad Wolf comes by and sneezes at it. They think you can't get anything remotely decent unless you pay more than twice the price of anything that is built in this market. I disagree with those people.

I think the price point that has been set downtown with places like the Brownstones and the Hill is deliberate. Those are high profit margin properties and they are targeting a relatively small group of homebuyers. I don't see any reason why a rowhouse would need to be any more costly to build than a regular home. The entire purpose of rowhouses was to save money on the land you have to purchase and on the materials used because you are sharing walls with your neighbors. They should be cheaper to build than a normal house. Now in the Wheeler District you are going to be paying a premium on land because it is a planned neighborhood and there will be a lot of people who believe that the land values there are going to go sky high once it is complete.

If the Humphreys are planning on a small rowhouse costing $350,000, then that place may take quite a while to fill up. But if you can get a 3 bedroom townhouse for $180,000 (even if the rooms are small) then that place will sell like crazy. My understanding of what the Wheeler District was supposed to be is more of the latter than the former.

Money is a commodity and the cost and availability of it influenced greatly by perception of risk. When you ask "what is the right level of profits", it is generally commensurate with that risk and what other investments are out there.

This isn't a quick flip project so obviously their play is for long term. They are incentivized to make it go right so that the last pieces developed and sold bring the highest level return possible to pay for the deficits they will face up front with all the infrastructure and other costs. If they don't build it according to demand then it isn't just short term they fail, they fail in the long run too.

I think that sometimes it is hard to understand the levels of risk developers face....both short and long term. There are lots of moving parts.

It seems to me that developing a community like this is a lot less about profit and a lot more about wealth protection. This is the problem with suburban-tract housing: it *is* a quick flip where developers come in, build an edition and sell all of the stock as quickly as possible for a profit. That kind of development doesn't require things to be built to last, or to cater to a sense of timelessness that can make a neighborhood last. When the housing editions start going south 20/30 years later, the developers have been gone for over half that time onto new build and flip projects.

I guess all that to say, if profit is the ultimate goal here, 1. I don't know why they would go this direction 2. I don't think they're going to see those profits for a very extensive period of time.

It seems to me they will be in the red for quite some time if this development is going to be successful. I hope they can find a way to make money in the short-run AND be successful…That would be ideal, but could come at the price of having an economically diverse neighborhood.

But if you can get a 3 bedroom townhouse for $180,000 (even if the rooms are small) then that place will sell like crazy. My understanding of what the Wheeler District was supposed to be is more of the latter than the former.

Fingers crossed and hoping that's the case.

I recall Blair alluding to a concept of property ownership that excludes the land price. The land title would be held separately from the dwelling. That might keep things affordable. Does anyone know what I am referring to?

Sounds to me like NSP, which IMO would be ideal. Income-restricts being 80-120% AMI.

IIRC, the homes at Carlton Landing run about $160-$170 per SF.

IIRC, the homes at Carlton Landing run about $160-$170 per SF.

$200 plus cost of the lot was the average when I looked at it last fall.

Available: http://www.homefinder.com/broker/Carlton-Landing-Realty-Llc-4961277d/

Everything on the CL website is $210+ per sf.

But I don't understand why we're comping CL with WD? I imagine costs to build out there would be quite a bit higher than in OKC.

Everything on the CL website is $210+ per sf.

But I don't understand why we're comping CL with WD? I imagine costs to build out there would be quite a bit higher than in OKC.

New Urbanist development by the same group. It may or may not have anything in common otherwise. It's by the lake but isn't all that far from civilization though. McAlester is maybe 20 minutes away. There are plenty of builders in the area and sometimes more rural labor is less expensive than metro. Sometimes not.

New Urbanist development by the same group. It may or may not have anything in common otherwise. It's by the lake but isn't all that far from civilization though. McAlester is maybe 20 minutes away. There are plenty of builders in the area and sometimes more rural labor is less expensive than metro. Sometimes not.

Right but getting sewer, water, electrical up there would surely not be an inexpensive thing for a development of that magnitude, and site preparation would probably be a bit more expensive as well.

There are certainly cost advantages in both cases. But I think if KrisB is correct and the Humphreys' will maintain ownership of all the Wheeler land, then the final costs of your average house should be under the $200/sf range. I think there are a lot of people who would gladly pay $185k for ~1100 square feet. If I had to guess, initial homes may be a bit more expensive, because they will likely be closer to the central area of the district and likely more town home style (which seems to me predisposed to design inefficiency).

Right but getting sewer, water, electrical up there would surely not be an inexpensive thing for a development of that magnitude, and site preparation would probably be a bit more expensive as well.

There are certainly cost advantages in both cases. But I think if KrisB is correct and the Humphreys' will maintain ownership of all the Wheeler land, then the final costs of your average house should be under the $200/sf range. I think there are a lot of people who would gladly pay $185k for ~1100 square feet. If I had to guess, initial homes may be a bit more expensive, because they will likely be closer to the central area of the district and likely more town home style (which seems to me predisposed to design inefficiency).

What do you think the yearly cost is going to be to rent the land from the Humphreys, have them cover the taxes on the property they own and you are using and so on?

Attractive to package it that way, maybe. But it's not apples and apples to owning property outright or renting outright.

I don't know how it will work, because I don't know how taxes work on mixed-use property, and I would hope that the goal is for a majority of the properties to be mixed use.

I imagine there will be considerable "HOA" fees for buildings, but I also imagine a lot of that money will funnel into improving the district for a very long time.

These homes have an old style, but are being built in Edmond. I would use these houses to get an idea of cost for a single family house in Wheeler.

New Homes Oklahoma City, Homes In Edmond,Home Builder McCaleb Homes (http://mccalebhomes.com/our-homes.php)

$200 plus cost of the lot was the average when I looked at it last fall.

Available: Carlton Landing Realty, Llc - Eufaula, OK Homes For Sale | HomeFinder.com (http://www.homefinder.com/broker/Carlton-Landing-Realty-Llc-4961277d/)
Fair enough. That was a few years ago too.

CL is more of a resort/retirement community. Wheeler will be way more dense and does not have quite the same waterfront property as CL. The urban lifestyle and amenities will need to be in place before they can start charging anywhere near $200 per square foot. Otherwise, why not just live downtown or in a suburban walkable community, as we have all been saying?

Wheeler is large enough that it can accommodate both an exclusive community and more affordable units. In today's economy, it's hard for any real estate to be successful without being a "community of choice."

Just an FYI: Master Plan | Carlton Landing (http://www.carltonlanding.com/design/master-plan/)

These homes have an old style, but are being built in Edmond. I would use these houses to get an idea of cost for a single family house in Wheeler.

New Homes Oklahoma City, Homes In Edmond,Home Builder McCaleb Homes (http://mccalebhomes.com/our-homes.php)

I like the look of those. I love seeing something different being built. Anything but the Dallas-style houses that have infested almost every neighborhood in the metro for the last 30yrs

These homes have an old style, but are being built in Edmond. I would use these houses to get an idea of cost for a single family house in Wheeler.

New Homes Oklahoma City, Homes In Edmond,Home Builder McCaleb Homes (http://mccalebhomes.com/our-homes.php)

$160/sf or less is not bad, but I still think flats are the way to go, especially in the central part of the district which I assume is where things will start. Ideally you could build 4 stories with the first level retail/in-back-parking. and everything else residential, you can make the flats condos and do shared roof-top terraces that way. It should help keep the costs below $200/sf and make more efficient use of space.

Something else that I think the district could do is some median parking on any wider streets:

10541

Spoke with someone on the project recently. A dual-immersion, non-private elementary school is still the desired plan. I may be making too much of a jump, but it sounded like they want the school asap, which means it would serve primarily non-Wheeler residents for the medium term.

Yeah, if they do the dual immersion, that could completely change the face of that area…I'd want my kid in that school no ifs ands or buts.

Yeah, if they do the dual immersion, that could completely change the face of that area…I'd want my kid in that school no ifs ands or buts.

Yep. Dual immersion schools are incredible. If I had kids that would be a requirement for me.

Yep. Dual immersion schools are incredible. If I had kids that would be a requirement for me.

Agreed 100%

N00b here. What exactly is a dual immersion school? The Googler isn't quite clear here.

Students learn both English and Spanish, regardless of which language is spoken in their home.

N00b here. What exactly is a dual immersion school? The Googler isn't quite clear here.

Dual immersion (or two-way bilingual schools) allow native English speakers to learn Spanish and native Spanish speakers to learn English (or other languages). A side benefit of this arrangement is that students get used to teaching each other and this type of involvement is really conducive to learning (instead of the often critiqued teacher/textbook centered model). Most of the research on these schools has been very promising.

N00b here. What exactly is a dual immersion school? The Googler isn't quite clear here.

Religious school. They baptise you, twice. Just to make sure.


;)

Just as a point of clarification, it isn't only Spanish. We have a French dual immersion school and I think there is a Dutch one elsewhere.

A Dutch one in Seattle?!? Sid, find me a job there PRONTO. Must send my daughters there! :)

I know there are Spanish and Chinese immersion programs around Holland and Grand Rapids, Michigan (where we SHOULD have a Dutch one).

OKCTalk - Detailed plans revealed for Wheeler District Ferris wheel and plaza (http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=136-Detailed-plans-revealed-for-Wheeler-District-Ferris-wheel-and-plaza)

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/wheeler040115a.jpg

This is great! I was kind of hoping we would get a pier on the river. I wonder if that will happen anywhere.

I like it. That's kind of a lot of parking for what will eventually be a mecca of urbanism, but okay. I like the OKC sculpture and predict there will be many a selfie taken from it with the skyline, but at the same time it goes into that "yet another thing that says OK/C on it" bucket. Not sure "Wheeler" would have been any better. Maybe something a little more abstract or visually creative? Maybe the ferris wheel should be the "O"? I don't know, just thinking out loud.

I really love that and the best thing is you will be able to bike there from downtown along the river!