View Full Version : Was Inner OKC's dilapidation necessary for today's mass re-development?



Spartan
05-01-2011, 01:49 PM
I was in the middle of doing hours of readings and I came across something incredibly profound in an article about hyper-gentrification in Central Moscow. One of the reasons I especially love getting urban planning knowledge from Russians is because they have such an interesting perspective, don't "get" some things, and at the same time have a brilliant analysis on other things because they arrived late.

"In the context of the capitalist city, disinvestment in
the built environment is essential for the production
of opportunities for capital accumulation in a later
stage of reinvestment."

So, in the context of this argument (which is definitely not anything I've heard in the zeitgeist of the western planning establishment) it is referring to an area that is now one of Moscow's hottest districts but was historically one of the worst parts of Moscow. But I was thinking about how this argument could apply to western cities.

It does certainly seem like there is a lot more "excitement" over new development in OKC, than say Tulsa or other more mature cities of our size. Central OKC has historically (well, ever since the 50s) been taboo for investment and very under-built. Contrast this with Tulsa which has always had lots of investment in its well-built Midtown, and even today, most of Tulsa's "development rundown" consists of projects in formerly blighted areas like Brady.

In OKC this has been a big advantage all over the city it seems. It's hard to refute the argument that cheap real estate is a huge opportunity, but the other implications of the idea are more interesting. Do we avoid investing in areas that are presently deemed adequate? Does something about capitalism encourage people to constantly look for new opportunities at the expense of what you currently have? To aim this more directly, perhaps this could describe why there is so little happening in Bricktown lately.

People are always surprised when a neighborhood becomes gentrified. Looking back 5 years from now, it would be nearly impossible to find a person who wouldn't be surprised if they saw a prediction that NW 9th would become a hotspot, or 6-7 years if you told someone that 16th Street would be booming today. But when you apply this idea, it seems very logical and predictable almost.

Maybe it is possible to apply this idea and make other future wild predictions as well. At any rate, and I say this as someone fairly opposed to putting all of our eggs in one basket named C2S, it does offer an intriguing outlook that bodes well for C2S. It also explains why we are pursuing C2S while so many other areas of downtown aren't yet "finished" and might not ever be. That is if ultimately, when you take a step back, and see highly inadequate investment levels as a positive and adequate investment levels as a negative. Interesting dichotomy..

This is something I would typically post on my blog, but I thought I'd try this type of post with you guys to see what you guys think.

Doug Loudenback
05-01-2011, 03:42 PM
This is something I would typically post on my blog, but I thought I'd try this type of post with you guys to see what you guys think.
I think that the MSP are looking for you. Watch your back.

semisimple
05-01-2011, 04:27 PM
Interesting topic and I agree that dilapidated areas often have the advantage that new projects often don't face (significant) neighborhood opposition because nobody lives there or cares about the area. Dilapidated areas can serve as clean slates for ambitious development--I think OKC (particularly Deep Deuce) is a good example of this. When a large private development or major public works project is proposed in a dilapidated area, the project can be carried out with little consequence to the neighborhood, and funding is likely to be the primary obstacle.

You mention Tulsa--as perhaps a better counterexample I look at my native city of Austin, where some "redevelopment" and infrastructural projects have been scaled back or shelved due to opposition by the established neighborhoods surrounding downtown. We have no urban prairies or dilapidated areas to bulldoze over. Yes, there has been lots of high-rise construction downtown, but projects in many areas around downtown--just as important IMO--can't gain traction because of (powerful) NIMBY neighborhood groups. Moreover, unlike OKC, Austin's established core means that they could never pursue something on the scale of the I-40 realignment or especially C2S. This is a terrible thing in the long run for Austin, particularly where transportation infrastructure is concerned.

To take this idea even further, a roughly square mile area of Austin near the UT campus has been redeveloped by an astonishing amount of midrise and highrise residential construction in the last few years (after then-Mayor Wynn lifted height restrictions in the area). But that only happened because the area is populated almost exclusively by students thus creating a "revolving door" of people with little interest in the preserving the look and feel of the neighborhood. In less than a decade that area was transformed into the most densely populated and one of the most urban neighborhoods in Texas. So the area need not be truly dilapidated--it just needs to not cared about.

Such "clean slates" are all around downtown OKC and they are part of what make development here exciting--or possibly so disappointing, in the case of lower Bricktown--because the sky is the limit.

Spartan
05-01-2011, 04:43 PM
I'll respond more later probably, but just wanted to mention really quickly that Austin is an interesting example because when I am on the ground there I get the feel that development is so prevalent there because there are so many surface parking lots that make great, easy infill targets. For instance, surface parking lots are easily the overwhelming urban form if one walks from the weekend farmer's market over to the HQ Whole Foods, all the way down W. 6th, and then all the way up through the government side of downtown (the north side of downtown) to the UT campus for a football game. I have never seen so much surface parking in my life, even more than Tulsa.

As for Austin's Core2Shore, I'm not sure it's lacking because there isn't an area to do it, but more just because Austin has not had to implement such city-led development initiatives to propel the market to engage in mass redevelopment. It is already doing it. One thing that Will Wynn mentioned when he came to OKC a few years back was that OKC and Austin are achieving the same thing but working in opposite directions. OKC is adding the amenities and public projects and trying to get development to catch up, whereas Austin is getting the development and more than enough of it, and trying to catch up with amenities and public projects.

But I will offer South Austin and East Austin as wide-scale redevelopment examples, more in the case of South Austin, but East has a few developments within urban settings where they bulldozed brownfield for mass development. Like the old airpark, for example. Granted, not very "urban" development, but still... maybe Austin's Lower Bricktown. lol

bombermwc
05-02-2011, 06:52 AM
I think you make your own arguement though when you say that the divestment spawns redevlopment. There's a yes and no to it...just like with anything.

On the yes side, the divestment turn dilapidation serves as an opportunity for something to redevelop later. This has been repeated countless times across the U.S.....and hundreds of times in Europe. That's really a better place to look since the U.S. is so young comparatively. Think about Paris or London. There are several hundreds of years of the cycle repeating itself. What was once new is now old, and then new again. The nature of Europe with so many people in such a small space has forced them to take a different approach to the whole concept. Here in the U.S. we have (and still do) had an abundance of open space to sprawl too so there hasn't been as much of a push to move back in to jump start that redevlopment.

What we are seeing is that in areas where there is a push to bring downtown back to life, things are happening. But as mentioned, there has to be a focus, and it's not always able to be as broad of a stroke as some would like. It's a delicate balance of maintaining the old grace with the new vigor. Take Heritage Hills and uptown. That's a story of what can be done properly to keep the gems of the past while stirring the redevelopment of an area that was on it's way down. But what Midtown took was Banta. Had he not done as much as he had, we wouldn't have seen the progress we have today. Unfortunately, the economy caught up with him an no one has taken the reigns with the enthusiasm he has. That's where you see the key.

Someone or some group of people make the push to get things started in the areas you are talking about. The trick is to see if it continues or fizzles out. I've mentioned Chicago before on topics like this. The fire helped them out a bit on "phase 1" i guess, but the point is we see this "dive to gem" transition in different areas. Another similar area....take Tampa and the Ybor City area. It's a perfect example for me....and on an accelerated time line. In the late 1800's, early 1900's it served as the cigar making capital of the WORLD. There are so many classic structures in the area...so much history. Once automation came in, the area died out completely. The city and some investors started making a push and now it's alive again with amazing food, great local shopping, museusm, etc. The redevlopment is still going on, and could be compared to Midtown.....it's not a cheap area anymore, so the cost to redevelop something has almost made it cost-prohibitive.

That's a HUGE danger. Turn the area "cool" again and the place can price itself right out of a second life.

Snowman
05-07-2011, 06:04 AM
I read an article today that reminded me of this, is was about a several areas getting projects killed due to not in my back yard and not competing with my business pushes by those who had political leverage in the area and got them stopped early in the development phases by cities denying approvals to build facilities in any of the areas they could be successful.

mugofbeer
05-07-2011, 10:47 PM
That's a HUGE danger. Turn the area "cool" again and the place can price itself right out of a second life. It may not exactly be what you are referring to, but look at Dallas' West End, San Antonio RIverwalk, Denver's Cherry Creek North. Places that were made 'cool" by private development. As the success built, property values and rents got so high most businesses that can affoard to be there are chains what you can find anywhere. West End, pretty much dead. San Antonio Riverwalk - still cool because of its beauty and uniqueness - but in danger of becoming nothing but chain entertainment. Cherry Creek North - economic downturn has temporarily cooled the real estate skyrocket and the departure of so many privately owned businesses.

Spartan
05-08-2011, 04:58 AM
I think you make your own arguement though when you say that the divestment spawns redevlopment. There's a yes and no to it...just like with anything.

On the yes side, the divestment turn dilapidation serves as an opportunity for something to redevelop later. This has been repeated countless times across the U.S.....and hundreds of times in Europe. That's really a better place to look since the U.S. is so young comparatively. Think about Paris or London. There are several hundreds of years of the cycle repeating itself. What was once new is now old, and then new again. The nature of Europe with so many people in such a small space has forced them to take a different approach to the whole concept. Here in the U.S. we have (and still do) had an abundance of open space to sprawl too so there hasn't been as much of a push to move back in to jump start that redevlopment.

I think this analysis is both right and wrong. It is about not sprawling forever in the first place, which causes people to still care about the existing built environment. But it's not because they can't. Europe has more land than people think. Look at the countries where some of the best urban cities exist, such as France, Sweden, Spain, Austria, Czech Republic, and so on. These are countries that have tons of land and could sprawl as much as they want. The only countries that are really that land-constrained are Germany, UK, Italy, Holland, and Denmark. Even in these cases, there would be room for more development..even in Holland, with about 20 million people in an area the size of Maryland, there is still a lot of farm land and wild fields. It's all about a choice not to sprawl. In France, with tons of room to sprawl, they still chose not to and build cities just as dense as they would in Holland. Germany, which packs over 80 million people into an area that's smaller than France, but German cities do still tend to have a good deal of suburban sprawl--Germans are a car-crazy culture, and they have more than enough money to build big houses outside of cities. But even still, they have complex public measures to prevent the deterioration of German cities.


What we are seeing is that in areas where there is a push to bring downtown back to life, things are happening. But as mentioned, there has to be a focus, and it's not always able to be as broad of a stroke as some would like. It's a delicate balance of maintaining the old grace with the new vigor. Take Heritage Hills and uptown. That's a story of what can be done properly to keep the gems of the past while stirring the redevelopment of an area that was on it's way down. But what Midtown took was Banta. Had he not done as much as he had, we wouldn't have seen the progress we have today. Unfortunately, the economy caught up with him an no one has taken the reigns with the enthusiasm he has. That's where you see the key.

Well, I think it begs the question, what to call what is happening in OKC. Is it truly a fully-blown back to the city movement, or is it just a bunch of hobbyists who have gotten together to remodel a bunch of cute old buildings? Keep in mind that everything in OKC still does have a remarkably low-key aspect, and generally "cute" is the operative word with OKC historic renovations.

bombermwc
05-09-2011, 05:49 AM
Well I would still argue that the Europeans have had several hundred years to have the situation play out though as well. Not to mention a few population thinning helpers (like the plague). There is that larger control over land, say in England. It's done by cost/tax though. The simple fact that you are taxed for the number of rooms in your home makes a big difference. That's why they have wardrobes, not closets. If you have to pay more for that amount of room you get, you can afford less room (nothing different that normal real estate stats). And knowing you can't afford that, and that it won't change if you move "out", why not stay in the urban area? Plus there, it's pedestrian friendly because the cities were originally built that way and expanded out to keep it that way. We're totally car centric.

Urban Pioneer
05-09-2011, 06:16 AM
A great example of local NIMBYISM is Grant Humphrey's proposed inner-city development at 36th/Walker by the residents of Crown Heights and Edgemere.

My guess is that such situations will continue with true inner-city neighborhoods further propogating sprawl as an easy answer.