Mayor Mick Cornett can learn from former Austin Mayor Will Wynn. Wynn set out a goal for having up to 25,000 people living Downtown Austin by 2015, and the city provided incentives for building residential units in the urban core. After this incentive program was implemented, Austin saw a boom of high-rise condo development downtown is the last 6 years.

I think Mick Cornett and city officials, should really sit down and look at such a program, with all the developments going on now, its a win/win situation. Now would be the perfect time.

Can you give some examples of the 'incentives' Austin used?

We've given developers free land to use in Midtown and they still couldn't get 'er done.

If the city's involved at any level, I'm skeptical.

We've given developers free land to use in Midtown and they still couldn't get 'er done.

If the city's involved at any level, I'm skeptical.

Thats Midtown, I am talking about urban core, there is still plenty land available east of downtown, and will have plenty of land available south of downtown.

What would justify the use of taxpayer dollars to move people downtown? The economies of supply & demand seem to be working just fine.

Can you give some examples of the 'incentives' Austin used?

Incentive Program

One of the most effective aspects of Austin's Smart Growth Initiative is the Incentive Program. The incentives include fee waivers, infrastructure investments and expedited approval of development applications.

Mayor Mick Cornett can learn from former Austin Mayor Will Wynn. Wynn set out a goal for having up to 25,000 people living Downtown Austin by 2015, and the city provided incentives for building residential units in the urban core. After this incentive program was implemented, Austin saw a boom of high-rise condo development downtown is the last 6 years.

The incentives probably helped, sure, but the sheer amount of construction suggests there was pent-up demand for downtown living in Austin. Indeed, some of those condo/apartment towers are full or nearly full although the more recently-finished ones (which are mostly high-end) have been filling more slowly.

Amenities that don't exist in downtown OKC, like a downtown grocery store (Whole Foods opened downtown in 2005), riverside trails/parks, and a vibrant downtown nightlife probably helped accelerate this wave of construction.

Factor in other things like the tremendous difference in the growth rates of OKC and Austin and it just seems highly unlikely that--incentives or not--OKC will see a high-rise residential construction boom like Austin's anytime in the next several years.

What would justify the use of taxpayer dollars to move people downtown? The economies of supply & demand seem to be working just fine.

How about not having to pay the price of sprawl. All those new four lane roads going out into the country in all directions have to be paid for and maintained. Police are patroling hundreds of square miles of low density areas, etc...

The incentives probably helped, sure, but the sheer amount of construction suggests there was pent-up demand for downtown living in Austin. Indeed, some of those condo/apartment towers are full or nearly full although the more recently-finished ones (which are mostly high-end) have been filling more slowly.

Amenities that don't exist in downtown OKC, like a downtown grocery store (Whole Foods opened downtown in 2005), riverside trails/parks, and a vibrant downtown nightlife probably helped accelerate this wave of construction.

Factor in other things like the tremendous difference in the growth rates of OKC and Austin and it just seems highly unlikely that--incentives or not--OKC will see a high-rise residential construction boom like Austin's anytime in the next several years.

We are in the same position Austin was back in 2002, then it all started with their Frost Bank Tower, then a few years after that, after streetscapes, incentive programs for emloyers and housing developments, you saw a span 7 skyscrapers built in 8 years, amazing.

So if history repeats itself, we could see in influx of high-rises being built after Devon, project 180 and convention center is completed!

I always get a kick out of people that say "it won't work in OKC". It is as if 1900 to 1955 never happened. All these things us 'urbanist' want already happened in OKC once. Steve, your next book should be called The Rise and Fall and Rise of Oklahoma City. We're coming back with a vengence. And this time it's personal.

We are in the same position Austin was back in 2002, then it all started with their Frost Bank Tower, then a few years after that, after streetscapes, incentive programs for emloyers and housing developments, you saw a span 7 skyscrapers built in 8 years, amazing.

So if history repeats itself, we could see in influx of high-rises being built after Devon, project 180 and convention center is completed!

Or we'll have more and more people moving to places like Deer Creek and trashing our public school system on this board.

I always get a kick out of people that say "it won't work in OKC". It is as if 1900 to 1955 never happened. All these things us 'urbanist' want already happened in OKC once. Steve, your next book should be called The Rise and Fall and Rise of Oklahoma City. We're coming back with a vengence. And this time it's personal.

It will work, everything is coming in place. We just need the City to implement programs to lure high-tech employers, and boost downtown housing development.

Austin also has extreme and seemingly unsolvable traffic problems. This provides a nice incentive to live in the downtown core and/or near the major employment centers. I believe there was some pent-up demand. But, incentives probably helped some developers move things along more quickly and change some priorities.

I would love to see an additional 25,000 people downtown in the next 10 years. But with the abundance of undeveloped or underdeveloped land, I would like to see incentives extended to the near-core areas as well. We could dramatically boost density in 10-Penn, Capitol Hill, Plaza, and many other areas making this city much more walkable and streetcar-able. There is no reason to continue the infrastructure madness (i.e., Kilpatrick Turnpike, extending Hefner Parkway to the moon, etc). Instead, we should focus on enhancing and optimizing our current revenue base.

How about not having to pay the price of sprawl. All those new four lane roads going out into the country in all directions have to be paid for and maintained. Police are patroling hundreds of square miles of low density areas, etc...

You really think a couple of dense residential projects will stop sprawl?

Uhm, ok.

Austin also has extreme and seemingly unsolvable traffic problems. This provides a nice incentive to live in the downtown core and/or near the major employment centers. I believe there was some pent-up demand. But, incentives probably helped some developers move things along more quickly and change some priorities.

I would love to see an additional 25,000 people downtown in the next 10 years. But with the abundance of undeveloped or underdeveloped land, I would like to see incentives extended to the near-core areas as well. We could dramatically boost density in 10-Penn, Capitol Hill, Plaza, and many other areas making this city much more walkable and streetcar-able. There is no reason to continue the infrastructure madness (i.e., Kilpatrick Turnpike, extending Hefner Parkway to the moon, etc). Instead, we should focus on enhancing and optimizing our current revenue base.

You have a good point, but I would rather see nice mid-rise development to, outside of the core area, like along I-40 going east into the city, and south of I-40. Nice mid-rise development, provides the city with character and diversity, and shows developers were are not just focused on big development.

I think the city should be focused on bringing another big employer downtown, high-paying, that will attract housing development also.

I continue to throw this out there as a challenge; Try convincing someone who lives in the suburbs into moving to downtown Okc.

I continue to throw this out there as a challenge; Try convincing someone who lives in the suburbs into moving to downtown Okc.

Its all about employment, lifestyle, and amenities. Good jobs attract people, people attract housing, housing attracts retail. You never hear about people relocating to another state or city because of good housing or retail, 99.9% of the time people relocate is because of a job change, wanting to be closer to their job, or higher paying position.

Most of what Austin did for "incentives" was pretty basic. Things like expedited inspections and permit approvals, etc. cost little and work. They also have an effective district chilled water system that fits residential style construction.

Keep in mind that close downtown proximity of UT and its 60,000 students, its faculty, and related businesses is definitely an advantage. Also, capital is close in downtown. That certainly helps core development and is something OKC doesn't really have.

Plus, I have worked on several downtown development projects in Austin and I can tell you that there is huge vacancy there. Let's see how it plays out as the Austonian comes on the market.

Incentive Program

One of the most effective aspects of Austin's Smart Growth Initiative is the Incentive Program. The incentives include fee waivers, infrastructure investments and expedited approval of development applications.

That hardly competes with what we already do in downtown. I mean, how could Austin's Smart Growth Initiative even come close to competing with years-long approval processes through OCURA (which the developers here obviously prefer), the good ole boy system (again), and any good ole boy demands they might make like a TIF, infrastructure, cheap land (contrary to Midtowner's assertion of 'free land'), and so on...

Sarcasm aside, what we need to do for the most part is make people with good ideas successful and people with bad ideas unsuccessful. We need to make land squatting and shoddy development unfeasible and we need to make quality urban development and quick action profitable.

That hardly competes with what we already do in downtown. I mean, how could Austin's Smart Growth Initiative even come close to competing with years-long approval processes through OCURA (which the developers here obviously prefer), the good ole boy system (again), and any good ole boy demands they might make like a TIF, infrastructure, cheap land (contrary to Midtowner's assertion of 'free land'), and so on...

Sarcasm aside, what we need to do for the most part is make people with good ideas successful and people with bad ideas unsuccessful. We need to make land squatting and shoddy development unfeasible and we need to make quality urban development and quick action profitable.

Then why doesn't the City of Oklahoma, or Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce, pay the bill, and build class A office space downtown, to attract new employers.

The good thing about doing that is we can tailor to what type of employers could move in the office space. For example, the city could require that the salaries start at a certain level, that they be in a particular industry (biotech, engineering, etc). and apply TIF to that office space. Sounds good to me? Your thoughts?

Yeah, I would be a big proponent of that. Others wouldn't though. People would balk about the city developing real estate whereas other cities do it all the time, especially with their economic development arms (chamber/city collaborations). The other bone to pick would be what the chamber would design..there's a lot of controversy around the Chamber Forum project which a lot of people don't want built and neither do I. Some people would incorrectly say it shows that the Chamber can't be trusted to do urban development whereas I would contend that it shows how the city and chamber might not be able to always collaborate effectively to do urban development. Keep in mind the city's role in the site layout of the Chamber Forum project.

EK Gaylord should either be completely removed from the street grid or at the very least it should be straightened out and dead-end at 4th.

Good thing is that we have employers already wanting to move to here. Just think if we had Class A office space, it would make it easier to attract high paying employers. The city, Greater Oklahoma City Chamber can get funding for such a project.

[QUOTE=AbcGum;378543]You really think a couple of dense residential projects will stop sprawl?


Exactly. Look at Houston, it still has mega sprawl (yes, I know its much bigger than here) going out almost an hour from its core. I dont think you are going to stop sprawl. It will be nice to encourage and offer some other options, but its not going to stop. Families are going to want a brand new home for a good price no matter what and that means homes will continue to sprawl out into the countryside where land is cheap. Some natural barriers would help us out, but we sure dont have any.

What about the incentive program for the developers up on Memorial Road?

What about the incentive program for the developers up on Memorial Road?

I am not familiar with that? What is the program?

I am not familiar with that? What is the program?

I am asking, if the city were to offer a downtown incentive, shouldn't the city offer the same to other areas for development? (using Memorial Road as an example)

I am asking, if the city were to offer a downtown incentive, shouldn't the city offer the same to other areas for development? (using Memorial Road as an example)

No, the key is to attract development downtown. If they were to offer it all over the city, then nothing would ever get build downtown, lol.

You really think a couple of dense residential projects will stop sprawl?


Exactly. Look at Houston, it still has mega sprawl (yes, I know its much bigger than here) going out almost an hour from its core. I dont think you are going to stop sprawl. It will be nice to encourage and offer some other options, but its not going to stop. Families are going to want a brand new home for a good price no matter what and that means homes will continue to sprawl out into the countryside where land is cheap. Some natural barriers would help us out, but we sure dont have any.

I say just give people options. I don't believe we need to eliminate suburbia, we just need to keep it from disabling urban living as a viable option. I believe every step needs to be made to make the urban option truly economically viable, and not just a novelty. I do not believe that decades of suburban market manipulation in OKC will allow for the private market to just fix downtown all on its own, so there will need to be a lot more proactive planning than we have seen since the 40s when that went away. People will balk, call it communist, call it un-American, but it's what is needed to make both downtown and suburbia an option for most people. Simply enact urban growth boundaries and limit sprawl directly and the private market will begin to focus equally on both areas.

I'm amazed at the number of people here talking about government or OKC Chamber offering incentives for CBD Class A office space and housing. The line for handouts forms over there ::points to the left:: If the demand for Class A office space exists, then developers like Fred Hall or Ford Price will risk personal capital and build it. I don't have a problem with sales taxes going into public infrastructure ala MAPS (ballparks, arenas, Civic Center, library, Project 180, etc.), but I'm absolutely dead-set against public funds going to subsidize projects that compete directly with the private sector, when entrepreneurs and capital exist to meet the needs. Besides, have you all forgotten the Class A downtown housing project that we're all about to pay for? It's called the new County Jail - and the price tag on that will be a doozy!

Plus, I have worked on several downtown development projects in Austin and I can tell you that there is huge vacancy there. Let's see how it plays out as the Austonian comes on the market.

You are right about that--back in September, the four newest condo towers (three of which are high end, including the Austonian) collectively were only about 53% sold: http://www.statesman.com/business/downtown-condo-market-defies-the-downturn-924163.html.

It shouldn't be a huge surprise, though, given the time these high-priced condos came on the market, and I know the condo towers that opened a few years ago have fared much better. Most of the downtown apartment towers and midrises seem to be doing well--at least most of them were sold out in my price range earlier this year. The one I moved into (a 250-unit midrise with "entry-level" pricing starting at $1300/mo.) is around 95% occupied according to one of the managers.

You really think a couple of dense residential projects will stop sprawl?

Uhm, ok.

No, but it gives people an option of opting out of it. After moving from one new suburban subdivision to the next new suburban subdivision I am ready to give the alternative a try.

I'm amazed at the number of people here talking about government or OKC Chamber offering incentives for CBD Class A office space and housing. The line for handouts forms over there ::points to the left:: If the demand for Class A office space exists, then developers like Fred Hall or Ford Price will risk personal capital and build it. I don't have a problem with sales taxes going into public infrastructure ala MAPS (ballparks, arenas, Civic Center, library, Project 180, etc.), but I'm absolutely dead-set against public funds going to subsidize projects that compete directly with the private sector, when entrepreneurs and capital exist to meet the needs. Besides, have you all forgotten the Class A downtown housing project that we're all about to pay for? It's called the new County Jail - and the price tag on that will be a doozy!

We're not paying for a new county jail because that project is Whetsel b.s. Price is not a developer. Hall is developing Class A stuff. Public funds would be used to leverage office space to recruit companies, this is not an uncommon practice.

I told you someone would balk and call it socialism.....shocking.

I'm amazed at the number of people here talking about government or OKC Chamber offering incentives for CBD Class A office space and housing. The line for handouts forms over there

But the City already offers incentives to build on the outter fringe. I wish someone could produce a map of OKC using concentrict rings showing how far out from the center the city spends money. I would assume most of the spending takes place on the outter rings away from the center (MAPS taxes withstanding). Each new ring has exponentially more area to cover with roads, police and fire protection, sewar lines, water lines, etc...

We're not paying for a new county jail because that project is Whetsel b.s. Price is not a developer. Hall is developing Class A stuff. Public funds would be used to leverage office space to recruit companies, this is not an uncommon practice.

I told you someone would balk and call it socialism.....shocking.

:congrats: Thank you, somebody finally gets it!

I am asking, if the city were to offer a downtown incentive, shouldn't the city offer the same to other areas for development? (using Memorial Road as an example)

Memorial Road (and accompanying infrastructure) IS the incentive. Do you think there would be any development along Memorial Road if it was a graded dirt section line road? Nope. But the City pays for a lot of asphalt, pipes, etc and development takes over. I know you are saying to yourself 'but look at all the money the city collected in sales taxes'. Two things, 1) if that development had been directed to where exisiting infrastructre is already in place then the additional sales tax would have been all profit so taxes could have been lowered across the board for everyone, 2) currently the money just gets rolled over to even more expansion so in the long run nothing ever gets better, it just keeps expanding but every new mile of expansion cost more than the previous mile. It is the law of diminishing returns.

Could this work:

1. Offer residential developers tax credits, and waiver of property taxes for a given time.
2. Fee Waiver for Developers
3. Build Class A Office Space, and city will lease it out to employer, provide TIF on that development, to help surrounding area.
4. City can set requirement of what type of employer downtown.

Austin also has extreme and seemingly unsolvable traffic problems. This provides a nice incentive to live in the downtown core and/or near the major employment centers. I believe there was some pent-up demand. But, incentives probably helped some developers move things along more quickly and change some priorities.

I would love to see an additional 25,000 people downtown in the next 10 years. But with the abundance of undeveloped or underdeveloped land, I would like to see incentives extended to the near-core areas as well. We could dramatically boost density in 10-Penn, Capitol Hill, Plaza, and many other areas making this city much more walkable and streetcar-able. There is no reason to continue the infrastructure madness (i.e., Kilpatrick Turnpike, extending Hefner Parkway to the moon, etc). Instead, we should focus on enhancing and optimizing our current revenue base.

I couldn't agree more. I would love to see some form of graduated incentives that doesn't leave the inner city (both south and north) out. There is a real wealth of semi urban property in the inner city, that could be purchased and renovated for less than the cost of many of the luxury condos in high rise or mid rise new construction. I'd love to see mid and high rise buildings built as well. But, part of having a true "urban", walkable city, with decent transit, will be getting our inner city up to par with the growth downtown. The way that our inner city is underserved by a lot of retail and services means that many inner city residents have to still travel many miles to do most shopping and personal business. Downtown is great, and I'd love to see 25,000 people move there too. But, at the current time, with our current economy, it seems silly that the city doesn't do a little more to breath some life in to our numerous, fantastic neighborhoods in the inner loop. Just spend some time in Austin's inner city (former suburbs) or in the middle sections of Houston (i.e. the Montrose) and you can see the tremendous potential of many of these smaller, lower income historic neighborhoods. How about some incentives to redevelop condemned lots in University park in to modern midrise apartments, or even some breaks to any one willing to take one of the dozens of antique strip retail centers on 10th, 13th, 23rd, may, penn, etc etc and gut and clean them up? Just seems we could get a lot of bang for the buck with people in $80K houses than 1 tower of $200K condos....sorry for the unfocused rant.

I couldn't agree more. I would love to see some form of graduated incentives that doesn't leave the inner city (both south and north) out. There is a real wealth of semi urban property in the inner city, that could be purchased and renovated for less than the cost of many of the luxury condos in high rise or mid rise new construction. I'd love to see mid and high rise buildings built as well. But, part of having a true "urban", walkable city, with decent transit, will be getting our inner city up to par with the growth downtown. The way that our inner city is underserved by a lot of retail and services means that many inner city residents have to still travel many miles to do most shopping and personal business. Downtown is great, and I'd love to see 25,000 people move there too. But, at the current time, with our current economy, it seems silly that the city doesn't do a little more to breath some life in to our numerous, fantastic neighborhoods in the inner loop. Just spend some time in Austin's inner city (former suburbs) or in the middle sections of Houston (i.e. the Montrose) and you can see the tremendous potential of many of these smaller, lower income historic neighborhoods. How about some incentives to redevelop condemned lots in University park in to modern midrise apartments, or even some breaks to any one willing to take one of the dozens of antique strip retail centers on 10th, 13th, 23rd, may, penn, etc etc and gut and clean them up? Just seems we could get a lot of bang for the buck with people in $80K houses than 1 tower of $200K condos....sorry for the unfocused rant.

You do have a good point, but I would rather the city focus on mid-rise condo development, like 15-20 stories, just south of the i40, and maybe a few places in deep deuce area.

Could this work:

1. Offer residential developers tax credits, and waiver of property taxes for a given time.
2. Fee Waiver for Developers
3. Build Class A Office Space, and city will lease it out to employer, provide TIF on that development, to help surrounding area.
4. City can set requirement of what type of employer downtown.

1 and 2 good, 3 and 4 bad. I have already seen what happens when the City gets involved with build and lease deals. We end up with sururban style Bass Pro buildings taking up prime canal front space..

1 and 2 good, 3 and 4 bad. I have already seen what happens when the City gets involved with build and lease deal. We end up with sururban style Bass Pro buildings.

agreed, city should not ever own or have control of office space unless they themselves are occupying it. And, the market should pick what employers move downtown, not the city. Now if the city wants to make it more attractive to any employer that can afford it, well then more power to em. But, when government tries to pick winners, their track record is terrible.

Austin's "bad traffic problem" is overblown, basically if you can't get where you want at the speed limit or higher you have a "bad traffic problem", stay off I-35 and it isn't as bad. I commute 18 miles (one way) from South Austin to North Austin on Mopac daily, in the morning it isn't too bad and in the afternoon it is stop-n-go but after living in Dallas 20 years ago it isn't any worse than that. Sure it could be better, almost any place could have a better traffic situation than they currently have but those who think it's real bad here are those who have been here for 30 years and remember when Austin was a sleepy little college town and want it to go back to that. Most of the transplants from larger cities laugh at Austin's traffic problem. I would rather work downtown, that would cut my commute to about 6 miles (one way) but my boss prefers to be north close to where he lives.

As semisimple stated, the mid-range and rental units are a pretty hot commodity, the rentals especially. Most of the high end stuff came on line late which has affected them greatly. I know people who have been selling their suburban homes and renting in a place like The Monarch to "test out" downtown living and most have purchased a condo once their lease is up. I think that mid-range market is the once to be explored in OKC since there is no existing up market housing to push down market.

1 and 2 good, 3 and 4 bad. I have already seen what happens when the City gets involved with build and lease deals. We end up with sururban style Bass Pro buildings taking up prime canal front space..

City isn't Randy Hogan.

City isn't Randy Hogan.

Maybe not but the City built the Bass Pro building, not Randy Hogan.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20020520/ai_n10153802/


Oklahoma City officials will decide Tuesday whether to approve an agreement that will have Bass Pro Shops locate to Bricktown for at least 20 years in exchange for $17.2 million in city incentives.

Under the deal worked out between city officials and the Springfield, Mo.-based retailer, Oklahoma City would provide funding for a new 110,000-square-foot building at the east end of Bricktown. The building, owned by the city and leased to Bass Pro, would be constructed over the next year.

I am a firm believer that city funded Class A office space would work.

I couldn't agree more. I would love to see some form of graduated incentives that doesn't leave the inner city (both south and north) out. There is a real wealth of semi urban property in the inner city, that could be purchased and renovated for less than the cost of many of the luxury condos in high rise or mid rise new construction. I'd love to see mid and high rise buildings built as well. But, part of having a true "urban", walkable city, with decent transit, will be getting our inner city up to par with the growth downtown. The way that our inner city is underserved by a lot of retail and services means that many inner city residents have to still travel many miles to do most shopping and personal business. Downtown is great, and I'd love to see 25,000 people move there too. But, at the current time, with our current economy, it seems silly that the city doesn't do a little more to breath some life in to our numerous, fantastic neighborhoods in the inner loop. Just spend some time in Austin's inner city (former suburbs) or in the middle sections of Houston (i.e. the Montrose) and you can see the tremendous potential of many of these smaller, lower income historic neighborhoods. How about some incentives to redevelop condemned lots in University park in to modern midrise apartments, or even some breaks to any one willing to take one of the dozens of antique strip retail centers on 10th, 13th, 23rd, may, penn, etc etc and gut and clean them up? Just seems we could get a lot of bang for the buck with people in $80K houses than 1 tower of $200K condos....sorry for the unfocused rant.

Yes, yes, yes!

This city is an empty canvas. It could be wonderful. I hate to say it, but I think part of the problem comes from the attitudes of the ruling class of this town. The only acceptable places for them to live are Edmond, far Northwest OKC, Nichols Hills, and if they're kinda arty, Heritage Hills or Crown Heights. They actually think of the inner city as ugly and worthless (with bad schools, too, ahem). Therefore, they only really care about the CDB, Bricktown, and the interstates that take them to their suburban enclaves.

I note that you mention NW 10th, 13th, etc. You are a true urbanite, and that's why you see the potential of these areas. Unfortunately, a lot of the OKC ruling class would never find beauty in these areas because they are not urbanites at all. They would rather live in all-white, "safe" areas of town and would never consider walking anywhere. They simply cannot see the potential in our city because they could never envision taking advantage of a true urban environment. In fact, even when they visit places like NYC they probably cluster in Midtown and go the shows, Times Square, the park, and that's it.

I wish more of our rich people had an urban orientation.

Maybe not but the City built the Bass Pro building, not Randy Hogan.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20020520/ai_n10153802/

I stand corrected. My point however being that the deal you're referring to, which I'm just as sour about as anyone on here, was clearly not about building spec space to attract good jobs or anything other than a myopic desire to bring BASS PRO downtown at all costs as if that were a good idea.

Though, I guess it is relevant to the idea of the city initiating development that the city clearly does not have any grasp of what quality urban development is, given the track record that's well-established.

So how would the city attract high paying jobs in the urban core? They should build and engineering/tech school in that area, that would work!

So how would the city attract high paying jobs in the urban core? They should build and engineering/tech school in that area, that would work!

I have said it a hundred times and I will say it again. A private (or even public) polytechnic university downtown would be awesome; Engineering, Architecture, Business, and Bio Science. Even if it just had 2500 students it would make a big impact.

Yes, yes, yes!

This city is an empty canvas. It could be wonderful. I hate to say it, but I think part of the problem comes from the attitudes of the ruling class of this town. The only acceptable places for them to live are Edmond, far Northwest OKC, Nichols Hills, and if they're kinda arty, Heritage Hills or Crown Heights. They actually think of the inner city as ugly and worthless (with bad schools, too, ahem). Therefore, they only really care about the CDB, Bricktown, and the interstates that take them to their suburban enclaves.

I note that you mention NW 10th, 13th, etc. You are a true urbanite, and that's why you see the potential of these areas. Unfortunately, a lot of the OKC ruling class would never find beauty in these areas because they are not urbanites at all. They would rather live in all-white, "safe" areas of town and would never consider walking anywhere. They simply cannot see the potential in our city because they could never envision taking advantage of a true urban environment. In fact, even when they visit places like NYC they probably cluster in Midtown and go the shows, Times Square, the park, and that's it.

I wish more of our rich people had an urban orientation.

Even in New York City the truly wealthy live on Central Park, Sutton Place, etc. They're not living in the grittier parts of the city, by and large. And most of them have a house in Connecticut too. Our population of "rich" is so small that it's going to be hard to create a section of downtown where the rich as a large group want to live. The reason most of them consider the inner city ugly and worthless is because it's still a work in progress, and it's early in the process. The truly rich surround themselves with things that are aesthetically pleasing. And, if someone did try to build the kind of development attractive to the rich, people here would complain about the price per square foot anyway. Or complain that the city was not doing enough to promote development of housing for the not rich.

What we actually need is a nice middle class population downtown. And that's what we'll get, eventually. Right now it takes some bravery to buy downtown because it's so difficult to know how the place is going to end up looking and what's going to be behind you. But to build the kind of buildings people want to live in and that will stand the test of time....that will actually look as better in 20 years than they do today because the trees will have matured.....takes the willingness to spend money. And people will complain about the price per square foot on this forum if developers try to do that.

Not to mix threads, but the quickest way to jump start OKC's urban housing development is to develop a regional rail transit system for the metropolitan area. Look at any other city where urban housing is successful and you'll find an effective transit system. Urbanites want a great transit system for their transportation needs...not a car...and they want to be able to travel throughout the metro...not just downtown. You can institue monetary incentive programs for developers to try to jump start construction projects, but until you can create significant urban housing demand not much will change. The sooner we have a regional transit system in place, including modern streetcar and commuter rail, the sooner downtown urban housing demand will increase and housing development will really get going. Until then, one of the best things we can do is to continue to educate our political and business leaders on the direct positive relationship between transit and urban development. Some of our business leaders may live in the suburbs and have no interest in riding trains, but many of them own and run major corporations, financial institutions, development companies and entertainment venues in the downtown area, all which would benefit economically from increased urban development. Here's some good wisdom from a recent article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel...

“Economic development is about people. The better we move people, the more business we generate.”

“Economic success in the 21st century requires making our region attractive to an educated workforce. Corporations have discovered that a good transit system is essential to recruiting such talent.”

“Even people who may never ride transit have an interest in the economic development that transit investments would create.”

“Good transit is not a partisan issue.”

Feel free to share.

Good Schools = Educated Workforce = High Paying Jobs = Premier Job Attraction = Economic Boom/Stability

This whole conversation thread deeply frustrates me as a "Pioneer." After watching this stuff first hand for over a decade, I think that the best incentive that we could give to people who will bring ambition, creativity, and diverse housing to downtown is to sub-divide a major Urban Renewal parcel and offer it up for individual applications.

Enough with this constant experiment to try to "snag" the big mega developer. They will come with time. It took me 7 years to find my own "reasonably priced" property downtown with day-to-day inside downtown knowledge and cultivated relationships with property owners. Out of sheer luck and perseverance, I found something that I could afford.

We need to subdivide an Urban Renewal property of your choice and offer individual lots (at appropriate prices) for people to build what they desire. There is too much vacant land downtown to think that we should wait for high-rises.

SOSA is a great example of people buying the last remaining fairly priced lots in desperation to build something that is functional and affordable.

Subdivide a UR parcel, create an overlay of basic requirements to maintain order, and allow people to go out and hire the architect of their choice to develop what the market really demands.

I am staring out my window now at the houses rapidly being built on NW 5th street. They are squeezing two single family homes with a combined 7 bed rooms and common area for pets on a 25' by 140' lot. Incredible. More San Francisco housing is needed and less New York. Lets build something that people actually need, desire, and can afford. We have plenty of land to do anything we want. If you can achieve that "critical mass," perceptions will change, and nearly anything (including grocery) could survive downtown. Right now, we need more people here 24hrs.

Unfortunately, I think that such innovative thinking in small development is not going to come out of the current Urban Renewal board. It is a completely alien concept to them.

I need to add to this line of thinking. They (UR) is offering individual parcels up for redevelopment in JFK neighborhood. It has been a huge success creating new individualized housing. However, it is unfortunately in the "suburban" form.

If this idea were to be extrapolated into downtown proper, it would need the an overlay of basic urban requirements to stimulate the kind of SOSA projects that I am quite literally staring out at from my window.

The UR board is open enough to finally do something with JFK, now it should be done in the CBD, with proper urban form.

This whole conversation thread deeply frustrates me as a "Pioneer." After watching this stuff first hand for over a decade, I think that the best incentive that we could give to people who will bring ambition, creativity, and diverse housing to downtown is to sub-divide a major Urban Renewal parcel and offer it up for individual applications.

Enough with this constant experiment to try to "snag" the big mega developer. They will come with time. It took me 7 years to find my own "reasonably priced" property downtown with day-to-day inside downtown knowledge and cultivated relationships with property owners. Out of sheer luck and perseverance, I found something that I could afford.

We need to subdivide an Urban Renewal property of your choice and offer individual lots (at appropriate prices) for people to build what they desire. There is too much vacant land downtown to think that we should wait for high-rises.

SOSA is a great example of people buying the last remaining fairly priced lots in desperation to build something that is functional and affordable.

Subdivide a UR parcel, create an overlay of basic requirements to maintain order, and allow people to go out and hire the architect of their choice to develop what the market really demands.

I am staring out my window now at the houses rapidly being built on NW 5th street. They are squeezing two single family homes with a combined 7 bed rooms and common area for pets on a 25' by 140' lot. Incredible. More San Francisco housing is needed and less New York. Lets build something that people actually need, desire, and can afford. We have plenty of land to do anything we want. If you can achieve that "critical mass," perceptions will change, and nearly anything (including grocery) could survive downtown. Right now, we need more people here 24hrs.

Unfortunately, I think that such innovative thinking in small development is not going to come out of the current Urban Renewal board. It is a completely alien concept to them.

You have made some good points, but I would like the city to focus on mid-rise development in the urban core. Mid-rise condos would work, and if private developers would build them, they would get filled with residents. We can sit here and speculate what could and could not happen, but we will never know unless we try.

Will all the developments going on downtown, now is the time to start building mid-rise residential loft/condos, because about the time they are completed, Devon will be completed, project 180, and new blvd etc. The area will be more attractive, and people would want to live down there.

The downfall is developers who wait until everything is completed 5 years from now, will miss out on a grand opportunity. And the developers who step up now, take the risk, and build, would see great return, because the property value in that area will skyrocket once everything is completed, and it makes sense to already have your development in place before it happens.

Now, I am not talking about building expensive 50+ stories high-rise condos, like The Austonian in Austin, it would be nice, but lets be realistic. We need to build mid sized 15-20 story condos/lofts, mid priced.

The market ultimately forces development. When developers see that building in the core area is going to be rewarded more than urban development then we will see infill. If there is real demand that exceeds their other opportunities then they will go the path of least resistance and greatest opportunity. To create that requires some real data and some really creative thinking...something we have too little of.

To provide the right incentives requires a complete understanding of what motivates developers, something too few urban planners care to REALLY understand. The developers live in the real world and not some philosophical universe. They care less about lifestyle of the community than they do profit for their stakeholders. When we get the planners and the doers on the same page, they we all get what we want.

You have made some good points, but I would like the city to focus on mid-rise development in the urban core. Mid-rise condos would work, and if private developers would build them, they would get filled with residents. We can sit here and speculate what could and could not happen, but we will never know unless we try.

Will all the developments going on downtown, now is the time to start building mid-rise residential loft/condos, because about the time they are completed, Devon will be completed, project 180, and new blvd etc. The area will be more attractive, and people would want to live down there.

The downfall is developers who wait until everything is completed 5 years from now, will miss out on a grand opportunity. And the developers who step up now, take the risk, and build, would see great return, because the property value in that area will skyrocket once everything is completed, and it makes sense to already have your development in place before it happens.

Now, I am not talking about building expensive 50+ stories high-rise condos, like The Austonian in Austin, it would be nice, but lets be realistic. We need to build mid sized 15-20 story condos/lofts, mid priced.

I don't disagree. Mid-rise is ideal. I do think that we have enough vacant land to offer that we can take a UR owned block and do this concept though. The idea should not extend to the available land as a whole. I just think that the "developer" needs to be taken out of the equation entirely in one specific area to foster real "organic" development. There needs to be a place where people can build to their exact specifications and needs. This is particularly true for families who need a larger design space at a reasonable price. This is also needed for the people who want a small yard or garden.

I just don't have the confidence in the developers providing all of the solutions. Most have proven to be completely out of touch with the market (other than apartments) and we have lost many great people to the suburbs who would have preferred to build an urban house down here. The competitively priced land is simply not generally available, therefore you have to "buy" someone else's creativity and pay a premium for it.

Something like this could work:
http://www.zieglercooper.com/images/proj143.jpg



http://www.zieglercooper.com/images/proj211.jpg

Or if you wanted something on a smaller scale:
http://www.zieglercooper.com/images/proj271.jpg


http://www.zieglercooper.com/images/proj292.jpg

You guys are still thinking "mega-developer." We need more of this...

649

You guys are still thinking "mega-developer." We need more of this...

649

Yes. I've noticed a lot of housing of this type in Midtown Tulsa just north of Cherry Street. Great residential infill projects there.