I know this has been discussed on the UNP thread, but I think this topic deserves its own thread:

http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x1037174747/Dates-set-for-city-high-density-talks-in-Norman

I saw a bid for a 6 story residential development, for 100 units, and associated parking garage, currently in design phase, and estimated start date November 1, 2012.

I just think its really cool how Norman officials are gathering input from the public to proceed with such developments.As a former long time Norman resident, it will be really cool to follow these developments come to fruition, from the design phase to groundbreaking. They just need one good project to get the ball rolling, then they will have these high density units, popping up everywhere, good deal.

It would be great if there more high density developments started up near campus corner and Main Street to really solodify those as urban environments. I mentioned on another thread that there are a few houses along Boyd (between campus and the Mont) that could be bulldozed for some higher end student living. While a few of those houses have nice character, some are falling apart.

I saw a bid for a 6 story residential development, for 100 units, and associated parking garage, currently in design phase, and estimated start date November 1, 2012.

I just think its really cool how Norman officials are gathering input from the public to proceed with such developments.As a former long time Norman resident, it will be really cool to follow these developments come to fruition, from the design phase to groundbreaking. They just need one good project to get the ball rolling, then they will have these high density units, popping up everywhere, good deal.

Either those are huge units or its a pretty thin development. Where exactly is this going in?

The crazy thing is that Lawrence, Manhattan, and Stillwater of all places have already been overtaken by the urban-style student housing craze. Especially Little Apple.

Either those are huge units or its a pretty thin development. Where exactly is this going in?

The crazy thing is that Lawrence, Manhattan, and Stillwater of all places have already been overtaken by the urban-style student housing craze. Especially Little Apple.

It didn't say where, I wonder if they will cater these developments to students or the general public.

Spartan, I wouldn't be surprised if some of these high density residential developments end up in UNP in Village Center. I just don't think its a coincidence that now all of a sudden the city is getting requests for high density residential ordinances shortly after confirmation that Legacy Park is finally moving forward, and 250,000 sqft of retail is coming. If you remember the first vision of UNP was supposed to be this mixed used mecca.

IMHO there would be some demand for very high end condos near OU (with in easy walking distance) but not too close to the rail road tracks.
The question is where?

IMHO there would be some demand for very high end condos near OU (with in easy walking distance) but not too close to the rail road tracks.
The question is where?

I doubt it, most college students can't afford to live in high end condos.

I doubt it, most college students can't afford to live in high end condos.

I don’t think the demand would be great but I do think there may be a few endowed professors and wealthy OU alumni that might be interested.

Not only are there some wealthy alumni and professors who might be interested, but keep in mind that OU has a substantial out of state student population. Many of these students come from high income households. There are many parents who might be interested in purchasing an investment property for their kids and to keep after they graduate for various reasons.

I doubt it, most college students can't afford to live in high end condos.

The Stillwater model that has really taken off (they're going to have four developments like this one soon) is like this:

http://images.craigslist.org/5K25H25X63Ge3Kc3N8c5h44f1524af3e41b71.jpg
http://www.stillwaterflats.com/

The Aggieville area of Manhattan has a lot of these kind of developments also.

Not only are there some wealthy alumni and professors who might be interested, but keep in mind that OU has a substantial out of state student population. Many of these students come from high income households. There are many parents who might be interested in purchasing an investment property for their kids and to keep after they graduate for various reasons.

I hadn’t thought about that from that angle but there have normally been some very wealthy students from the Middle East who are enrolled in OU’s energy programs.


There are also a few very wealthy OU alumni that own very nice homes in Norman and only use them on football game weak ends and for a few other events per year.

Several years ago there was talk of high end condos being built south east of the duck pond.
IMHO it would probably be better if they were much closer to the campus corner area.

You guys have pretty much touched on the demographics that the Boyd lofts are targeting.

I don't think that is the archetypical project we are talking about, however. They need to find a way to make urban-styled housing out of economical, probably prefabricated parts that can be leased around $400-500/mo and compete with all the student housing east of campus.

I think the key for high-density housing in a college town is economic diversity while maintaining reasonable building standards.

As for the Legacy Park, I drove by the other day and saw it shaping up decently. It looks like the park-frontage is taken up by the nicest looking Discount Tire I have ever seen. I'm going to go ahead and guess there won't be a Discount Tire on the ground floor and housing above the car garage lol.

Was anyone able to make it to yesterday's meeting? I intended to go but ended up getting sick, so I had to miss it :(

I doubt it, most college students can't afford to live in high end condos.

Broaden your thinking. Several nice homes in Norman over the years where someone bought the place, parked their college aged child in it, permitted he or she to have a few roommates to assist with or cover the mortgage, then either sold it or hired a mgmt. firm to continue leasing it out once their babydult graduated or repeated the process with a younger sib. Done right, it's a far better deal than paying dorm rent or housing for the pride and joy.

Well, my long-held fears of Norman going down the tubes have picked up renewed energy in the recent weeks. As you all may know, there have recently been several proposals to build high density apartments or condos in Norman. Since Norman has no high density codes or regulations, the city is beginning discussion on how to form the ordinance to deal with high density development. At the first few discussions, Norman's liberal core came out against it. It appears they organized their opposition long ago. Some of the reasons they gave would have made some of you die of laughter. One said high density development would ruin privacy because people living in the development would be able to see into everyone's backyards; another said they didn't want Norman to become like New York City. Norman's core liberals seem to think high density development is a conspiracy by evil, conservative developers.

To make matters worse, I now see Norman's Tea Party is beginning to organize against it as well. They claim high density is just a front to implement "Agenda 21." In Norman, every single thing is a conspiracy to implement Agenda 21 to the Tea Party.

So, we now have the strange bedfellows scenario playing out, where Tea Party activists join forces with the core liberals to oppose high density development. It should surprise none of you that they don't understand a thing about high density, pro or con.

Where are these density projects going to be located, I mean are there specific locations?

Where are these density projects going to be located, I mean are there specific locations?

There have been multiple proposals, but the only one I know the location of is on Boyd, east of Campus Corner. It would be across from (west of) the Mont, where those old apartments currently stand. I'll confirm that and get back to you on it. I believe there is also one proposed for downtown Norman.

Edited to correct one of the proposal locations.

Strange that someone should equate being against high density living with liberals. I've never heard that before. That's normally more of a conservative mantra.

Strange that someone should equate being against high density living with liberals. I've never heard that before. That's normally more of a conservative mantra.

This. This seems like a conservative complaint.

Echoing the sentiment, never in a million years would I have thought that liberals would think high-density housing was a conservative conspiracy.

Strange that someone should equate being against high density living with liberals. I've never heard that before. That's normally more of a conservative mantra.

I was very surprised by it myself, yet that's where the majority of the vocal opposition has come from so far.

I think Norman has to be careful in where they allow these developments. The main objective though should be to establish density in core areas. I would say that Downtown Norman should have priority right now and later the campus area. If anything, permit high density/high rise condos/apartments in downtown and then use it as a launching pad for street car transit system from there to campus. Once Downtown has had time to fill out and redevelop fully, then look at adding additional areas.

It seems logical the demand for high density living would go up as you get closer to campus.
But available land is at a premium.

I would be surprised if OU wouldn’t jump at the opportunity to buy any available property south of Boyd and west of the railroad tracks. OU has demolished several structures on the north east side of campus this spring and summer to add additional parking.
I’m sure they will eventually build something on this newly cleared land. But OU will likely need new more room in this area.

One of the hot button developments was an apartment complex at NW 36th and Tecumseh.
It looks like its being opposed by virtually everyone living in that part of town.

One of the hot button developments was an apartment complex at NW 36th and Tecumseh.
It looks like its being opposed by virtually everyone living in that part of town.

Just so everyone is clear: That complex and the debate surrounding it is separate from the high density issue (the proposed complex isn't high density).

Just so everyone is clear: That complex and the debate surrounding it is separate from the high density issue (the proposed complex isn't high density).

Exactly. We are talking high density developments in this thread that Norman doesn't have yet. Let's try not to muddy the discussion that has already been hashed out in other threads. They aren't related.

I think Norman has to be careful in where they allow these developments. The main objective though should be to establish density in core areas. I would say that Downtown Norman should have priority right now and later the campus area. If anything, permit high density/high rise condos/apartments in downtown and then use it as a launching pad for street car transit system from there to campus. Once Downtown has had time to fill out and redevelop fully, then look at adding additional areas.

Sounds good to me. Of course, this is going to require the medium density single family homes around downtown to give way to higher density uses, but that is the way urban development is supposed to work.

Just so everyone is clear: That complex and the debate surrounding it is separate from the high density issue (the proposed complex isn't high density).


Please explain? I have been told that the developers were pushing the idea that it was of a higher density, thinking that it might help sell the project to certain people who might have influence in the approval process.
Thanks

I think the complex that has been proposed on Tecumseh (proposed as "medium density") is important to this discussion from the standpoint that, at least right now, there is no plan whatsoever when it comes to density in Norman. As far as I can tell there is nothing to stop someone from loading up high density right next to low density anywhere in the city, assuming the developer has or could get the proper zoning. So the reason the Tecumseh development is significant is that it highlights it is possible that Norman, without proper planning, could end up with a dead core full of single story businesses and sprawling home additions, and strange Franken-suburbs of high and low density convoluted development all around the periphery if we're not careful. Basically a backwards plan if that happens, or if everything is just a big mess of multiple types of density everywhere then no plan at all.

Along these same lines, I think that many home owners are already thinking exactly this, and the comment they are making, which I think has been misconstrued in this thread, is really that they don't want clusters of development and they don't want a bunch of single story low density houses butting up against a multi-story tower of people, with large numbers of windows peering into their backyards and into their private lives. It's not a "liberal" issue, it's an "anyone who owns a home in Norman" issue. The city council needs to address this because it is going to grow into the #1 hot button of homeowners here; they are going to come for the council with proverbial pitchforks and torches if they don't consider it adequately. What you are seeing at various planning meetings... people of wildly different economic and political backgrounds banding together against this issue... isn't a strange anomaly but is in fact a strong indicator of the widespread opposition to what is going on, or what is feared to be happening in Norman. When the average "normal" person takes notice it is going to get much more heated and only worse for city politicians. Hopefully they are realizing this and will give an issue of this magnitude the proper deliberation and planning that it deserves.

Questor...good points and I pretty much agree with you.

Side comment. OMG use periods. LOL That first sentence in the second paragraph was rough. ;)

I don't think anyone said this was a "liberal issue," though I did say that liberals from the core of Norman have been the most outspoken against it at the community discussions. That just seems odd to me, personally. They also are making different points from Questor. They are fearful that Norman is going to become too big: besides the person who said she didn't want Norman to become like NYC, there were others who said they didn't want the population increase they believe will come with high density; they didn't want more bars they assume will come with high density; they didn't want more traffic they assume will accompany high density; and they wanted to keep Norman "family friendly."

Further, what I'm hearing at these discussions is not a fear of "Franken suburbs," but a fear of high density in the places its most logical to be (i.e., downtown Norman or near campus). In fact, at these meetings there have been repeated suggestions by opponents of these HD developments that, if we do build high density, then it should go out "on the edges of the city"-- that is, nearer the single story homes, which would create the Franken suburb referred to earlier.

It sounds like more people need to attend these discussions to get their points out there.

Norman seems to be a very unique situation when it comes to demographics and planning.

First, the demographics are all over the place. Norman west of I-35 is very much a traditional suburb in that it has high-middle to upper class housing and income levels and a significant amount of commuters to the larger city to the north. East Norman is a mix of middle income suburban community with a suburban college town feel. Central Norman is all over the place - diverse incomes, demographics, and cultures. Not to mention... there is also very much a college town feel in the central area.

Because of the diversity of the city, there are a million different interests that are competing, not always along political and ideological lines. West Normanites, conservative or liberal, are more likely to be interested in the fastest route to drive to work. Central Normanites might be more inclined to support rail due to the proximity to Downtown, not because of their ideology.

I am of the opinion that higher density that is done right can be very valuable to the community as a whole. I would love to see the area from Campus Corner to Downtown become much denser with developments similar to the athletic dorms on Jenkins or Level in OKC. As I have mentioned before, I believe the demographics and desire are there to make it work, but unlike the University, city developments are much more bureaucratic in nature.

... they didn't want more traffic they assume will accompany high density...

ROFLMAO. Do they not understand where traffic comes from? The average household starts their car 13 times a day. They start their car to get from where they live to the places they need to go. If the places they live and the places they need to go are closer together they don't need a car for that, they can walk. The less people need to drive the less traffic there is. Why is that hard to figure out?

But alas, Norman is suburb so it is little surprise that the average citizen has a suburban state of mind. So they go about widening roads that make it easier to drive, which leads to more sprawl, so the traffic returns to the previous state of congestion, and the process repeats.

I think the complex that has been proposed on Tecumseh (proposed as "medium density") is important to this discussion from the standpoint that, at least right now, there is no plan whatsoever when it comes to density in Norman. As far as I can tell there is nothing to stop someone from loading up high density right next to low density anywhere in the city, assuming the developer has or could get the proper zoning. So the reason the Tecumseh development is significant is that it highlights it is possible that Norman, without proper planning, could end up with a dead core full of single story businesses and sprawling home additions, and strange Franken-suburbs of high and low density convoluted development all around the periphery if we're not careful. Basically a backwards plan if that happens, or if everything is just a big mess of multiple types of density everywhere then no plan at all.

Along these same lines, I think that many home owners are already thinking exactly this, and the comment they are making, which I think has been misconstrued in this thread, is really that they don't want clusters of development and they don't want a bunch of single story low density houses butting up against a multi-story tower of people, with large numbers of windows peering into their backyards and into their private lives. It's not a "liberal" issue, it's an "anyone who owns a home in Norman" issue. The city council needs to address this because it is going to grow into the #1 hot button of homeowners here; they are going to come for the council with proverbial pitchforks and torches if they don't consider it adequately. What you are seeing at various planning meetings... people of wildly different economic and political backgrounds banding together against this issue... isn't a strange anomaly but is in fact a strong indicator of the widespread opposition to what is going on, or what is feared to be happening in Norman. When the average "normal" person takes notice it is going to get much more heated and only worse for city politicians. Hopefully they are realizing this and will give an issue of this magnitude the proper deliberation and planning that it deserves.

Thanks Questor. I had not heard the term “medium density” used to describe the proposed development in question.
I agree with the rest of your post. There is a place for medium / high density developments and places not to put them.
Clearly this is not going to be a business as usual deal in Norman.
The people will be in serious revolt if elected city leaders do not handle this well.

The best example of newly built high density development that I have seen near a major campus is in Lubbock just east of their football stadium. It’s very nice. Nearby they are also building brand new version of campus corner that was still a work in process.
I drove all over Manhattan KS near their campus this past fall and did not see anything new that was as nice or near as big as what I saw in Lubbock.

The land south of Duck pond is about the only place where large scale development similar to what they have done in Lubbock could occur near OU. Obviously OU would need to cooperate if this land was developed similarly.

Norman seems to be a very unique situation when it comes to demographics and planning.

First, the demographics are all over the place. Norman west of I-35 is very much a traditional suburb in that it has high-middle to upper class housing and income levels and a significant amount of commuters to the larger city to the north. East Norman is a mix of middle income suburban community with a suburban college town feel. Central Norman is all over the place - diverse incomes, demographics, and cultures. Not to mention... there is also very much a college town feel in the central area.

Because of the diversity of the city, there are a million different interests that are competing, not always along political and ideological lines. West Normanites, conservative or liberal, are more likely to be interested in the fastest route to drive to work. Central Normanites might be more inclined to support rail due to the proximity to Downtown, not because of their ideology.

I am of the opinion that higher density that is done right can be very valuable to the community as a whole. I would love to see the area from Campus Corner to Downtown become much denser with developments similar to the athletic dorms on Jenkins or Level in OKC. As I have mentioned before, I believe the demographics and desire are there to make it work, but unlike the University, city developments are much more bureaucratic in nature.

Your assessment of the various parts of Norman is spot on.
Parts of Norman are a true commuter suburban town while other parts are just as you describe with different needs.

There is no reason why we shouldn’t try to enhance life in various part of town based on their individual needs.

I agree with that. On that desire to treat unique parts of Norman differently, I think it's important to keep higher-density apartments out of West Norman. I don't think they need that kind of unnecessary development in that area, and that density could be put to better use in Central Norman.

The land south of Duck pond is about the only place where large scale development similar to what they have done in Lubbock could occur near OU. Obviously OU would need to cooperate if this land was developed similarly.

I think I remember reading that OU planned some medium to high density housing in that area. I don't know if that's still the plan, but it would fit in well with the redesign of that part of Lindsey.

I think I remember reading that OU planned some medium to high density housing in that area. I don't know if that's still the plan, but it would fit in well with the redesign of that part of Lindsey.

At one time there was a plan to build condos in that area. I think it was about 2006.
They used the condos as a reason to demolish the old apartment housing in that area. That’s where the OU KSU football game bomber lived.

I remember trying talking my wife into buying one of these condos with no luck at all. LOL

I don't think anyone said this was a "liberal issue," though I did say that liberals from the core of Norman have been the most outspoken against it at the community discussions. That just seems odd to me, personally. They also are making different points from Questor. They are fearful that Norman is going to become too big: besides the person who said she didn't want Norman to become like NYC, there were others who said they didn't want the population increase they believe will come with high density; they didn't want more bars they assume will come with high density; they didn't want more traffic they assume will accompany high density; and they wanted to keep Norman "family friendly."

Further, what I'm hearing at these discussions is not a fear of "Franken suburbs," but a fear of high density in the places its most logical to be (i.e., downtown Norman or near campus). In fact, at these meetings there have been repeated suggestions by opponents of these HD developments that, if we do build high density, then it should go out "on the edges of the city"-- that is, nearer the single story homes, which would create the Franken suburb referred to earlier.

It sounds like more people need to attend these discussions to get their points out there.

This surprises me and here is why: all of these meetings have been breaking up into tables, and notes are being kept by each table's facilitator indicating what different folks at each table are saying. Also, there are video recordings of each of these meetings available on the city's website. When I look through the round-table minutes from the "location and compatibility of high density" meeting, I only see a few bullets that partain to the far-flung areas of Norman, or comments that say "no where at all." Most of the bullets seem reasonable to me, and are aligned with the types of things I and others have said in this thread. Am I misinterpreting these minutes?

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/sites/default/files/Features/High%20Density%20Discussion%20-%20Session%202-%20Table%20Notes%20-%206-2812.pdf

For anyone interested, here are the videos, presentation materials, and minutes to all of the meetings so far:

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/cm/high-density-development-community-discussion

I guess I find your comments more concerning than anything else. I take it you have been attending these meetings, and it concerns me that your description of what you are seeing, versus what the city is actually recording in the minutes (or at least how I am interpreting them), is so different. If you work for the city, then that concerns me even more.

Perhaps this means the city's processes it is using for this are flawed. Either that or maybe your perception is different than what is actually happening, I don't know. When I look through the minutes the common themes I keep reading are that the area around OU, Campus Corner, downtown, and UNP could support high-density, and that the quaintness of other areas of the city should be preserved. I also see discussion about rail and building-up density along a desired rail path. All of this seems reasonable to me. You're saying this isn't what is being said by the majority of people at the meetings?

Your comments are also inconsistent with what representatives from my HOA, who are attending and monitoring all meetings, have been reporting in email to the entire addition. Again, concerning.

Thanks Questor. I had not heard the term “medium density” used to describe the proposed development in question.
I agree with the rest of your post. There is a place for medium / high density developments and places not to put them.
Clearly this is not going to be a business as usual deal in Norman.
The people will be in serious revolt if elected city leaders do not handle this well.

My HOA says that representatives of the developer used that term when contacted by them. In reality I have no idea what "medium density" really is or if it can be quantified in any way. Honestly, sounds like weasel-words to me... trying to appeal to both the low and high density crowd via BS.

I think I have gotten some mailings from the OU Foundation in the recent past about the desire to build condos near the duck pond. I think this idea has just been delayed for various reasons, but is still planned. If I can find the literature I'll scan it in and post it here.

Questor...good points and I pretty much agree with you.

Side comment. OMG use periods. LOL That first sentence in the second paragraph was rough. ;)

Sorry, I think I was enjoying a frosty beverage as I wrote that. :p

I think I have gotten some mailings from the OU Foundation in the recent past about the desire to build condos near the duck pond. I think this idea has just been delayed for various reasons, but is still planned. If I can find the literature I'll scan it in and post it here.

I know I received something from the OU Foundation about these condos several years ago.
I have since thrown it away. It would be interesting to hear an update.

This surprises me and here is why: all of these meetings have been breaking up into tables, and notes are being kept by each table's facilitator indicating what different folks at each table are saying. Also, there are video recordings of each of these meetings available on the city's website. When I look through the round-table minutes from the "location and compatibility of high density" meeting, I only see a few bullets that partain to the far-flung areas of Norman, or comments that say "no where at all." Most of the bullets seem reasonable to me, and are aligned with the types of things I and others have said in this thread. Am I misinterpreting these minutes?

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/sites/default/files/Features/High%20Density%20Discussion%20-%20Session%202-%20Table%20Notes%20-%206-2812.pdf

For anyone interested, here are the videos, presentation materials, and minutes to all of the meetings so far:

http://www.ci.norman.ok.us/cm/high-density-development-community-discussion

I guess I find your comments more concerning than anything else. I take it you have been attending these meetings, and it concerns me that your description of what you are seeing, versus what the city is actually recording in the minutes (or at least how I am interpreting them), is so different. If you work for the city, then that concerns me even more.

Perhaps this means the city's processes it is using for this are flawed. Either that or maybe your perception is different than what is actually happening, I don't know. When I look through the minutes the common themes I keep reading are that the area around OU, Campus Corner, downtown, and UNP could support high-density, and that the quaintness of other areas of the city should be preserved. I also see discussion about rail and building-up density along a desired rail path. All of this seems reasonable to me. You're saying this isn't what is being said by the majority of people at the meetings?

Your comments are also inconsistent with what representatives from my HOA, who are attending and monitoring all meetings, have been reporting in email to the entire addition. Again, concerning.

No, I didn't say that at all. Please re-read what I wrote.

And, yes, I've attended the meetings and would say the minutes do not fully reflect the extent or nature of the opposition, nor do I really expect them to given that they are just bullets. I encourage you attend the next one and you'll see what I mean regarding the opposition.

(EDIT: And, by the way, the city isn't recording the minutes. The professional group running the meetings is, so I don't blame "the city.")

"Looks like" Richard Mckown is the one proposing high density living in Norman:

http://m.normantranscript.com/normantrans/pm_112594/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=RwGGEKxS

he's not proposing it, he was just commenting on it. He isnt involved in either project that is currently on the drawing board. He is a wealth of knowledge on the topic though, and Norman would be fortunate if we had a LEVEL type/quality project come in.

he's not proposing it, he was just commenting on it. He isnt involved in either project that is currently on the drawing board. He is a wealth of knowledge on the topic though, and Norman would be fortunate if we had a LEVEL type/quality project come in.

Thanks for the clarification.

If any of you would like an example of the delusional opposition to high density in Norman, check out this post. High density is a conspiracy to make us all use public transportation and enforce federal government desires.

http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/city-of-normans-fifth-density-dialog-charade/

Wow. The comments by the dissenting city council members are ridiculous:

http://newsok.com/norman-city-council-approves-plans-for-multiuse-housing-development-near-campus-corner/article/3701143

If any of you would like an example of the delusional opposition to high density in Norman, check out this post. High density is a conspiracy to make us all use public transportation and enforce federal government desires.

http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/city-of-normans-fifth-density-dialog-charade/

Holy crap! I guess some people are going to have to be dragged into the future kicking and screaming. The fantasy world that the guy who wrote that is living in (aka urban sprawl) was all paid for by massive debt and we can't afford to sustain it. So really, it doesn't matter what he thinks, we can't afford his world.

Wow. The comments by the dissenting city council members are ridiculous:

http://newsok.com/norman-city-council-approves-plans-for-multiuse-housing-development-near-campus-corner/article/3701143

This is a great FIRST step for Norman... Hopefully their silly "concerns" will be alleviated once they actually see what is proposed.

This is a great FIRST step for Norman... Hopefully their silly "concerns" will be alleviated once they actually see what is proposed.

That is what I love about all the progress being made in downtown OKC. It will be an example to the rest of the metro area.

I am actually for this development, but I agree with the dissenting council members... I wish the council would have kicked the decision out another 30 days. I understand that this was just medium density, but a lot of people will not. I don't see how this doesn't do anything but disenfranchise people. If the city really wants people commenting and participating in their density discussions, then they have to realize that regardless of how many units this thing really is that the perception is going to be that the city doesn't care what its constituents think and is going to do what it wants. That never leads to good outcomes....

But pandering to people who oppose A, and are simply confused that B is a different critter altogether, only opens the door to folks getting their hopes up wrongly and enhances later disappointment needlessly.

High density opponents ought to be heard on high density issues. But when they are against something else because they confuse it with high density, it is not incorrect for the elected folks to do their danged jobs and politely make it clear along the way that this is not that.

Are there any renderings for the Boyd Street Lofts? I assume this will be built on the vacant lot at the NW corner. I wonder if they will do parallel parking along Boyd or angled like it is further west, or any street parking at all. I assume the building will come up to the sidewalk.

It seems many of the people in Norman aren't in favor of the new high density housing. Reading the story put out today makes me realize how simple-minded some people are.

http://newsok.com/norman-residents-weigh-in-on-high-density-developments/article/3706844



“I don't think the city is asking straightforward questions about it. I'm asking simple yes-or-no questions. Do you or do you not want these type of developments? Do you want them in your neighborhood?” Coker said.

...


“People have turned out for these meetings because they are very protective of their neighborhoods,” Councilwoman Linda Lockett said. “They don't want these type of developments to change the character of their neighborhood or the city as a whole.”


For the love of Pete, don't they realize that by spreading Norman out all over the place they are destroying whatever quality of life items they have grown to love in Norman? It is really pretty simple - Norman is going to grow so you have to decide where all those new people are going to live. They can live in 100 units per acre or in 10 units per acre. I don't understand how anyone can think the low density route is going to 'protect' Norman neighborhoods. From a simple supply and demand view single family home owners in Norman shouldn't want anymore single family homes.

This is just the minority, the majority of the people in Norman accept high-density development, but they want design restrictions implemented. Ultimately, its up to the Norman City Council to make the final decision, which I think the majority of the council is in favor of such developments, including Mayor Rosenthal. Mayor Rosenthal is very urban minded, she was actually a professor of mine in my Public Policy Analysis class when I was working on my MPA at OU a few years ago. She is really pro urban, I don't see high-density residential development in Norman having any problem being implemented.

G. Walker - I hope you're right, but that doesn't mean some people are still not extra stupid.