Are they going to get rid of the parking garage that surrounds the Kerr McGee building? That will really help bring Dean A McGee into the rest of downtown.

It seems they are Kerry. But not entirely, it looks like the portions to the north and north west of the tower will be demolished. The eastern portion however will stay.

I still say that in the twenty block defined area of downtown CBD of Oklahoma City you are not going to get any higher densities than what you already have existing. If you look at the built section of those twenty blocks, they are pretty well developed with existing structures that have been designed primarly for specfic tenants. The exceptions being the old galleria parking lot - (the devon site), the block proposed to be the chamber of commerce site, and Kerr Park. The only way you will get higher density is to demolish something and build a new larger structure. Creating green spaces that can be used by the whole community while interacting with the build environment will help create energy between the two. By using the Project 180 plans and melding the Sandridge campus with those plans, you start to get a green corridor of life throughout the downtown. If you just have sidewalks it just becomes another "underground" corridor that happens to be street level. It would be nice to see retail all along the street level of downtown, but I don't think this is a real model for retailers today. I still feel that creating vibrant green paths that connect to each other will provide a synergism of spaces and energies to develop and to spur other redevelopment along side it. The real growth for higher densities are the areas outside the CBD- The Arts District, Midtown, and Core to shore.

Oklahoma City CBD will never be like NY City, Chicago, or other highly urbanized, extremely high density development. I think it should reflect our culture and expectations. I personally believe that the green city of reasonable high density will create an inviting area to go to work in. We are not an uptight city. We are a country casual, upwardly sophisticated culture that still respects our spaces. We can do this and develop pockets of exciting retail and residences in areas we are developing in and around the central area. I like the mid-town character, and automobile alley, and deep deuce, film area, etc. Each has distinct character and will be part of the mosaic that is downtown.

Let's create our own model of humane, urbane, western chic and sophisticated living, without trying to be something we aren't. Embrace the unique character that is developing in the CBD and quit trying to make it from some template.

Just MHO

Oklahoma City CBD will never be like NY City, Chicago, or other highly urbanized, extremely high density development. I think it should reflect our culture and expectations. I personally believe that the green city of reasonable high density will create an inviting area to go to work in. We are not an uptight city. We are a country casual, upwardly sophisticated culture that still respects our spaces. We can do this and develop pockets of exciting retail and residences in areas we are developing in and around the central area. I like the mid-town character, and automobile alley, and deep deuce, film area, etc. Each has distinct character and will be part of the mosaic that is downtown.

Let's create our own model of humane, urbane, western chic and sophisticated living, without trying to be something we aren't. Embrace the unique character that is developing in the CBD and quit trying to make it from some template.

Just MHO

What are you saying here, though? That all sounds nice and lovely, but honestly, I don't see what this has to do with the SandRidge proposal. Either you're for it because you believe it will benefit the human environment of downtown, or you're against it because you believe it will be detrimental to the human environment of downtown. Which is it?

I don't see how creating our own model of humane, urbane, western chic, and upwardly sophisticated living blah blah blah has to do with whether you think KerMac and the India Temple need to stay or need to go.

If you ask me I think OKC has pretty dense downtown right now. When you look at downtown OKC from 10 miles away it looks like one solid mass. Not all downtowns (especially ones with lots of green space) have that silhouette.

OKC - very dense
http://pics4.city-data.com/cpicc/cfiles26315.jpg

Sacramento - not so dense. Just as many tall building but in 5X the space. You would never guess they had over 1,000,000 more people.
http://webcambiglook.com/california/18.jpg

Sacramento's downtown looks healthier in that picture. But let's examine TRUE density. Not density of a high rise cluster, but the overall density of the built environment. You'll find that OKC is in fact QUITE lacking, urban renewal excuses or not.

OKC
http://www.urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/oklahomacity//normal_okc_23_7665.jpg

Nashville
http://www.urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/nashville//normal_nashville_8757.jpg

Louisville
http://www.urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/louisville//normal_louisville_06_5628.jpg

Memphis
http://www.urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/memphis//normal_memphis_50_8809.jpg

Birmingham
http://www.urban-photos.com/gallery/albums/city_galleries/birmingham//normal_birmingham_01_9147.jpg

As an aside, what is the cut-in-half circle development in the heart of the Louisville photo? Is that housing? Quite intriguing.

This one should bring a tear to your eye. OKC can't afford another plaza at the expense of existing structures.

http://pictopia.com/perl/get_image?provider_id=493&size=550x550_mb&ptp_photo_id=5652674

That photo must be on one of those days I get hit with emails saying there's no place to park in Bricktown.

So sandridge is going to demolish a building downtown? Replace it with what? Office or living space?

Most importantly where is SD going to get the money for this project? They're struggling a bit right now, demolition of existing structures poses potential problems for downtown, espeically if SD doesn't fullfill their end of the bargain. The city can and should get some big assurances that whatever they do gets DONE.

OUGrad - they are going to replace 2 existing buildings with brick pavers and grass.

Steve - everytime someone complains about Bricktown parking just forward that photo to them.

I dunno what the circle development in Louisville is, but I agree that it is an intriguing use of space. I like it.

OUGrad05 -- $100 million is NOT a lot of money for a corporate redevelopment project. Devon is spending $750 million. Chesapeake has spent way more than $100 million too. SandRidge is still getting an absolute bargain with their corporate campus. Office space is an essential need for them, kind of like paper clips..or natural gas wells.

Downtown Oklahoma City in it's dense urban prime state.
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/OKCdowntownaerial.jpg

And the PEI Plan demolition (shown red) which destroyed the urban density that many cities maintained during Urban Renewal.
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/Pei_Plan_Map_highlighted.jpg

Unfortunately this urban fabric will not return to downtown Oklahoma City. While we all embrace the Devon project with it's setback and front yard, the urban sprawl continues with MAPS 3 and C2S...............I tend to agree with the above post.......creating a new urbanism for what is Downtown Oklahoma City.

I say we track down I.M. Pei and kick him in the nuts.

When does this project go up to the city for approval? I think we should get a group together to protest the merits of it.

I say we track down I.M. Pei and kick him in the nuts.

I think the same thing every time this issue comes up, along with the City leaders :fighting2 who brought him in here and allowed this.........

What was the IM Pei plan anyhow? Surely it was more than tearing down hundreds of old buildings and trying to build a downtown mall. There was a lot of land cleared, what happened that made it all go wrong? Was there a plan to put anything back on all the newly cleared land? I mean beside a Ford Dealership, junk yards, and surface parking.

Wilkipedia has a good summary of the Pei Plan and the City's implementation of..........

Pei Plan (Oklahoma City) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pei_Plan_(Oklahoma_City))

OUGrad - they are going to replace 2 existing buildings with brick pavers and grass.

Steve - everytime someone complains about Bricktown parking just forward that photo to them.
Anytime I hear about the destruction of current structures it makes me cringe a little...

I dunno what the circle development in Louisville is, but I agree that it is an intriguing use of space. I like it.

OUGrad05 -- $100 million is NOT a lot of money for a corporate redevelopment project. Devon is spending $750 million. Chesapeake has spent way more than $100 million too. SandRidge is still getting an absolute bargain with their corporate campus. Office space is an essential need for them, kind of like paper clips..or natural gas wells.
spartan I'm well aware of corporate development, its costs and the industry I work in...the fact is SD is struggling and is not currently profitible, they just agreed to an 800 million dollar acquisition

Financial Statements for SandRidge Energy Inc. - Google Finance (http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:SD&fstype=ii)

As you can see there are some problems. I would urge you to look over their financials in detail and you will see what I am talking about.

I want SD to do well as I do all companies in our state, but I do not want them to make promises, demolish buildings and then fail to follow through on their end due to financial hardship, it wouldn't be the first time the city was on the losing end of such a deal.

Downtown Oklahoma City in it's dense urban prime state.
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/OKCdowntownaerial.jpg

And the PEI Plan demolition (shown red) which destroyed the urban density that many cities maintained during Urban Renewal.
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/Pei_Plan_Map_highlighted.jpg

Unfortunately this urban fabric will not return to downtown Oklahoma City. While we all embrace the Devon project with it's setback and front yard, the urban sprawl continues with MAPS 3 and C2S...............I tend to agree with the above post.......creating a new urbanism for what is Downtown Oklahoma City.

You're right, it's the Pei Plan all over again. The only relevance old photographs of the density we lost have anymore are to show how we've backtracked, and we're still backtracking. We are combining a great park and a convention center and lumping together unprecedented sizes of superblocks, a classic urban renewal mistake. We are tearing down great old buildings with fantastic detail that could EASILY be renovated into housing, for windswept plazas..another classic urban renewal mistake.

I really wish someone would tally up all of the plazas that are currently in the works for OKC..it's quite surprising, we've got Devon (a good project so we'll let a plaza slide), the Chamber, Sand Ridge, BOK renovated theirs recently, the list goes on and on.. We don't need new plazas. We need to eliminate and develop these plazas. Not go the other way, which is what we're doing.

But never before have we seen so much urban renewal in OKC since the 1970s, maybe even the 1960s. It's baaaaack.

Guys, all of this discussion is encouraging, but we need really get politically active. Does anyone know if the Criterion Group is still active?

The Criterion Group -- Advocating preservation of historic Oklahoma City architecture -- About (http://www.criteriongroup.org/about.html)

If so, this might be a good platform to galvanize support for an intelligent solution to the "Sandridge Question" that would benefit the historical bones of the city as well as the company itself. It may be that Sandridge just needs to be shown that there are good architectural alternatives to wholsale destruction of historic buildings.

Take the case of Chijmes Cloister in Singapore. It was just a group of decaying buildings, but was revitalized into a fantastic urban entertainment center while still preserving the historical character: CHIJMES (http://www.chijmes.com.sg/default.aspx)
I quote from their site:

" Unlike a new development which is built with facilities to suit its tenants, Chijmes had to work the other way round -determining the functions and facilities that would work best within the constraints and specifications of the site. The heritage aspects of the site, the design features and the quality of restoration were foremost in the planning stages. High standards and criteria were set for careful preservation and adapting the building for new use".


Now granted, the historic buildings we are talking about downtown don't have the flair of Chijmes, but nonetheless, they are some of the few remaining vestiges of what this city meant in the past. With this approach in mind, Sandridge could make its 'campus' (inappropriate word here as it implies that this is not an urban environment) into the living, breathing heart of the city. NOT an out-of-place downtown prairie. They could easily make their skyscraper a new icon by filling its direct surroundings with restaurants, retail, museums, etc. Much like Chijmes.

Let's help them with inspiration for all the possibilities, and if they prove to be inflexible, take this argument to the people! We cannot let this happen again.

I wonder if everyone knows that Couch Drive between Robinson and Broadway will become a pedestrian street in Project 180 and how that will relate to Sandridge's plan?

Downtown Oklahoma City in it's dense urban prime state.
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/OKCdowntownaerial.jpg

And the PEI Plan demolition (shown red) which destroyed the urban density that many cities maintained during Urban Renewal.
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/Pei_Plan_Map_highlighted.jpg

Unfortunately this urban fabric will not return to downtown Oklahoma City. While we all embrace the Devon project with it's setback and front yard, the urban sprawl continues with MAPS 3 and C2S...............I tend to agree with the above post.......creating a new urbanism for what is Downtown Oklahoma City.

WHOW! urban renewal destroyed what was a pretty robust downtown.

After my earlier post I was called out to say whether I am for or against the Sandridge plan. I guess I am somewhat agnostic about it but am saying that, if executed to the plan, it can create a desirable corporate destination and an enjoyable environment. That in turn will help create demand for people to remain downtown and will create demand for urban housing, which in turn creates demand for retail. No amount of construction will create demand. Only jobs and people wanting to work downtown will create demand for housing. And until you have people WANTING to live downtown you can forget about housing and retail. People will not move downtown and work in the suburbs...it just doesn't work that way.

I travel to all those cities you compared us to and I certainly do not believe (from observation and being in the construction business in those cities) that any of those downtown urban areas are desirable. The closest model we may have is in Austin where they are developing the urban living. However, it's downtown hasn't been a high rise mecca until pretty recently. FIRST, the corporate developments have to be there to create the jobs. THEN the people follow. OKC has to support getting good corporate buildings with growing employment base and then create incentives to infill with urban style residential and street level retail. Otherwise we will continue to get low rise apartment style development in and around downtown. That will be the kiss of death in 10 years.

So, rather than keep a couple of dilapidated and empty low rise buildings around a magnet employer who wishes to create a better environment in which to attract prime employees, I would rather they remodel, rebuild and re-landscape the area.

Otherwise we will continue to get low rise apartment style development in and around downtown. That will be the kiss of death in 10 years.



Why are the condo's downtown going to be a kiss of death in 10 years? My wife and I really like that area of downtown and have been very impressed with the development. In the long run assuming the state and city dont' run off employers it should serve the city well. Just because they aren't 15, 20 or 30 stories tall doesn't mean they aren't relevant to the city and its ongoing development.

Hey Kerry. They're destroying 3 buildings and replacing them with brick pavers and grass.

2 seems bad enough. But 3. And not even a lick of sense to replace at least one of them with something of equal or greater presence.

Hey Kerry. They're destroying 3 buildings and replacing them with brick pavers and grass.

2 seems bad enough. But 3. And not even a lick of sense to replace at least one of them with something of equal or greater presence.

Are all three of the "buildings" office buildings or are they parking structures? If they are office/residential type buildings oculdn't the city prevent the development?

Yes, the city could, and should. The proposal for SandRidge Commons actually goes against urban development codes that require development to come right up to the street. Obviously tearing down buildings that come right up to the street for the sake of a windswept plaza goes against that ordinance.

All 3 I was talking about are office structures. But if you want to count the northern and northwestern portion of the parking garage. It's 4 buildings they're demolishing.

You know, I bet a lot of people would be okay with them demolishing those structures if they would replace them with mid-rise mixed-use towers or something of equal presence. But they aren't. They're being replaced by saplings that won't mature for 20 years. 3 significant buildings being demolished so that the view of the tower isn't obstructed.

Current buildings on that city block: The Braniff Building, the KerMac Building, the former YMCA, the Indian Temple, the Sandridge Tower, the eastern parking garage, and the northern and northwest parking garages.

When they are done: The Braniff Building, Sandrige Tower, eastern parking garage. That's it.

Oh and beautiful suburban plazas and parkland, to accentuate the already-existing park just south. Also, Platemaker mentioned this, they are turning Couch Drive into a pedestrian only street. That doubles the size of KerrPark right there! There is no justified usage for the abundance of grassland they want to surround their tower with and demolish buildings without replacing them for.

All 3 I was talking about are office structures. But if you want to count the northern and northwestern portion of the parking garage. It's 4 buildings they're demolishing.

You know, I bet a lot of people would be okay with them demolishing those structures if they would replace them with mid-rise mixed-use towers or something of equal presence. But they aren't. They're being replaced by saplings that won't mature for 20 years. 3 significant buildings being demolished so that the view of the tower isn't obstructed.

Current buildings on that city block: The Braniff Building, the KerMac Building, the former YMCA, the Indian Temple, the Sandridge Tower, the eastern parking garage, and the northern and northwest parking garages.

When they are done: The Braniff Building, Sandrige Tower, eastern parking garage. That's it.

Oh and beautiful suburban plazas and parkland, to accentuate the already-existing park just south. Also, Platemaker mentioned this, they are turning Couch Drive into a pedestrian only street. That doubles the size of KerrPark right there! There is no justified usage for the abundance of grassland they want to surround their tower with and demolish buildings without replacing them for.

This project sounds like a big ego boost for SD more so than real city development. Devon has a big project so we need one too? I dunno this just seems like the WRONG way to go about it.

Architect, I don't think you realize that SandRidge is building a 110 ft tall building over where the old YMCA is now.

Architect, I don't think you realize that SandRidge is building a 110 ft tall building over where the old YMCA is now.

That's a fair point but I don't think that justifies the destruction of current infrastructure to be replaced with essentially nothing...downtown OKC has a lot of open space as is. Just seems like the city may allow the repeating of past mistakes...

Why can't we expand the urban downtown environment? Expand...build where nothing currently exists. Why tear down and rebuild?

That's a fair point but I don't think that justifies the destruction of current infrastructure to be replaced with essentially nothing...downtown OKC has a lot of open space as is. Just seems like the city may allow the repeating of past mistakes...

Yup, pretty much. Just wanted to be clear that the reason I'm vehemently against the demolition of the KerMac bldg is b/c here you have a quality bldg with tons of potential being demo'd and replaced by nothing. It is senseless. It's different from the case of the YMCA building, which is not a quality bldg that IS being replaced with a quality bldg under the plan. That part, I like, obviously.

Yes, the city could, and should. The proposal for SandRidge Commons actually goes against urban development codes that require development to come right up to the street. Obviously tearing down buildings that come right up to the street for the sake of a windswept plaza goes against that ordinance.

Spartan, this statement is incorrect. The downtown development code requires new 'buildings' to be constructed up to or within 10' of the front property line, not 'developements'.

The developement code does allow for plazas and green areas, meaning the Sandridge proposal in in conformance with the code.

Sandridge will, however, have to receive approval from the Downtown Design Review Committee to receive a demo permit for the proposed leveling of the 3buildings.

Architect, I don't think you realize that SandRidge is building a 110 ft tall building over where the old YMCA is now.


It's different from the case of the YMCA building, which is not a quality bldg that IS being replaced with a quality bldg under the plan. That part, I like, obviously

Spartan. What 110 foot building are you talking about? There is no replacement for the former YMCA in this plan. Unless I'm missing some sort of the entire scheme of things, which I may be.

I expect that you're referring to the building across the street they would be erecting after the demolition of the Globe Life Center. I'm sorry, but what was your point? I never mentioned that building and I'm well aware of the plans for the Globe Life Center overlooking KerrPark and you are right, that is a quality replacement for the ugly building currently over looking Kerr Park.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the KerMac, former YMCA, and Indian Temple, will not be replaced like the building you referred to.

As an aside, what is the cut-in-half circle development in the heart of the Louisville photo? Is that housing? Quite intriguing.

You are correct Steve, that is a residential development in Louisville.

CaptDave, do you know the name of it? I'd like to see more photos and info on that. Looks pretty innovative.

CaptDave, do you know the name of it? I'd like to see more photos and info on that. Looks pretty innovative.

Crescent Centre.


Spartan. What 110 foot building are you talking about? There is no replacement for the former YMCA in this plan. Unless I'm missing some sort of the entire scheme of things, which I may be.

I expect that you're referring to the building across the street they would be erecting after the demolition of the Globe Life Center. I'm sorry, but what was your point? I never mentioned that building and I'm well aware of the plans for the Globe Life Center overlooking KerrPark and you are right, that is a quality replacement for the ugly building currently over looking Kerr Park.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the KerMac, former YMCA, and Indian Temple, will not be replaced like the building you referred to.

You're right. Calm down. The 110 ft addition is across the street. KerMac and the adjoining YMCA bldg are separate from the hideous Globe Life Center.

CaptDave, do you know the name of it? I'd like to see more photos and info on that. Looks pretty innovative.

Steve - they are called the Cresent Lux Condos. Google Earth has good photos.

http://www.panoramio.com/photo/7274711

Thanks guys. Just saw the photos. Wow...

394

Back to Sandridge,

This is a project in Calgary that suggests how Sandridge could consider incorporating other, older, buildings and retaining an urban environment. Notice how elegant the transition is between the buildings. Wouldn't it be nice if Sandridge could pull of something like this?

Wow that's fabulous.. SOOOOOO much better than this *&^&* Sandridge and its non creative design consultants have proposed.
Thank you

LOL. None of the buildings that SR is looking to remove are remotely close to as attractive or useful as the one pictured in Calgary. Plus, you can't just move the SR tower to be closer to the existing dilapidated buildings you want to save.

Calgary, like most Canadian Cities is much more developed downtown and less developed with suburbs. Zoning and incentives are much stricter than here. It works though. Go to Vancouver, one of my favorite cities, which is approximately the same population as OKC metro and you will find a great urban sophisticated center. It is also hundreds of square miles smaller than OKC and good development is encouraged with strict zoning and generous support for the right kinds of developments.

Wow that's fabulous.. SOOOOOO much better than this *&^&* Sandridge and its non creative design consultants have proposed.
Thank you

It's not fair to call Rogers Marvel non creative... Rogers Marvel Architects (http://www.rogersmarvel.com/) (Website is graphic-intensive)

They've done some amazing things. What they've actually proposed for new building/renovation is something new for OKC, even compared to Devon.

The public space aspect, however, is another discussion.

Calgary, like most Canadian Cities is much more developed downtown and less developed with suburbs. Zoning and incentives are much stricter than here. It works though. Go to Vancouver, one of my favorite cities, which is approximately the same population as OKC metro and you will find a great urban sophisticated center. It is also hundreds of square miles smaller than OKC and good development is encouraged with strict zoning and generous support for the right kinds of developments.

Actually, the Vancouver metro area is about twice the size of OKC. I agree it is a wonderful city and there is much there that would great for us to emulate, however, it is historically limited in development due to surrounding mountains and water. It is dense by necessity as much as by design.

LOL. None of the buildings that SR is looking to remove are remotely close to as attractive or useful as the one pictured in Calgary. Plus, you can't just move the SR tower to be closer to the existing dilapidated buildings you want to save.

Calgary, like most Canadian Cities is much more developed downtown and less developed with suburbs. Zoning and incentives are much stricter than here. It works though. Go to Vancouver, one of my favorite cities, which is approximately the same population as OKC metro and you will find a great urban sophisticated center. It is also hundreds of square miles smaller than OKC and good development is encouraged with strict zoning and generous support for the right kinds of developments.

This, of-course was a suggestion only. However I disagree that the buildings in OKC are not as attractive. They are simply covered by later 'skin' that needs to be rejuvenated and then blended into the modern building environment that Sandridge wants to achieve. I would actually rather see a very modern in-fill building between Sandridge's skyscraper and the old Petroleum building, perhaps incorporating a huge atrium with public access, not unlike what Devon is doing. This will take care of the weather issue, which evidently was one of their concerns (who would expect wind in Oklahoma?!) and still respect the streetscape...actually even enchance it.

This, again is just an idea, but my point here is that there needs to be a serious re-think about what is being proposed. "We" want to work with Sandridge, not against it, but also certainly not just accept their proposal without question. Yes, it is their company and property, but it is our city!

Guys, all of this discussion is encouraging, but we need really get politically active. Does anyone know if the Criterion Group is still active?

The Criterion Group -- Advocating preservation of historic Oklahoma City architecture -- About (http://www.criteriongroup.org/about.html)

If so, this might be a good platform to galvanize support for an intelligent solution to the "Sandridge Question" that would benefit the historical bones of the city as well as the company itself. It may be that Sandridge just needs to be shown that there are good architectural alternatives to wholsale destruction of historic buildings...
No, the Criterion Group is no longer active.

Actually, the Vancouver metro area is about twice the size of OKC. I agree it is a wonderful city and there is much there that would great for us to emulate, however, it is historically limited in development due to surrounding mountains and water. It is dense by necessity as much as by design.

If you don't like Vancouver as a model then how about Calgary? They have almost the exact same metro population as OKC (actually just a little smaller than OKC) and have no geographic constraints - but their skyline looks like this.

http://www.viewcalgary.com/panorama/maxImages/skylineMidway_0426.jpg

WOW, I want to go there on vacation.

That is a pretty skyline. Not overly done or gaudy looking.

You are correct. Vancouver metropolitan area is 2.1 million. Calgary is 1.1 million. Both are great urban areas, though Vancouver is much more of a lifestyle city with great nightime life in the core city. Calgary is more of a business downtown with mid and high-rise condos on the edge of downtown. Vancouver has the benefit of a great waterfront area. I do disagree that the geography hems them in as they have plenty of expansion area to the south and east of downtown and public transport to get people out there.

Someone stated they would like to go on vacation to Calgary...it isn't even close to Vancouver as a destination city.

Back to the subject...both do a better job of zoning, taxing, and assisting for growth in the urban core. They all realize that the healthier the core, the healthier the whole city. They work hard to make the core more livable. Than includes getting jobs downtown vs. in the burbs.

I hope these examples are taken into account. Canadian cities are a great model to look toward. Toronto also does a wonderful job of blending the old, in with the new. It is one of my favorite spots to visit, and is a wonderfully enjoyable urban environment.

http://www.tenpastmidnight.com/photos/toronto_2003/toronto_old_new_buildings.jpg

I also want OKC to be much more dense but realistically you can't compare American cities to those in other countries.

The U.S. was developed much differently because of the tremendous power and influence of big oil and the auto makers. They thwarted the streetcar systems, lobbied for the massive interstate system, fought against foreign competition, etc.

Cities in Canada and Australia are way denser because they never had those influences. They are in fact much more sparsely populated countries but the cities are very dense with fantastic public transit.

Anyway, there are things we can take away from many cities, but to take the proper incremental steps I think it makes more sense to see what other American cities have done in this regard.

Back to the subject...both do a better job of zoning, taxing, and assisting for growth in the urban core. They all realize that the healthier the core, the healthier the whole city. They work hard to make the core more livable. Than includes getting jobs downtown vs. in the burbs.

Do you have any examples of this? I have been a proponent of offering tax breaks and freezing property taxes for up to 20 years if developers build up. The higher they build the bigger the tax break or the length of time the property tax is frozen.

Anyway, there are things we can take away from many cities, but to take the proper incremental steps I think it makes more sense to see what other American cities have done in this regard.

I agree...BUT I also think it helps to think big. In Canada, we can see examples of cities based on the same basic grid, and framework as ours, but because of policy and zoning decisions, have done wonders for their urban fabric. Besides, cities in the US that are getting it right in terms of their urban development are so different than OKC (Chicago comes to mind as one I see referred to frequently) - I think it makes no difference where we pluck the ideas from.

Another thing they do is expedite the approvals for core city developments. Permits, licenses, inspections, etc. They help fast-track the whole process, much like the city did for Devon.

One other thing is, people are willing to pay for the lifestyle. Here, people focus on how cheaply they can rent. That's not to say they don't have adequate supply of lower priced housing, but it is outside the main lifestyle area. People are willing to spend more of their income on housing. Wealthier tennants are not resented like they are here. If you want a growing healthy downtown, get the people with the means to make it so your core residents.

You are correct. Vancouver metropolitan area is 2.1 million. Calgary is 1.1 million. Both are great urban areas, though Vancouver is much more of a lifestyle city with great nightime life in the core city. Calgary is more of a business downtown with mid and high-rise condos on the edge of downtown. Vancouver has the benefit of a great waterfront area. I do disagree that the geography hems them in as they have plenty of expansion area to the south and east of downtown and public transport to get people out there.

Someone stated they would like to go on vacation to Calgary...it isn't even close to Vancouver as a destination city.

Back to the subject...both do a better job of zoning, taxing, and assisting for growth in the urban core. They all realize that the healthier the core, the healthier the whole city. They work hard to make the core more livable. Than includes getting jobs downtown vs. in the burbs.

keep in mind, the 2.1M figure for metro Vancouver was from 2001. You should also keep in mind that Canada defines metro areas different than the US. metro Vancouver only covers a somewhat limited portion of the 'Vancouver Lower Mainland' and 'Se Vancouver Island'; which if where America would be all defined as metro Vancouver.

There are commute/shopping/governance patterns from Victoria and Nanaimo (on the Island) to Vancouver and from far East in Chiliwak/Hope and Abbotsford to Vancouver (Fraser Valley) yet those areas are separate Canadian Census Statistical Area's (despite being less than 30KM from downtown Vancouver and quite urban/suburbanized all the way). In the US, the entire lower mainland/se island would be called the Vancouver CSA with a pop over 3.5M. Downtown Vancouver alone has hundreds of thousands of residents and a financial district and huge convention centre to boot.

You should also know, that Austin planners visited Vancouver (as did Atlanta and San Diego, and of course - Seattle and many other cities) and all of those cities' development is modeled after Vancouver. I don't see why OKC can't join that crowd of Vancouver followers.

Vancouver is a very impressive city that IS limited to upward development by mountains and ocean, this is especially true for the downtown peninsula where most of the skyscrapers are. Vancouver city also has a 2nd downtown area in the broadway corridor that we would call it's midtown, and also an uptown area on the upper reaches of Granville Street. I expect TOD development to be even greater now that the new subway down Cambie street is complete.

If you look at the suburban development, it's not much different than America - once you leave the inner suburb 'ring' surrounding the Vancouver; The inner ring: West Vancouver, North Vancouver, Coquitlam, Burnaby, New West, and Richmond is quite impressive and would be central cities in the US on their own rights, each having their own highrise cores (and quite impressive). The outer suburb and exurb bands are just like MWC, Norman, and Edmond. Surrey looks just like NW/SW Oklahoma City, outside of their rapidly developing new downtown core. Coincidentally, Surrey is approximately the same population of OKC city and has the largest land area of the metro Vancouver cities/suburbs.

How much of Canada's highrise development is a result of the weather? I saw where Calgary gets snow 8 months out of the year and for 6 months the averge temp is below freezing.