This is an outstanding development predicted by many sage contributors here.

Census Finds Record Low Growth in Outlying Suburbs

http://newsok.com/article/feed/367714?click_action=1

This trend is only going to accelerate. I feel sorry for these poeple that bought homes so far out. They will never be able to sell them regardless of how low prices go and they will be stuck paying $5, $6, $7, and $8 gas.

It's hard not to see how rising fuel costs could do anything but improve American communities. Hopefully fuel and all other sprawl factors won't even be subsidized, but alas, I'm not that hopeful.

That's a national article, and I'm willing to bet the stats wouldn't match Oklahoma.

Just one example I know, but Newcastle grew about 42% the last 10 years.

That's a national article, and I'm willing to bet the stats wouldn't match Oklahoma.

Just one example I know, but Newcastle grew about 42% the last 10 years.

Newcastle is still within 20 miles of several large employment bases (Dell, FAA, downtown OKC, OU) so its not an exurb in the truest sense. The commute there is comparable distance wise to the Northern half of Edmond.

The trends are happening here, maybe just not to the extent you see in much larger cities. You can drive around newer neighborhoods on the outskirts of town with a ton of still-empty lots.

When I think of exurbs in OKC, I'm usually thinking of areas north of Edmond, east of Choctaw, south of Norman, and west of Yukon. I can only speak from experience but I know of at least 3 people that have put off moves to areas near Wellston, McCloud, and Blanchard respectively due to gas prices/commuting issues.

In todays paper, I thought I read where Canadian County is the fastest growing county in the state, percentage wise ? So much for an urban trend........

In todays paper, I thought I read where Canadian County is the fastest growing county in the state, percentage wise ? So much for an urban trend........

Some people do claim Oklahoma is 20 years behind though :smile:

The reality is high gasoline prices and limited federal dollars are going to force the issue whether the people want it to or not. Mankind simply cannot afford to sprawl all over the planet in a low density fashion. Cars made that possible for 50 years but those days are coming to an end - rapidly.

It's hard not to see how rising fuel costs could do anything but improve American communities. Hopefully fuel and all other sprawl factors won't even be subsidized, but alas, I'm not that hopeful.

Except for the loss of jobs and increased inflation.

Right! Yea! rising fuel costs. Now lets cram people into the city! I only hope we can be come as dense as other metropolitan areas, like, say, Naples, Italy. Now that's a metropolitan area to emulate! Stack e'm DEEP!

Except for the loss of jobs and increased inflation.

Brought on by the near 100% dependency on gasoline that is going up in price.

That's a national article, and I'm willing to bet the stats wouldn't match Oklahoma.

Just one example I know, but Newcastle grew about 42% the last 10 years.

Yeah, 42% growth because they added 7 people. Lol. Jk.

Except for the loss of jobs and increased inflation.

Prove it. The nation switched from an urban to a suburban model for the purpose of manufacturing and construction jobs, building those cars and freeways, which fueled our post-war economic boom. Trust me, there's plenty of work that could be commissioned in the name of switching us back to healthy communities...

Somebody has to build those streetcars, light rail lines, and bicycles--and it's not as if personal vehicle ownership will ever go away.

As for inflation, as long as dependency for personal transport is on cheap fuel, that will be a competitive resource that will be a rising cost factored into groceries and consumer goods, so that will hit hardest the people who do not react personally to utilizing alternative transit. That will be the incentive--cutting down your fuel consumption on your own. This means cutting down on unneeded driving (joy rides), carpooling, combining errands, and not just alternative transit.

We'll survive it and be much better off for it. This is not something that we as a country need to be fearing and trying to do everything to prevent. We need to be finding ways to be innovative and make sure that the change over creates opportunities rather than eliminates opportunities.

It's hard not to see how rising fuel costs could do anything but improve American communities. Hopefully fuel and all other sprawl factors won't even be subsidized, but alas, I'm not that hopeful.

Improvement is subjective. It may help "sustainability" and reduce sprawl, but what's still great about this country is mans freedom of choice.

Improvement is subjective. It may help "sustainability" and reduce sprawl, but what's still great about this country is mans freedom of choice.

Where is the choice to not own a car?

Where is the choice to not own a car?

NYC, SF,Miami, Boston, the whole NE, Seattle, SD, Portland, Atlanta

NYC, SF,Miami, Boston, the whole NE, Seattle, SD, Portland, Atlanta

I don't see OKC on that list.

Kerry, I thought you were a free market capitalist.

1.) you could still choose to be careless in OKC, thousands are, it's just not ideal
2.) in a free market, you can move to a place that meets your lifestyle, the government shouldnt have to create it for you

Right! Yea! rising fuel costs. Now lets cram people into the city! I only hope we can be come as dense as other metropolitan areas, like, say, Naples, Italy. Now that's a metropolitan area to emulate! Stack e'm DEEP!

Bad news for exurbs does not necessarily equal great news for city cores, an article a few months ago had only a handful of US cities with more total dollars in development underway in the core than suburbs.

Bad news for exurbs does not necessarily equal great news for city cores, an article a few months ago had only a handful of US cities with more total dollars in development underway in the core than suburbs.

That's interesting, do you have a link for that article? I'd like to read about the ones where that is the case.

That's interesting, do you have a link for that article? I'd like to read about the ones where that is the case.

I do not have a link, New York was the only one I am totally sure about. OKC was mentioned but I do not remember if we were one of the cities or just had aspects that went with the subject.

If you want to live the urban life all you have to do is move to an urban city. If you like the suburban life, Oklahoma City is one of the places you can live and enjoy it. Urban living comes with a high price, try renting a descent apartment or owning a descent home for that matter for less then $1000 a month. Anything that is in the neighborhood of what people in OKC are used to paying is going to be a dump or located in a high crime area in New York City or Los Angeles.

I think some of you have been watching too much television. A person working a median income job is not going to live in a posh apartment in a nice neighborhood. Most people living at or below the median income are living with several roommates or they are living in an apartment or home that has been passed on to them through family relations.

Personally I like what Oklahoma City has become, I don't want it to be another New Jersey, New York or Los Angeles. I have been around in my 30 going on 40 years by comparison Oklahoma City is cleaner and much safer then most of the larger cities I have lived in or visited.

Kerry, I thought you were a free market capitalist.

1.) you could still choose to be careless in OKC, thousands are, it's just not ideal
2.) in a free market, you can move to a place that meets your lifestyle, the government shouldnt have to create it for you

I am, that is why the vast automobile subsidy concerns me. It isn't sustainable. 4 miles of interstate through cheap land in OKC cost nearly a billion dollars. The federal government is $15 trillion in debt and in 2019 interest payments on the debt are going to surpass defense spending to move into the #3 position on government spending list. When are we going to admit out method of development since 1945 isn't working?

I am, that is why the vast automobile subsidy concerns me. It isn't sustainable. 4 miles of interstate through cheap land in OKC cost nearly a billion dollars. The federal government is $15 trillion in debt and in 2019 interest payments on the debt are going to surpass defense spending to move into the #3 position on government spending list. When are we going to admit out method of development since 1945 isn't working?

development spending .. has about .00001% to do with our national dept

development spending .. has about .00001% to do with our national dept

That was just but one example. Do you have any idea how much we spend on car payments, insurance, auto bailouts, gasoline, oil changes, medical expenses from auto accidents, national defense to protect oil fields, public services to support suburbia (created because the automobile exists), repairs, raw material extraction, road construction, court costs related to traffic, lives lost to DUI, garage door openers, ... the list could go on forever. Where does all this money come from and what else could we be spending it on?

We spend nearly $1.5 trillion per year just on gasoline.

and we use oil for much much more than just gasoline

and we use oil for much much more than just gasoline

Do we produce enough oil in the US to meet our non-gasoline needs?

If you want to live the urban life all you have to do is move to an urban city. If you like the suburban life, Oklahoma City is one of the places you can live and enjoy it. Urban living comes with a high price, try renting a descent apartment or owning a descent home for that matter for less then $1000 a month. Anything that is in the neighborhood of what people in OKC are used to paying is going to be a dump or located in a high crime area in New York City or Los Angeles.

I think some of you have been watching too much television. A person working a median income job is not going to live in a posh apartment in a nice neighborhood. Most people living at or below the median income are living with several roommates or they are living in an apartment or home that has been passed on to them through family relations.

Personally I like what Oklahoma City has become, I don't want it to be another New Jersey, New York or Los Angeles. I have been around in my 30 going on 40 years by comparison Oklahoma City is cleaner and much safer then most of the larger cities I have lived in or visited.

My thoughts exactly. I don't care if gas goes up to $10/gallon, I will not live in an urban environment like NYC, LA, etc.

This is really pointless argument. As prices go up, people adapt their spending habits. In our society, it just happens. If gasoline prices continue to rise, people will either 1) cut spending elsewhere in their budgets to make up the shortfall, 2) drive less, or 3) move to a more fuel efficient vehicle. I'm sure there are a dozen other things they could do to make up the difference as well.

It's possible that tomorrow a breakthrough will be announced in electric cars that allow them to drive 300 miles on a single charge and recharge in an hour, all for less money than a gasoline powered car. When that day comes we'll have the end of high gas prices. It may be that that day is 30 years from now. Right now I drive a 2004 F-150 that gets 15 miles to the gallon. The truck runs great, but I spend about $200 a month on gas, just driving around town. It would be more expensive for me to buy a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle than it is to just keep my paid-for truck and pay higher gas prices.

OKC is in the early stages of building a real urban downtown. There will be missteps, false starts, and bad planning decisions. But there are a vast number of housing opportunities available downtown that weren't here 10 years ago. 10 years from now I anticipate we'll be expanding an already-successful streetcar, half the empty lots downtown will have something built there, and downtown will be seen as a place many people want to live instead of just a handful of weirdos on this board.

Hoyasooner - I think that is what this thread is all about. People have stopped moving to the outfringe as a result of increased gasoline prices (plus we are historic lows for people moving period, due to the housing collapse). The City/State/Feds spent billions building freeways and 4 lane roads all over the countryside in anticipation that people would move there and pay property taxes. Much of the funds for this were raised via bonds (money borrowed against future revenue). Now that the people are no longer showing up which is what was supposed to start the whole chain of events to ensure there was future revenue to pay off the bonds, what happens? The debt doesn't go away just because the revenue didn't show up.

So, Dwight D (or whoever -- my memory is hazy on that) started up the Interstate Highway System to allow municipalities all over the nation to reap greater property taxes? Interesting. That's a whole different take on history than most have, I think.

Hoyasooner - I think that is what this thread is all about. People have stopped moving to the outfringe as a result of increased gasoline prices (plus we are historic lows for people moving period, due to the housing collapse). The City/State/Feds spent billions building freeways and 4 lane roads all over the countryside in anticipation that people would move there and pay property taxes. Much of the funds for this were raised via bonds (money borrowed against future revenue). Now that the people are no longer showing up which is what was supposed to start the whole chain of events to ensure there was future revenue to pay off the bonds, what happens? The debt doesn't go away just because the revenue didn't show up.

people in oklahoma have NOT stopped moving to the "outfringe" ... just look at where the biggest growth was in the OKC metro

people in oklahoma have NOT stopped moving to the "outfringe" ... just look at where the biggest growth was in the OKC metro

Percent growth or actual numbers?

So, Dwight D (or whoever -- my memory is hazy on that) started up the Interstate Highway System to allow municipalities all over the nation to reap greater property taxes? Interesting. That's a whole different take on history than most have, I think.

Not originally, No.

My thoughts exactly. I don't care if gas goes up to $10/gallon, I will not live in an urban environment like NYC, LA, etc.

This is ridiculous. Do you actually believe OKC will be like NYC or LA anytime soon? I don't understand why you would be opposed to OKC offering both urban and surburban options. I'm sure that will always be the case.

But it is reason to celebrate if people are rethinking their decision to outmigrate into wider and wider loops around cities. This is not sustainable, and it leaves behind decaying urban AND SUBURBAN areas, much like we see in our own city. That this is a national trend and may not have happened here to the same degree doesn't matter.

The facts are that people are waiting longer to get married (if they do at all), having fewer kids, and choosing to live in more urban areas. This is for a variety of reasons. Some people want to lead a more pedestrian-oriented lifestyle and don't want to spend more than an hour each day in traffic. Some want to live closer to cultural amenities, entertainment, work, etc. OKC is doing the right thing by increasing density and walkability (as well as enhanced living and transportation options) in its urban core. If it doesn't, it won't survive, as it will lose out to other cities that are. This is absolutely capitalist, by the way, Metro!

Surely you're not opposed to our city offering alternatives for those people, right?

This is ridiculous. Do you actually believe OKC will be like NYC or LA anytime soon? Your presumption is ridiculous. I didn't say that, I only stated an opinion of living in an urban environment. Of course OKC is no NYC, but the concept is the same. Call it mini-NYC.


I don't understand why you would be opposed to OKC offering both urban and surburban options. I'm sure that will always be the case.
Also didn't say I was opposed to options. You want to live downtown, feel free. I simply stated that I would not. But I think that most people aren't going to move back to the concrete jungle based solely on the price of gas either.


But it is reason to celebrate if people are rethinking their decision to outmigrate into wider and wider loops around cities. This is not sustainable, and it leaves behind decaying urban AND SUBURBAN areas, much like we see in our own city. That this is a national trend and may not have happened here to the same degree doesn't matter.
If you say so, just don't expect the mass return of the populace any time soon.


The facts are that SOME people are waiting longer to get married (if they do at all), having fewer kids, and choosing to live in more urban areas.
FTFY Some people, yes, but that's not the majority, at least here in OKC.


This is for a variety of reasons. Some people want to lead a more pedestrian-oriented lifestyle and don't want to spend more than an hour each day in traffic. Some want to live closer to cultural amenities, entertainment, work, etc. OKC is doing the right thing by increasing density and walkability (as well as enhanced living and transportation options) in its urban core. If it doesn't, it won't survive, as it will lose out to other cities that are. This is absolutely capitalist, by the way, Metro!

Surely you're not opposed to our city offering alternatives for those people, right?
Right, I'm not. Never said I did. I live within 5 miles of everything I need except work and I have no traffic noise, no human congestion, no drunks wandering around my home areas every weekend, etc. Maybe that sort of stuff excites some people, but it quickly gets old - I speak from personal experience but YMMV. My commute is quite easy and I enjoy the wide open spaces where I have room to roam, play and just be away from humanity for a while. A city park with everyone else trying to do the same activities as you is not the same thing (nor better in my opinion).

And what happens if the urban lifestyle doesn't bring back the people in sufficient numbers to justify the costs? Apartments go un-rented, services get budgets cut and people move out. Maybe its a chicken/egg sort of thing, I dunno. I'm rambling.

Downtown living is short term living IMO. Okay for the care-free young adult and the empty nesters, but I don't think it's a place that I would raise a family. Again, don't get all bent out of shape, its just my opinion.

The challenge for those advocating the urban lifestyle is how to pay for the urban services. I don't think any politician will get enough support from the masses for cutting back services in the suburbs in order to provide them for those who want to live downtown. We are legion and we vote. :Smiley259

We also live in a society that is increasingly becoming more accepting of GLBT people, and most are not planning to make babies or adopt. Me and partner have no plans to ever have children, thus will not need a big home with a yard in the burbs.

Your presumption is ridiculous. I didn't say that, I only stated an opinion of living in an urban environment. Of course OKC is no NYC, but the concept is the same. Call it mini-NYC.


Also didn't say I was opposed to options. You want to live downtown, feel free. I simply stated that I would not. But I think that most people aren't going to move back to the concrete jungle based solely on the price of gas either.


If you say so, just don't expect the mass return of the populace any time soon.


FTFY Some people, yes, but that's not the majority, at least here in OKC.


Right, I'm not. Never said I did. I live within 5 miles of everything I need except work and I have no traffic noise, no human congestion, no drunks wandering around my home areas every weekend, etc. Maybe that sort of stuff excites some people, but it quickly gets old - I speak from personal experience but YMMV. My commute is quite easy and I enjoy the wide open spaces where I have room to roam, play and just be away from humanity for a while. A city park with everyone else trying to do the same activities as you is not the same thing (nor better in my opinion).

And what happens if the urban lifestyle doesn't bring back the people in sufficient numbers to justify the costs? Apartments go un-rented, services get budgets cut and people move out. Maybe its a chicken/egg sort of thing, I dunno. I'm rambling.

Downtown living is short term living IMO. Okay for the care-free young adult and the empty nesters, but I don't think it's a place that I would raise a family. Again, don't get all bent out of shape, its just my opinion.

The challenge for those advocating the urban lifestyle is how to pay for the urban services. I don't think any politician will get enough support from the masses for cutting back services in the suburbs in order to provide them for those who want to live downtown. We are legion and we vote. :Smiley259

Show me the demographic info that OKC residents aren't waiting longer to get married and having fewer kids. I would like to see it.

And why do you equate urban living with drunks? Have you ever lived in a residential area in an urban setting other than OKC? It doesn't sound like it. There are many wonderful reasons to raise children in an urban settiing: access to quality parks, libraries, cultural events, and the inherent health of leading a pedestrian lifestyle.

And your comment about the "costs" associated with infill and urbanity is backward. The problem we face in OKC is not "how do we pay for services in inner-city areas?" The cost question is "how do we pay for city services for people moving further and further out?" Mayor Cornett himself has made this point many times. Perhaps you believe inner-city residents should subsidize your fantasy outdoor lifestyle by providing you nice roads and police and fire services, but you are contributing to the resource drain. Enjoy your utopian lifestyle at our expense while you continue to sneer at people who desire to live an urban lifestyle. Your attitude is the reason so many people I know have left this state.

Show me the demographic info that OKC residents aren't waiting longer to get married and having fewer kids. I would like to see it.
I'm not going to try to prove a negative. You are the one making the assertion. If you want to back it up, do so.



And why do you equate urban living with drunks? Have you ever lived in a residential area in an urban setting other than OKC? It doesn't sound like it.
I don't equate it, but it is a part of it. Anyone who denies that hasn't lived in an urban environment of significant size. I have lived in an urban area out of state and I couldn't wait to leave.


There are many wonderful reasons to raise children in an urban settiing: access to quality parks, libraries, cultural events, and the inherent health of leading a pedestrian lifestyle.
It's like suburbia-light. Within 1/4 mile of me I have a large park with an amazing play set for the little ones, a library, an entrance to a 3-mile walking trail, a large field suitable for baseball, football, frisbee, etc that puts an urban park to shame. My kid's friends are one and two streets over, which are accessible via the aforementioned park. It's a much more suitable place for kids in my opinion.


And your comment about the "costs" associated with infill and urbanity is backward. The problem we face in OKC is not "how do we pay for services in inner-city areas?" The cost question is "how do we pay for city services for people moving further and further out?" Mayor Cornett himself has made this point many times. Perhaps you believe inner-city residents should subsidize your fantasy outdoor lifestyle by providing you nice roads and police and fire services, but you are contributing to the resource drain. Enjoy your utopian lifestyle at our expense while you continue to sneer at people who desire to live an urban lifestyle. Your attitude is the reason so many people I know have left this state.
The problem is that we are already here. You can't just cut off people's services and any politician who attempts to do so will be swiftly voted out of office. I'm contributing my taxes and they will pay for my services. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that if you were to check the personal property tax records, you'd find that the urban areas contribute far less than other areas (per capita).

As for my attitude, it seems to me that if someone runs away from their home because they can't stand a little criticism, they are rather weak of character and I'll bid them good riddance.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that if you were to check the personal property tax records, you'd find that the urban areas contribute far less than other areas (per capita).


Urban areas MAY contribute less taxes per capita as a generalization- especially if you exclude children- but urban areas contribute WAY more per square mile of streets, utility lines, parks, and city services required to serve them. By their nature, it is likely that suburban developments are consuming more than their share of public good. Even comparing a typical blue collar suburban OKC lot (often around 60-80' width) to a luxury Heritage Hills lot (50' width) you can see that the suburban style lot is consuming up to 50% more miles of roads, sidewalks, and utility lines. No wonder we have potholes, no sidewalks, and constantly have power outages during weather events because we can't afford to bury electricity.

Additionally, urban property and sales tax values are far more efficient than those of suburban style properties.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7052/6946457457_68b199ee94.jpg

Sadly, many people confuse urban living with high-rises. Building don't have to be tall to be urban and they certainly don't have to be in a large city.

http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/ptfd_primer.pdf


People confuse high density with high rise.
High densities can be achieved with small-scale
buildings by raising lot coverages to 50, 60, or
even 70 percent. Conversely, high-rise buildings
afford only moderate densities if surrounded
by acres of parking and lawn. Pedestrians are
comfortable with small-scale buildings and high
lot coverages. They are uncomfortable with
high-rise towers and low lot coverages. .[M]uch
of the criticism of high-rise living and its socially
alienating effects is not due to its high
density but to its low density at ground level,.
where nearly all public interaction must occur

The smallest of towns can still be urban. Check out Pwllheli, UK using streetview. From the sidewalk it looks like you are on a London street but the whole town is 1 mile long and only 3 or 4 block wide.

To add to what Shane is saying, this is a fantastic article on the subject:

http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/8/15/measuring-productivity.html

You might find this interesting. This really is a tale of two cities. It is a re-born new urbanism main street surrounded by an urban sprawl nightmare. Even the most suburban loving person can easily tell which of the two environmets would be better to live in.

http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/whtissg4v2.pdf


SUISUN CITY, CALIFORNIA In 1989, the San Francisco Chronicle rated Suisun City, California, a town of 25,000 people midway between San Francisco and Sacramento, the worst place to live in the Bay Area. At that time, Suisun City's historic Main Street was a strip of boarded-up storefronts, vacant lots, and auto body shops. Several blocks away, an oil refinery sat at the head of the heavily polluted, silt-laden Suisun Channel. Today Suisun’s harbor is filled with boats and lined with small businesses. A train and bus station that connects the city to the rest of Northern California sits a few blocks away. The town is diverse, walkable, and picturesque. Its crime rate is low and its housing affordable.

How did Suisun City transform itself in a decade? Was it the beneficiary of a huge government redevelopment grant or a gift from a rich foundation? No such luck. Instead, Suisun City's residents, businesses, and elected officials agreed on a common vision for their town's future. Clean-up polluted Suisun Channel and make the waterfront a focal point of their town, they said. Re-establish historic Main Street as a social and retail gathering place. Strengthen municipal finances by encouraging tax-generating commercial development such as retail shops and restaurants along Main Street and the waterfront.

In its rebirth, Suisun City avoided large-scale redevelopment projects such as shopping centers and industrial parks that would have obliterated its historic, small-town character. Suisun City is still a work-in-progress. But this once-troubled town has turned the corner. Suisun City is invigorated with new businesses and residents, rekindled community spirit, and unbridled optimism about its future.

I'm not going to try to prove a negative. You are the one making the assertion. If you want to back it up, do so.

It wasn't a negative. It was a positive. I made a declarative statement.

I don't equate it, but it is a part of it. Anyone who denies that hasn't lived in an urban environment of significant size. I have lived in an urban area out of state and I couldn't wait to leave.

I'm so sorry you had to encounter a few drunks in your "out of state" urban voyage. That must have been traumatizing. It's not like people in OKC get drunk at Thunder and Sooner games, or people throw back a few six packs at our lakes in the summer. Drunks define the urban living experience.


It's like suburbia-light. Within 1/4 mile of me I have a large park with an amazing play set for the little ones, a library, an entrance to a 3-mile walking trail, a large field suitable for baseball, football, frisbee, etc that puts an urban park to shame. My kid's friends are one and two streets over, which are accessible via the aforementioned park. It's a much more suitable place for kids in my opinion.

Wow. What a joke. Ever been to Central Park or Millenium Park or any significant urban park? I'm sure your neighborhood park is so much better.


The problem is that we are already here. You can't just cut off people's services and any politician who attempts to do so will be swiftly voted out of office. I'm contributing my taxes and they will pay for my services. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that if you were to check the personal property tax records, you'd find that the urban areas contribute far less than other areas (per capita).


I didn't suggest "cutting off" people's services. i pointed out that they are a resource drain, which they are. Your property taxes are welcomed but they are not enough to keep up with the demand on services from people moving further and further away from the urban core, leaving behind blighted inner-ring suburbs in their wake. Yes, it's where we are, but this is a discussion board and we can discuss these things. Public opinion is malleable and it is true that the Y Generation, for example, is more drawn to urban areas. What's wrong with pointing this out and welcoming the change showing up in national demographic studies?

As for my attitude, it seems to me that if someone runs away from their home because they can't stand a little criticism, they are rather weak of character and I'll bid them good riddance.

Your attitude is a dime a dozen in Oklahoma. The prevailing statement is much like the one you make here: "If you don't like it here, leave." Such a charming and welcoming attitude. Keep in mind it's not heard just by current residents but future residents as well.

Unfortunately for you, OKC is changing for the better and you'll have to consider relocating someplace like Wichita or Amarillo because we're going to be far too "urban" for you.

Unfortunately for you, OKC is changing for the better and you'll have to consider relocating someplace like Wichita or Amarillo because we're going to be far too "urban" for you.

Just don't make it near downtown Wichita. From what I hear they have jumped into the New Urbanism with both feet.

I'm so sorry you had to encounter a few drunks in your "out of state" urban voyage. That must have been traumatizing. It's not like people in OKC get drunk at Thunder and Sooner games, or people throw back a few six packs at our lakes in the summer. Drunks define the urban living experience.
LOL, "Drunks define the urban living experience." I've got to suggest that little note be included in the next OKC tourism guide. Better yet, urban real estate advertisements. But drunks don't bother me unless they are ambling up and down my neighborhood, sleeping on the sidewalk, urinating on parked cars - all of which I've experienced in other cities. Drunks aren't really known for their civic-minded behavior, but since you are so enamored with that glamorous aspect of urban life, I'll be sure to point any I see your way. Where is your slice of urban heaven located?


Wow. What a joke. Ever been to Central Park or Millenium Park or any significant urban park? I'm sure your neighborhood park is so much better.
Wait, are we talking about OKC or NYC? I thought you "forbid" those sorts of comparisons a few posts back. Make up your mind. Have you ever lived outside of OKC in an urban environment or are you just daydreaming of an urban utopia?


I didn't suggest "cutting off" people's services. i pointed out that they are a resource drain, which they are. Your property taxes are welcomed but they are not enough to keep up with the demand on services from people moving further and further away from the urban core, leaving behind blighted inner-ring suburbs in their wake. Yes, it's where we are, but this is a discussion board and we can discuss these things. Public opinion is malleable and it is true that the Y Generation, for example, is more drawn to urban areas. What's wrong with pointing this out and welcoming the change showing up in national demographic studies?
You're the one who got your panties all in a bunch when I dared to state why I wouldn't live in an urban environment. Why can't you tolerate a dissenting opinion? People like you like to speak of suburbia as a special kind of hell, the downfall of society, and have nothing but derision for those of us who happen to like that environment. I've lived both lifestyles and I understand perfectly well what the advantages and disadvantages of each are and I chose to live where I am happiest. I do not have not problem with people living downtown, just don't try to force me to do so against my will through punitive taxation, reduced services, and other societal manipulation techniques.


Your attitude is a dime a dozen in Oklahoma. The prevailing statement is much like the one you make here: "If you don't like it here, leave." Such a charming and welcoming attitude. Keep in mind it's not heard just by current residents but future residents as well.
On the contrary, my statement was concerning those persons that you, yourself mentioned who are already of a mind to leave because apparently, they can't stand an opinion that differs from their own and would rather leave than work to make themselves happy. I choose to live where I do because it's where I am most content. If someone wants to force me to change, I will resist, not run away crying like a child because they didn't get their way. As long as your wants and needs don't interfere with mine, I'm perfectly fine with you living wherever it is that maximizes your contentment.


Unfortunately for you, OKC is changing for the better and you'll have to consider relocating someplace like Wichita or Amarillo because we're going to be far too "urban" for you.
Not unfortunate for me, unless people like you make life more difficult that it needs to be for me to be happy where I am.

LOL, "[I] I do not have not problem with people living downtown, just don't try to force me to do so against my will through punitive taxation, reduced services, and other societal manipulation techniques.

I haven't really been paying attention to this argument, so I'm not sure what kind of population density is being discussed here. However, one could argue that it's also not fair for those of us who share our local roads with a higher percentage of citizens to be taxed to support those who choose to live where there are far fewer people per square mile. What might be fairest is to determine what the city costs are per square mile and to divide the taxes required to support them by the number of people living in that square mile. People hate to talk about rationing of anything, be it health care or fire and police services. But the fact is that there are not an infinite number of dollars, and so sometimes decisions have to be made that require rationing. One could argue that the city was being penny wise and pound foolish to look only at the property taxes to be collected with annexation and not consider the costs for services and I would agree with that. But, I'm not sure that living within a city is a right, and deannexation is something that at least needs to be considered, if we find we can't pay for what we need, given our physical size.

I feel sorry for them, too. Welcome to the rise of the suburban ghetto. And, even more dogs in the urban core. To every thesis there is an antithesis. What's really kind of scary is that the ghetto was hard to ignore when it was in the urban core because we passed it every day on the way to work. The suburban wasteland will be out of site and out of mind. Horrible.

I feel sorry for them, too. Welcome to the rise of the suburban ghetto. And, even more dogs in the urban core. To every thesis there is an antithesis. What's really kind of scary is that the ghetto was hard to ignore when it was in the urban core because we passed it every day on the way to work. The suburban wasteland will be out of site and out of mind. Horrible.

That is already happening in a lot of places. In northern St Johns County (a suburban area of Jax) there are many brand new shopping centers with less than 50% occupancy and many subdivision that will never be completed with lots of homes in various stages of decay (due to never being completed in the first place). We have friends that live in places like Palencia, Nocatee, and World Golf Village who can't give their homes away. These 'communities' were supposed to be exclusive developments but now they are home to the worst kind of affordable housing - squaters.

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-03-05/story/former-jacksonville-mayoral-candidate-among-4-charged-squatting



Three people, including a Jacksonville mayoral candidate last year, were arrested Sunday after five vacant homes were illegally taken over to be lived in or rented to others, authorities said.

They just squatted in empty or foreclosed homes in upscale neighborhoods and made each their own.

That’s “theft by any other name,” State Attorney Angela Corey said.

Warren Lanorris Lee, 46, a former Department of Juvenile Justice employee who ran for mayor, was arrested on a warrant for organized fraud, grand theft and operating as a real estate broker without a license. Also arrested were Rhonda Petite Johnson, 52, of Tori Lane and Cleveland Xavier Stephens, 36, of Milnor Street, both on grand theft charges.

That is already happening in a lot of places. In northern St Johns County (a suburban area of Jax) there are many brand new shopping centers with less than 50% occupancy and many subdivision that will never be completed with lots of homes in various stages of decay (due to never being completed in the first place). We have friends that live in places like Palencia, Nocatee, and World Golf Village who can't give their homes away. These 'communities' were supposed to be exclusive developments but now they are home to the worst kind of affordable housing - squaters.


This is most certainly happening in OKC, although maybe not as dramatically, despite some people’s insistence that this is a “suburban city.”

Last month I was in the Moore/South OKC area in a Home-Creations neighborhood for a get together, homes maybe about 5-10 years old and it looked like hell. I mean, really really bad. I was aghast at the neglect many of the homes had. There was a disturbing amount of “signs” you would expect from a neighborhood going in decline: lots of raggedy looking cars parked on the street, dying/overgrown landscaping, busted up fences, etc. While conversing with the owners of the home, they confirmed that the neighborhood is now at least 35% rentals, which had attracted a seedy element to the area. I didn’t really ask them if they were going to sell, but they seemed disappointed that their “dream house” was increasingly surrounded by decline. The worst part is neighborhoods like this are a dime a dozen in OKC.

To switch gears a little bit, one reason suburbs are going to be a hard sell in the future is the increasing number of single households now and in the future. That includes divorcees, widows, young professionals, and the growing legions of the never-married. I can tell you from personal experience living in the suburbs as a single adult is one of the most isolating feelings one can live through. Here is a good NYT article that explains the phenomenon: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/opinion/sunday/living-alone-means-being-social.html?pagewanted=all

FWIW, the national average of single households in the US is 28%; for Oklahoma County its 31%.

Social isolation is one of the biggest downsides to suburbia. If you think it is bad as an adult, try it as a 13 year old.

Another interesting story related to the re-urbanization of America.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/78420798-895c-11e1-bed0-00144feab49a.html#axzz1sSKa9bKU



Young Americans turn away from driving

Young Americans are eschewing cars for alternative transport, leaving carmakers to wonder if this is a recession-induced trend or a permanent shift in habits.

For generations of American teenagers, the car was the paramount symbol of independence. But in the age of Facebook and iPhones, young adults are getting fewer drivers’ licences, driving less frequently and moving to cities where cars are more luxury than necessity.


Figures from the Federal Highway Administration show the share of 14 to 34-year-olds without a driver’s licence rose to 26 per cent in 2010, from 21 per cent a decade earlier, according to a study by the Frontier Group and the US PIRG Education Fund released this month. (Some US states allow 14-year-olds to get a learner’s permit to drive.) Another study from the University of Michigan showed that people under 30 accounted for 22 per cent of all licensed drivers, down from a third in 1983, with the steepest declines among teenagers.

Another interesting story related to the re-urbanization of America.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/78420798-895c-11e1-bed0-00144feab49a.html#axzz1sSKa9bKU

Kerry, this is not just a trend among young americans. My brother in LA has been driving for about 50 years. He decided a few years ago to get rid of his car and hasn't had one since even though he lives in one of the most automobile centric areas in the country.

ljbab728 - I am 42 and I refuse to drive unless I have to. As soon as posssible I want to sell out suburban house and move closer to shopping, restaurants, and services.

Last month I was in the Moore/South OKC area in a Home-Creations neighborhood for a get together, homes maybe about 5-10 years old and it looked like hell. I mean, really really bad. I was aghast at the neglect many of the homes had. There was a disturbing amount of “signs” you would expect from a neighborhood going in decline

My realtor (who is a family friend for decades) told me they would not be a party in selling me a Home-Creations home, they build terrible quality that does not keep it's value.

"Social isolation" - great perspective and points adaniel and JTF. We're trying to get downtown and down to one car too.

I don't blame Home Creations for the problems in Moore, they are filling the affordable housing gap. I blame the city for not requiring grid streets, more trees, landscaping and better site design. I have relatives there and 12 years ago, they paid $139K for a brand new 3 bedroom snout-house on a cul-de-sac. They want to sell, especially after they learned its worth only $140K today. Transportation costs are enormous, as they, and most of thier neighbors, mostly working class with kids, commute to OKC and Norman. IMO, this is one of the next big problems for suburbs - cash poor and senior homeowners in substandard housing, outside of any grid street system, unwalkable, far from transit and services. Isolating is an understatement.

Frustratedoptimist - based on your last post I highly suggest you check out Suburban Nation chapter 7: Victims of Sprawl. The individul sections are called Cul-De-Sac Kids, Soccer Moms, Bored Teenagers, Stranded Elderly, Weary Commuters, Bankrupt Municipalities, and The Immobile Poor.

Here is a preview:


Cul-De-Sac Kids
Perhaps most worrisome is the situation facing the children of suburbia. In one of the great ironies of our era, the cul-de-sac suburbs, originally conceived as youth's great playground, are proving to be less than ideal for America's young.

That suburban life may be bad for children comes as a surprise. After all, most families move to the suburbs precisely because they think it will be "good for the children." What do they mean by that? Better suburban schools—a phenomenon peculiar to the United States—are good for children. Big, safe, grassy fields to play on are also good for them. What is not so good for children, however, is the complete loss of autonomy they suffer in suburbia. In this environment where all activities are segregated and distances are measured on the odometer, a child's personal mobility extends no farther than the edge of the subdivision. Even the local softball held often exists beyond the child's independent reach.

The result is a new phenomenon: the 'cul-de-sac kid," the child who lives as a prisoner of a thoroughly safe and unchallenging environment. While this state of affairs may be acceptable, even desirable, through about age five, what of the next ten or twelve years? Dependent always on some adult to drive them around, children and adolescents are unable to practice at becoming adults. They cannot run so simple a household errand as picking up a carton of milk. They cannot bicycle to the toy store and spend their money on their own. They cannot drop in on their mother at work. Most cannot walk to school. Even pickup baseball games are a thing of the past, with parents now required to arrange car-pooling with near military precision, to transport the children at the appointed times.

Children are frozen in a form of infancy, utterly dependent on others, bereft of the ability to introduce variety into their own lives, robbed of the opportunity to make choices and exercise judgment. Typical suburban parents give their children an allowance, in order to empower them and encourage independence. "Feel free to spend it any way you like," they say. The child then says, "Thanks, Mom. When can you drive me to the mall?"

I tried to give my children a bit more independence. But, sometimes it backfired. When my youngest was 6 or 7, he asked if he could go the park by himself. I remember being a bit nervous, although it was only 3 blocks away, but I knew I had to let him get out on his own. So, about 2 hours later a police squad car pulled up with my son inside, horribly embarrassed. He had, unbeknownst to me, taken his brother's paintball gun to the park (which bore no resemblance to a real gun). He told me he was playing James Bond, but he was smart enough not to take the gun out of the case. A mother was there hovering over her children (she lived across the street, but wouldn't let them go by themselves). She saw the case and opened it and saw the paintball gun inside. So, she called the police, who at her request escorted my son home. He never wanted to go there again.

In the same neighborhood, two boys were playing with a bb gun. Like boys will do when not being supervised, one of them pointed the bb gun at his friend and shot him in the butt. The bb didn't even penetrate the pocket of his jeans. However, his mother, whose name people would recognize if I used it, called the police and asked to file assault charges.

I agree that we are doing our children a disservice. When I was 5, I had charge of my 3 year old sister. We couldn't leave the block but since no one had fences and we had a very large block, we ran all over the neighborhood with our friends. At 6 I rode my bike to the ice cream store, to the school to play tether ball and hopscotch, to the candy store 5 blocks away. My father in law rode his bike from NYC to upstate NY with a friend at 9. If we were a little more relaxed with our children, we might have a few more trips to the ER, we might have someone with a bb permanently lodged in the skin of their arms, like a few of the boys in my childhood, but they also might have more fun being kids.

It just depends on what city you're in. Growth isn't slowing by any means in the burbs here. And it's all based on schools here. Sure, there are a handful of good schools in the OKC school district, but as a whole the district still is not the greatest. All they've really done is concentrated the better students at schools like Classen SAS, Harding, and the other charter schools. And it's not like I see growth in places like Edmond and Norman slowing. So you have to interpret this article for what it is. It's very dependent on what city you're referring to. In a city like OKC, where traffic is not a problem and you can get anywhere in 20 minutes, I don't see suburban growth slowing anytime soon. Just look at all of the new suburban neighborhoods that are continuing to pop up. Sure, the growth is not where it was in the 1990's, but it's still pretty robust, at least here in OKC. And home values in the burbs here have almost completely recovered. But we never had the steep decline that suburbs in places like California had. And a lot of it's dependent on the economy too. If we see the economy boom again, I think you'll see suburban areas grow again.

It also depends on how you spin what they're saying. They say that growth in the urban areas has now surpassed that in the suburban areas. But, that isn't saying the growth in the urban areas has increased over what it was before. It's likely the same as before, and the only difference is that in comparison, growth in suburban areas has decreased.

It just depends on what city you're in. Growth isn't slowing by any means in the burbs here. And it's all based on schools here. Sure, there are a handful of good schools in the OKC school district, but as a whole the district still is not the greatest. All they've really done is concentrated the better students at schools like Classen SAS, Harding, and the other charter schools. And it's not like I see growth in places like Edmond and Norman slowing. So you have to interpret this article for what it is. It's very dependent on what city you're referring to. In a city like OKC, where traffic is not a problem and you can get anywhere in 20 minutes, I don't see suburban growth slowing anytime soon. Just look at all of the new suburban neighborhoods that are continuing to pop up. Sure, the growth is not where it was in the 1990's, but it's still pretty robust, at least here in OKC. And home values in the burbs here have almost completely recovered. But we never had the steep decline that suburbs in places like California had. And a lot of it's dependent on the economy too. If we see the economy boom again, I think you'll see suburban areas grow again.

It also depends on how you spin what they're saying. They say that growth in the urban areas has now surpassed that in the suburban areas. But, that isn't saying the growth in the urban areas has increased over what it was before. It's likely the same as before, and the only difference is that in comparison, growth in suburban areas has decreased.

I don't think this is a matter of "spin." Yes, there will always be people like yourself retreating to the 'burbs. The change is that there is more urbanization. And by the way, not everyone has kids.

I don't think this is a matter of "spin." Yes, there will always be people like yourself retreating to the 'burbs. The change is that there is more urbanization. And by the way, not everyone has kids.

For a few more months/years it is still a free country therefore one can choose wherever they want to live. If you want to live in the sticks, the suburbs, or urban do it. Who cares what the self righteous want in this world. In due time stress will wear them down or put them down for a long peaceful rest with the worms and bugs.

Since you are so consumed with the actions of others, it might be time to find a hobby. Just simply because you can rant, rave and hold your breath all you want people are still going to do whatever they wish. Stop trying to control others and just focus on your own life. The second you make yourself the focus of your life and work at being the best person you will suddenly find a world that is happy and joyful. Worry about things you can control. Manage the things you can't. Otherwise you will be lucky if you live to see 80. Stress kills, happiness prolongs life.

Just to second some stuff from Sid.

Suburban movement was supported by VA loans to vets, FHA loans to lower middle class, and the Fannie Mae's purchasing and holding habits prior to its privatization in the 60's. There was an explicit bias on the part of loan underwriters and authorizers to move people into the Suburbs.

Two driving factors behind this were the Tiebout model of public choice and a vision of a civic market place. The other were the keynesian economic assumptions about achieving full employment--and new construction was seen as a better solution to demolition and infill. Also, Suburban homes (it was thought then) would retain or grow in value better than aging inner city homes of the time (40's, 50's, and 60's).

Coupled with this were laws that forced communities to desegregate housing and so the white flight intensified out to the 'burbs. And by the late 60's early 70's anyone with the money to do so was leaving the city for suburban communities.

The flip side of all this government chicanery of course is the actual existence of a middle class in America (homes are most American's largest financial asset and their value has traditionally increased over time), homeownership rates around 65% (today) instead of 40% prior to government involvement in the housing market in 1934, and generally low costs of credit because of 20/30 year fixed rate mortgages which were more or less invented by Fannie Mae in the late 30's.

But now what to do with the burbs, which we spent all this time and money building artificially? Huge sunk costs associated with all of this and a huge policy nightmare to sort out over time.