I would actually question whether the market is creating the quantities of downtown housing needed for where we're at. We are WAAAY behind schedule from the 5-year outlook laid out in the 2005 Downtown Housing Study, which I actually thought was pretty conservative.

If there are all these people with checkbooks in hand waiting for a place to live, why do you think developers aren't building for all this demand? There are plenty of clear lots and whole blocks that are available. There are standing buildings. Are the developers just stupid? Does no one want to make money off of all this demand? There are lots of architects available for work, lots of contractors who would love to be building something. So why aren't they? Why won't someone hire them to fill this demand?

I don't know if you're asking rhetorical questions, but development is hard to pull off, especially right now. I also think it is disingenuous for you to be stating those rhetorical questions when you started this thread about what OKC could learn from Vision 2025. Unless your argument is that there isn't demand for downtown housing in OKC..

I would say there is strong demand for something in any market where the occupancy rate is over 80%. Downtown OKC's apartment occupancy rate is over 98%. The Deep Deuce Apartments are 100% full, the most successful apartment project in the history of the state. Yet Somerset never finished build-out, why? The answer is who the hell knows.

When I started this thread, I did have the housing component of Vision 2025 in mind and what we can learn from it. I think the difference between Okc and Tulsa when it comes to downtown housing infill is that Okc wants private developers to build housing without any type of assistance from the city, when Tulsa gives incentives to private developers wanting to build housing downtown. Now the good and bad...The good I think about downtown residential development in Okc, is that it has seen steady growth, and its not stagnant, and it doesn't come and go. The downside is that downtown residential developers have got conservative on the type of housing to build, thats why you see a lot of low-rise housing being developed.

The good about downtown residential development in Tulsa is that its more aggressive and they have support from the city. The downside is that Tulsa is too focused on renovating old buildings for housing, and not stepping up to build brand new residential housing. To me, neither city has set the bar for unique and extensive downtown living, we will see what city will do it within the next few years.

some downtown Tulsa living options:

Additional Urban Living Locations
Mayo 420 | www.mayo420.com
Phil Tower | www.philtower.com
Central Park Condos | www.cptulsa.com
Uptown Renaissance Apartments and Tribune Lofts www.argtulsa.com
The Village at Central Park | www.thevillagebuilders.com

Hey, Spartan, do you have a link to a list of all the downtown developments for Tulsa? That would be interesting.

Do you happen to know how many housing units are actually in the financed and/or coming out of the ground stage in the downtown area? How might that compare with what has already happened in Bricktown and close in in OKC? They seem a little behind the curve with OKC. We too had lots of "projects" going on. The problem was, many of them ran into the reality of the marketplace.

And I agree that they are trying to get mid-town to downtown. I hope in the process they don't create issues with mid-town. Do you think that people will just move into mid-town from the burbs then? It seems like Owasso and BA are the real growth areas though....further out not closer in.

Recent Downtown Tulsa Construction Projects

Complete or nearly complete Cost in Millions Source
BOK Center $200 Million Public
One Technology Center acquisition (City Hall) $ 55 Million Public
Downtown Street Reconstruction $ 20 Million Public
Way finding signage system $ 1 Million Public
Crown Plaza Hotel Renovation $ 25 Million Private
Route 66 Gateway Bridge and Plaza $ 3.6 Million Public
OSU Tulsa research building $ 43 Million Public
River Parks Trail Improvements $ 15.3 Million Public / Private
Langston University Tulsa Campus $ 8 Million Public
Holy Family Cathedral Renovation $ 6 Million Private
Centennial Plaza & Park $ 7.8 Million Private
KMO Building Renovation $ 1.6 Million Private
Mayo Hotel Renovation $ 40 Million Private
Mayo Building Residential development $ 24 Million Private
Atlas Life / Marriott Courtyard Hotel $ 17.2 Million Private
ONEOK Field $ 40 Million Public / Private
John Hope Franklin Park $ 3 Million Public
Convention Center Renovation & New Ballroom $ 50.5 Million Public
Boulder Bridge Demolition & Redesign $ 3.2 Million Public
OSU Tulsa Forensics Laboratory $ 39 Million Public
Tulsa Community College Building $ 20 Million Public
North & West Leg of IDL reconstruction $ 75 Million Public

22 Total Projects $ 698 Million Public / Private


New Downtown Tulsa Construction on the horizon


Programmed or planned projects Cost in Millions Source
Mathews Building (Art Museum) $ 10 Million Private
Mathews Building ( Arts & Humanities Council) $ 10 Million Public / Private
Brady District Park $ 5 Million Private
Tribune Lofts II $ 5 Million Private
ONG Building residential conversion Not reported Private
ONG Building parking and mixed use $ 4 Million Private
Greenwood Development (mixed use) Not reported Private
ODOT 1-244 Multi-modal Bridge (Stimulus) $ 150 Million Public
Cain's Museum $ 2.5 Million Private
Boulder Bridge Reconstruction $ 10 Million Public
One Place (mixed use) Development $ 38 Million Private
Williams Center North Garage Expansion $ 5 Million Public
West Bank Festival Park Improvements $ 6 Million Public
Route 66 Restaurant & Interpretative Center $ 6 Million Public
Griffin Communications new TV studio $20 Million Private
1st Street Lofts $ 3.5 Million Public / Private

Source: http://www.billleighty.com/downtown_tulsa_real_estate_developments.htm

I am really glad Tulsa is starting to make some moves again. When I lived there most of the politicians, business people and public were really arrogant when it came to their city and except for a few generous people like the Westbys, nobody did anything. Consequently, nothing terribly meaningful happened there from about 1970 on. So it is good for them to wake up and realize that they needed to be proactive. Meanwhile OKCitians knocked the chips off their shoulders and went to work and now there is major money being spent on developing this city. While we certainly can watch Tulsa to see how the incentives work for them, I think it will be 5 years before we know the real effect and whether the people respond by buying what is being built.

I don't know if you're asking rhetorical questions, but development is hard to pull off, especially right now. I also think it is disingenuous for you to be stating those rhetorical questions when you started this thread about what OKC could learn from Vision 2025. Unless your argument is that there isn't demand for downtown housing in OKC..

I would say there is strong demand for something in any market where the occupancy rate is over 80%. Downtown OKC's apartment occupancy rate is over 98%. The Deep Deuce Apartments are 100% full, the most successful apartment project in the history of the state. Yet Somerset never finished build-out, why? The answer is who the hell knows.

I make my living off of developers, so yes, I know development is hard. But the point is that there is a huge difference between theoretical demand and real demand. Developers and banks are reticent to risk millions without some pretty significant evidence that they can build and get their money back. If it was such a slam dunk in downtown OKC then projects would be getting done. I think that it is not so clear that there is actual demand at the RATES that would interest developers and investors.

Well, here is where you bring up a subjective point. You're right, the banks are no fans of urban development. They especially don't like to see multiple guidelines of OKC real estate broken, and that is that we don't like multi family, and we don't like multi-story (hell, let alone basements), and we like everything to be ranch style.

I would literally take every dollar I have out of Bank of Oklahoma and put it all in a bank that said it would invest its money in higher-quality building projects. And that would be a bank making a difference, rather than what usually happens is traditional-minded bank executives and uncomfortable investing in urban development and would rather just only talk about suburban tract housing which is proven (and it really is).

So yes, if we really were serious about solving the problem of low development activity, then we should start with the banks. But it's not entirely they're fault, because the feds are still discouraging real estate investment despite the rumor I hear going around that they want "stimulus." I guess they would rather every USD be invested in Chinese sweatshops and Mexican drug markets than anything iffy like real estate development...

A major portion of the economic problems was the creation of artificial demand for real estate and construction from years of easy lending policies, irresponsible monetary policy which focused on low interest rates for stimulating growth, low accountability for financial instututions, low bars set for loan qualifications, and on and on as part of trying to prove that we could just outgrow our problems. Except in pockets of the country the result was a glut of building inventory and lack of underlying demographics to support it. That is why condo development, hotel development, etc. has been in the tank.

Keep in mind that if you don't have a strong growth pattern, people have to sell their home to move into a place downtown or anywhere else and there have to be buyers. Even the renters have to abandon their current residences. Don't think that suburban apartment owners aren't going to fight back by lowering prices and making it difficult to leave. So even developing apartments isn't a slam dunk and without risk. The market has to be looked at holistically to assess risk.

I would literally take every dollar I have out of Bank of Oklahoma and put it all in a bank that said it would invest its money in higher-quality building projects. And that would be a bank making a difference, rather than what usually happens is traditional-minded bank executives and uncomfortable investing in urban development and would rather just only talk about suburban tract housing which is proven (and it really is).

So yes, if we really were serious about solving the problem of low development activity, then we should start with the banks. But it's not entirely they're fault, because the feds are still discouraging real estate investment despite the rumor I hear going around that they want "stimulus." I guess they would rather every USD be invested in Chinese sweatshops and Mexican drug markets than anything iffy like real estate development...

So quit investing in Chinese sweatshops and Mexican drug markets. (Whatever this is in reference to.)

Anyway, perhaps you should organize a REIT for the purpose of investing in the types of projects you espouse. If your ideas are convincing you should get in the game and organize some investors. Perhaps you could do the city a service while living up to your ideals and making a lot of money doing it. There are a number of "fat cats" you can go talk to who are supporters of downtown development who might be interested in investing.

The best way to prove out ideas is to put them to the market for acceptance. Give it a try. You certainly have the passion.

These kinds of exchanges we seem to always have once a discussion goes dead are going to be really ironic if a few years from now that's actually the direction that my career goes..lol

Spartan, I really respect your activist attitude. I was being serious in that we should have people who will have a conviction of belief and a willingness to fight for the visions they have and to help make those things happen through economics. As you may be able to tell, I am an economist by education and I tend to believe that in the end economics winds up driving these things. So someone like you being passionate can change the game by providing the thing that gets visions accomplished...money.

I usually know that you mean what you say, and I know you weren't being sarcastic. I just don't know how to respond to that, because there's people on this board younger than I am who say they're going to be developers after college, too. I know sometimes it works that way, sometimes not. The reality is I'm working on a degree that can make a lot of money in the NW but would cause me to go absolutely broke in OKC unless I enterprise a little bit, and you can't usually blaze your own path like that immediately after college. But look at some of these developers we have who are now in their 30s and genuinely believe in downtown and ARE putting their money behind their vision.

Grant Humphreys and Richard McKowns are two great examples of people who I think are visionaries first, pragmatics second. McKowns has an awesome project coming that's going to be successful, Grant's going to have to pick himself up from Block 42 and stay away from condo sales for a while. Marva Ellard is another bona fide urbanist. Sometimes urbanism works..I would point to how Marva got out of The Hill fast and the economic contrast between Marva's proposal and Wiggin's failure. Obviously Chuck Wiggin comes across as more the economist type than Marva Ellard who comes across as more of a visionary.

So I would just say, just because someone thinks more like an urban visionary and less like a pragmatic economist, doesn't imply economic success level. I agree that economic success is the end point. One of the many things we agree on, you know. :)

Tulsa probably built 800 downtown residential units (more than half OKC's amount) between 2005 and 2010 out of probably around 3,000 that was proposed (not including the Tulsa Channels). But the perception is that it's much less because Tulsa has lacked major projects with 200+ units, they've done it all with smaller infill.
Recap

Actually built between 05-10:
OKC 1,500
Tulsa 800


I think one has to do some pretty creative addition to come up with
800 housing units added in downtown Tulsa in the last 5 years. Note that Tulsa's downtown housing study linked elsewhere in this thread shows a loss in both population and number of households in downtown Tulsa between 2000-2009.

Off the top of my head, some new downtown housing projects: Central Park townhomes, Philtower Lofts, 420 Mayo, Mayo Hotel, the Tribune, etc. I know the Detroit Lofts and 1st Avenue Lofts are nearly finished, too.

Off the top of my head, some new downtown housing projects: Central Park townhomes, Philtower Lofts, 420 Mayo, Mayo Hotel, the Tribune, etc. I know the Detroit Lofts and 1st Avenue Lofts are nearly finished, too.

Central Park townhomes: Not downtown and not added in the 2005-2010 time period.
Philtower lofts: 25 units
420 Mayo: 67 units
Mayo Hotel: 70 units
Tribune Lofts: not added in the 2005-2010 time period being discussed.
Detroit Lofts: 16 units
1st Ave Lofts (presumably you meant 1st Street Lofts): 18 units (assuming they are ever completed).

Total added in the 2005-2010 time period: 196. Let us know when you find the additional 604 units. ;-)

At one point before the bust OKC looked like it was going to add over 3,000 residential units downtown between 2005 and 2010. I'd estimate that not even half got built so maybe 1,500 is being generous.

1,500 is being way too generous for 2005-2010. There's probably been half that amount built in downtown (i.e., the CBD, Bricktown, Deep Deuce, and Midtown) in that timespan.

In fact I count roughly 1,100 residential units built in downtown OKC since 2000, according to this website:

http://www.bartbinning.com/downtown_okc_multi.htm