Interesting line up and a full page public invitation in the OK Gazette.

971

It is on Tuesday (September 6th)
6:30 - 8:30 PM
OKC Marriott Grand Ballroom
3233 NW Expressway

^THIS is why I need to move back to OKC.

On a side note, my son plays football in St Johns County and we use a county park (built inside a rural subdivsion) for practice. There are about 350 kids spread across 12 teams. Last night one of kids collapsed due to heat. It took an ambulance almost 10 minutes to arrive. Of course, some of the parents start complaining about how long it took and I told them - that is what we get for spreading development all over rural St Johns County (BTW - the kids was fine). At the end of practice we had a league meeting where we were informed that if the county millage increase didn't pass we would have to move practice up by one hour because the county won't be able to turn the lights on. Once again I said, "well maybe if the county didn't spend million paving roads roads all over rural St Johns County they would have more money to pay the light bill." The second time I said it some of the other parents started catching on that maybe we can't afford all the sprawl.

Please don't take this the wrong way. But haven't all of those folks chosen to live where they are? That living on the edges have advantages/disadvantages? Would those same folks give up there paved roads in exchange for getting the lights turned on? See what i am getting at? if not, that's ok, I'm not sure either. LOL

Urban, I may swing by if I can remember, it is in my neck of the woods.

Urban, I may swing by if I can remember, it is in my neck of the woods.

I'll be there.

199 signed up so far on Shadid's facebook event page (https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=260628310616128&ref=ts), will be impressive if a few hundred OKC citizens show up for a meeting on urban planning. I am looking to hear Blair Humphreys, Russel Klaus and Jim Couch. OK Gazette ad about event ==> http://npaper-wehaa.com/oklahoma-gazette#2011/08/31/?page=21&mode=2&vw=1

I'm planning on attending, although I'm on call.

Impressive list of speakers...should be interesting

Sounds good. Unfortunately I am on evenings right now, and Tuesday is my Monday.

Ooooh, I'll go. I'm an urban planner, so I enjoy these types of topics.

Please don't take this the wrong way. But haven't all of those folks chosen to live where they are? That living on the edges have advantages/disadvantages? Would those same folks give up there paved roads in exchange for getting the lights turned on? See what i am getting at? if not, that's ok, I'm not sure either. LOL

If they are doing so without knowing all the facts around sprawl then they are making an uniformed decision. I lived my whole life in suburbia and never once thought about all the inefficient use of resources need to build it. Then we find out that just mowing the beltway around Jax cost $3 million per year and there isn't enough money to turn park lights on. What is the point in buying things if you can't afford to maintain and use them?

What are you guys suggesting they do? Many people already live in these places that are already part of the city? If they de-annex the areas where the people already live, then what are they to do at that point? I am not trying to argue, just asking a questiion.

I don't think people who are 'anti-sprawl' generally believe that de-annexation or other drastic measures against sprawl are beneficial. After all, the main argument against sprawl is that it is not sustainable. To 'undo' the burbs would be wasteful. I think meetings like this are typically more about educating the public about the effects of sprawl, so that people can take measures to alleviate the impacts of sprawl.

And, if you were wondering, 'sprawl' is one of my favorite words to type and to say, so I firmly believe in using the word at least once in every sentence. ;)

I'll be there. I should have enough time to get there on-time from my evening class.

Planning on it.

What are you guys suggesting they do? Many people already live in these places that are already part of the city? If they de-annex the areas where the people already live, then what are they to do at that point? I am not trying to argue, just asking a questiion.

I would like to see the City de-annex the un-urbanized parts of OKC. If you happen to live in a rural part of the city that got deannexed you would just get your services from the County.

Kerry, this is a non-issue. What is an issue is what is happening north of Memorial Road, where all the roads have been widened clear out into the 200s despite NO NEED to do so other than to encourage more poorly-built sprawl developments. And in other areas of the city.

The city can do just fine minimizing the impact that these rural areas have on services and infrastructure, because quite simply, those folks do not expect much from the city. The plan has been to keep a lot of those watershed areas under environmental protection. Now we need to stop the sprawl fest in other areas.

I believe it's absolutely insane that we widened all of those far-north country roads when there are SO FEW people up there and mostly farms and acreages.

Kerry, this is a non-issue. What is an issue is what is happening north of Memorial Road, where all the roads have been widened clear out into the 200s despite NO NEED to do so other than to encourage more poorly-built sprawl developments. And in other areas of the city.

The city can do just fine minimizing the impact that these rural areas have on services and infrastructure, because quite simply, those folks do not expect much from the city. The plan has been to keep a lot of those watershed areas under environmental protection. Now we need to stop the sprawl fest in other areas.

I believe it's absolutely insane that we widened all of those far-north country roads when there are SO FEW people up there and mostly farms and acreages.

The Kilpatrick turnpike widened the area that will eventually have suburban style developments by at least three or four more miles away from the city core in the northwest, unless their is a major change in what most in people OKC buy in housing.

Many who were concerned with sprawl were against that. But now that we have it, the city can control sprawl to some extent by maintaining existing zoning. Agricultural land within the city confines now served by the highway does not have to be changed to meet the ideas of developers who have other interests in mind.

If they leave it agricultural, doesn't that defeat the notion of annexing it to begin with? By that, isn't developed land (businesses, homes etc) worth more in various tax revenues, jobs, economic impact etc? One only has to look at Council meetings where a developer pitches some multi-million dollar project and they seemingly can't approve it fast enough. Individually they see it as delivering what their constituents want. More shopping choices in closer proximity, more housing choices, more jobs etc.

That depends on planning. In one version, yes the city wants to expand evermore and doesn't care about the ramifications of sprawl. In the other plan they do.

Sometimes viewpoints change. Land annexed under one vision may now be subject to another. That's not necessarily a bad thing for the city's interest, to maintain those buffer zones where without them, effectively, the same thing happens, the core and inner city are left to rot and the surrounding area develops outside the OKC boundaries.

Instead of continuing to build North, couldn't they pick a "hundred block" say, 15,000 in all directions and make sure that is fully filled in before going any further? I randomly picked that hundred block because it seems that the North side is continuing to go North while the rest of the city stays dormant.

... randomly picked that hundred block because it seems that the North side is continuing to go North while the rest of the city stays dormant.

I don't go up to the north side much, and would likely be surprised at all that's going on. But there seems to be a lot taking place in the southern and western parts of the city as well when I slide through on my way to DT and other places. I can't speak about the eastern side at all. I go there less than I go north.

I don't go up to the north side much, and would likely be surprised at all that's going on. But there seems to be a lot taking place in the southern and western parts of the city as well when I slide through on my way to DT and other places. I can't speak about the eastern side at all. I go there less than I go north.

The 15,000 block also covers the South side as it has grown to SE/SW 149th (19th in Moore). I live at I-40 and Choctaw Road and it is also at 14900 block. I am not sure where that would be on the West. I think that leaves a lot of area to fill in that could take years.

I think that if we count the dollars, we'll find that the already-developed areas of the city are subsidizing the development of virgin lands at the periphery. I am going to the meeting and hope to get a chance to ask about that -- has anyone done the calculations to figure out the sprawl subsidy. I think that simply withdrawing the subsidy, and making development in those areas pay all of the costs associated with the expansion of infrastructure and services in the area, would do a lot to limit the problem. I have modest means, and am not really sure why I should be subsidizing upscale development on the edge of the city.

I think that if we count the dollars, we'll find that the already-developed areas of the city are subsidizing the development of virgin lands at the periphery. I am going to the meeting and hope to get a chance to ask about that -- has anyone done the calculations to figure out the sprawl subsidy. I think that simply withdrawing the subsidy, and making development in those areas pay all of the costs associated with the expansion of infrastructure and services in the area, would do a lot to limit the problem. I have modest means, and am not really sure why I should be subsidizing upscale development on the edge of the city.

The City did those calcultation already - sprawal cost the city about $18 million per year and that number is going up. Of course, that pales in comparison to the cost to individuals and businesses.

Yeah but Sprawl has already happened. You can't just go out there and bull doze those houses and businesses. Turning it back to the county doesn't work either. The citizens of the city are also citizens of the county so weather the taxes come from the city or the county, you are still paying for them. Secondly the county likely has less means to do it than the city does. They will likely charge more for the same services than the city would simply because they have less infrastructure. I understand the concern for sprawl but I think that de-annexing is not going to solve the problem. Your only hope would be that once de-annexed, another suburb may annex it and it becomes their responsibility. I think that if the city had done its planning from the beginning or at least early on, a lot of this could have been alleviated.

Another problem that no one wants to think about is why people may move out to the fringe areas. I cannot speak for others but I can speak for myself. Today in this age of everyone believing they have a right to be in other people's business, if you want to live in a new home, you are forced into joining (coerced) a home owners association (HOA). Those who advocate HOA's are the first to tell you that you do not have to join an HOA because you can either move into an old house or move to the country. Well if you move into an old house, you have to deal with drug dealers and the like. When you move to the country you are accused of contributing to sprawl. I moved out because it is incomprehensible why anyone would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just to forfeit their freedoms to a power hungry HOA. I would prefer to live closer but you cannot find any new homes that do not have HOA's.

Any of us can choose to move wherever we purchase property. The question isn't whether people have the right to move to fringe areas, but rather whether they are entitled to city services. I lived in Deer Creek for awhile until I discovered I hate driving, and we had a well, septic system and a volunteer fire department. It never occured to me that the city should provide those services, as I knew they weren't available when I chose to move.

Any of us can choose to move wherever we purchase property. The question isn't whether people have the right to move to fringe areas, but rather whether they are entitled to city services. I lived in Deer Creek for awhile until I discovered I hate driving, and we had a well, septic system and a volunteer fire department. It never occured to me that the city should provide those services, as I knew they weren't available when I chose to move.

On that note - did you have a paved street, electricity, cable TV, or land line phone? That is a cost on the private sector side that has to be paid in advance by existing customers and is a cost to society that often gets overlooked, yet people still think their cable bill is too high. By law the cable company had to install cable in my home. In 8 years I have never used it once. Based on the number of DirecTV and Dish Network dishes, I would say 90% of our subdivision does not use cable TV. However, the cable subscribers paid for the installation anyhow.

Hundreds here. Maybe more.

^^Urban Pioneer,will there be any video taken of this meeting?Maybe it will be shown on okc.gov or channel 20?I sure hope so!

A packed house. I had to bailout at 8PM. Props to Shadid for putting this together. I was wondering the same thing, if was getting videoed for playback on a public channel or something.

I saw a camera there. This was not a city sanctioned event. So probably, it will be on YouTube. Check his Facebook page and see if it appears.

Hundreds here. Maybe more.

Were the hundreds packed in or did you have everyone stand 10 feet apart on 3 acres to demonstrate a point?

Lol

Holy cow - over 500 people! That is a huge turn-out.



A crowd of more than 500 people left a community meeting Tuesday about urban sprawl in Oklahoma City well-versed in the city's sprawl-related problems, but solutions were in short supply.



Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-tackles-urban-sprawl/article/3601806#ixzz1XGebIrgN

BTW - for anyone interested the University of Miami School of Architecture offeres an on-line course in New Urbanism.

http://nuonline.arc.miami.edu/


Course Outline
Introduction
Unit 1: A Crisis of Place and the Alternative of the New Urbanism

• A Crisis Of Place
• The Causes and Costs of Sprawl
• Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) vs. Conventional Suburban Development (CSD)
• The New Urbanism alternative

The Region: Metropolis, City, and Town
Unit 2: Boundaries & Centers, Economics & Mobility
Unit 3: Ecology & Built Legacy
Unit 4: Diversity, Infill & Greenfields

The Neighborhood, the District, and the Corridor
Unit 5: Definitions & Traditional Neighborhood Planning Principles
Unit 6: Pedestrian Shed, Transit & Highways
Unit 7: Civic Institutions, Public Space, & Codes

The Block, the Street, and the Building
Unit 8: Architecture, Local Culture and Community Identity
Unit 9: Public Realm, Pedestrian Life & Public Safety
Unit 10: Green Building & Historic Preservation

Implementing New Urbanism
Unit 11: Implementing New Urbanism

• Charrettes
• Market Demand
• Finance
• Land Development
• Marketing
• Parking

Holy cow - over 500 people! That is a huge turn-out.

I am enthused by the show of interest.

One of the text books used in the UM class is available on-line for free in PDF format. Here is the link. I just downloaded it myself so it looks like I have something new to read for a while.

http://www.cnu.org/sites/files/charter_book.pdf

http://www.bobwaldrop.net/?p=878


OKC has 621 sq miles, it is the third largest in the nation in terms of area. In 1959 it was 80 sq miles, in 1963, it was 600 sq miles. The decision to expand was made deliberately by OKC leaders in order to better control growth in the area. - City Manager Jim Couch


It didn't work.

So did they come to any sort of consensus on a solution?

No, it was mainly educational, here is what sprawl is, here are the ramifications, here is what we have in OKC along with history and trends.

There was a bit of what works better, such as new urban design ideas for live, work and shopping places built pedestrian friendly and in proximity of one another in or away from a core; mixed types of living spaces in the same areas; use of mass trans; etc. but nothing so much as here is where we want to go and this is how we get there from where we are.

They were also soliciting written, ideas, and comments from attendees. I would assume there must be some web based submission mechanism as well.

I went and it was great, sat in the front row and took pictures. I've just finished my blog post here (http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-is-deal-with-councilman-ed-shadid.html). It focuses less on the urban sprawl topic than it does the unique contributions being made by Ed Shadid.

Here's a composite (I had to combine 3 pics since I don't have a wide-angle lens) of what the crowd looked like last night (click the image for a larger view):

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/city%20council/ed_shadid/crowdds.jpg (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/city%20council/ed_shadid/crowdd.jpg)

The power of one is amazing. 600 or so attended ... it was standing room only ... extra chairs were brought in for people to sit next to the walls of the ballroom.

The forum's purpose was not to suggest a solution to the problem -- it was merely to identify that urban sprawl IS a problem and show how and why and how that came to be. Consider it to be "Urban Sprawl , Class 1." Shadid's purpose was to set the stage for further discussion, nothing more, nothing less, and that object was accomplished very well.

They did make mention of planokc.

Does anyone know if this was a one time meeting, or will there be additional/follow up meetings.

I bet Shadid is trying to go somewhere with this. He is a career Ward 2 councilman IMOP... and Ward 2 voters are almost surely to vote him again unless he does something glaringly wrong.

I was blown away by the turnout. Ed Shadid has done an outstanding job of involving regular citizens in their government. I really enjoyed Blair Humphreys' presentation, as well as Ed's on health.

Police and Fire were less impressive: both took the opportunity to virtually ignore the sprawl discussion and instead lobby for more money and manpower. Not saying they don't need it, but their nakedly political agenda was inappropriate for the discussion.

Similarly, City Manager Jim Couch read a lengthy treatise from some old issue of the Oklahoma City Times, then went on a circuitous discussion about how sprawl has actually been good for OKC. It was bizarre.

I thought the 15 minute video Ed put together at the beginning was interesting and informative.

I'm so glad Shadid was elected instead of that stooge Charlie Swinton. He has already made such a difference in this city. It's extremely exciting to see citizens getting involved in a major way with local issues.

Perhaps the most important aspect of last night was they were sending a clipboard around getting names, numbers, and emails. Shadid is building a massive progressive grassroots organization that will have a huge impact on city politics going forward.

Doug, I really enjoyed your latest blog entry. Your shot across the bow at the other council members is appropriate given the behavior they've exhibited. It will be interesting watching how so many city officials respond to the actual citizen-fueled democracy being wrought on them by Ed Shadid.

I bet Shadid is trying to go somewhere with this. He is a career Ward 2 councilman IMOP... and Ward 2 voters are almost surely to vote him again unless he does something glaringly wrong.

Although technically I don't live in Oklahoma City, I am proud that the suburban island on/in which I reside is surrounded by the "OKC sprawl" that includes Ward 2. I think Dr. Shadid is a fine representative for my neighbors just across the street(s). I know that I would have voted for him had I had proper standing to vote and I'm glad that those same neighbors feel the way I do. (Are there term limitations on the office of mayor?)

(Edited to Add):
And a big tip o' the hat to Doug L for his blog comments too.

Very impressive event. Hard for anyone there not to have the impression that Shadid is caring, considerate, and maybe the smartest person in the room. He cares about public input and the process. Probably 625-650+ were there. I counted the chairs per row and numbers of rows, 600 chairs were originally set, they brought in about 75 more and there were people ringing the perimeter and outside in the lobby, not everyone scrunched in all the way to all the middle chairs. Mentioned above, but people should read Dougs take on the situation here http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-is-deal-with-councilman-ed-shadid.htmlhttp://dougdawg.blogspot.com/2011/09/what-is-deal-with-councilman-ed-shadid.html

http://www.bobwaldrop.net/?p=878



It didn't work.

How do you know since you have no idea how it would have developed without the annexation? You can guess but you don't know.

"Very impressive event . . . Hard for anyone there not to have the impression that Shadid is caring, considerate, and maybe the smartest person in the room."

Personally (from sort of an "old school" paradigm/perspective), I believe that "caring" combined with "consideration" automatically equals "smartest person in the room" . . . This local [statesman] is apparently not already in somebody's pocket . . .

How do you know since you have no idea how it would have developed without the annexation? You can guess but you don't know.

You are right, I don't know how it would have gone if they didn't annex 500 sq miles in 4 years. But I do know they didn't control growth by doing it either. Maybe we need a definition of 'control'. If they meant they wanted to have power over it then mission accomplished, if they meant they wanted to constrain it, then fail.

You are right, I don't know how it would have gone if they didn't annex 500 sq miles in 4 years. But I do know they didn't control growth by doing it either. Maybe we need a definition of 'control'. If they meant they wanted to have power over it then mission accomplished, if they meant they wanted to constrain it, then fail.

It was annexed for control via zoning and planning for the vision of the day, which was outlined. It was not to limit growth. It was also pointed out by the city manager, I believe, that the growth rate in unannexed areas, like Edmond, was the same as the growth rate in the annexed areas, with the inference being growth was going to happen either way. That's probably true in light of that many people bought into the idea of personal transportation and living in the burbs as a good way to live. It was also mentioned a better way is not to necessarily limit new areas of development, but to develop them in a different manner, with mixed use, mixed housing types, more neighborhood centric, more pedestrian friendly and with ready access to mass trans.

The Sprawl Facebook page has a post saying the video of the event will be available at that page. It does not say when. http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=260628310616128

Here's the video that was shown at the event.

uauPdMe4uik

I grew up in what was once a small, western, college town nestled at the foot of the front range of the Rocky Mountains. Everything you "needed"--from groceries to medicines to hardware to simple medical care--could be accessed by walking. Other desires/stuff required a short automobile drive (or, if you weren't old enough to drive) a short trip by bicycle or bus. In fact, you could ride a bike all the way from the northern edge of town to the south end suburb where I lived in about 45 minutes or less. (Those big, long hills you had to deal with slowed one down a bit. Even as an energetic child.)

One of the things that struck me the most when I moved down here in the early '70's was how far everyone seemed to be willing to drive to do or get just about anything.

Thanks for the video, Double Edge.

Edited to Add:
Here are a couple of other, related, videos to consider.
Oh!: Thread Relevence: Urban Infill versus/as compared to Sprawl

Here's a clip from one of the best "videos" ever made (to set the stage) . . .
AYnNIWKK8sw

And here is The Point (Re: UI vs/act S)
The Main Thing starts at 2:07, (but the lead-in puts it in perspective =)
wA15oCKCYHM

I am curious was their any idea of the percentage of people who want to live in suburbs vs urban area at the meeting?

Sprawled out

When bigger isn’t better: City officials consider sprawl’s burden on municipal functions.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-12993-sprawled-out.html