I thought I would make a spot to hold book, movie, and video suggestions related to new urbanism. If you recommend anything try to give a brief description.

Let me start with this video. This is a presentation by Enrique Penalosa to the Portland State University Urban Planning Club. Enrique is the former mayor of Bogotá, Colombia. While the video is about an hour and half only the first hour is the presentation. The last 30 minutes are a Q&A session. He talks pretty extensively about how Bogotá successfully created a large scale bus rapid transit system and invested in sidewalks and bicycle boulevards.

"Planning Cities for People: An International Perspective"

W03qBlwtRJI

This is presentation by Enrique Penalosa to the Parks Forum's 5th International Biennial Conference, Parks Beyond Boundaries, in Adelaide, Australia in May 2012. The main idea of the presentation is that parks should not be restricted to just physical park boundaries but should spread to the sidewalk as it weave through the urban fabric and into the daily lives of citizens. There were lots of really good quotes in this presentation (the next time I watch it I'll have to write them down). The first 20 minutes or so was a repeat of many of his normal talking points but once he got into the park specific discussion it really got interesting.

b1PzBh4oC_4

One of my favorite quotes was "a childs' favorite thing to play with is another child". I think both my kids and Sid's kids can attest to that.

As an early reminder - the New Urbanism program at the University of Miami will open for enrollment on Feb 12.

Course and Exam Registration: February 12 - March 5, 2013
Course begins: March 7, 2013
Exam access begins: May 23, 2013
Course and exam access concludes: June 10, 2013

The cost is about $400 plus books which you can buy at a discount through the University of Miami. Anyone can take this on-line course. Students who complete the course and pass the exam receive a certificate from the University of Miami School of Architecture.

I was hoping to take this program last year but the timing didn't work out so this year it is my Christmas present to myself.

Real Estate Development and Urbanism (http://mredu.arc.miami.edu/nuo.html)

I watched the first video back when you first posted and was very impressed.

The Option of Urbanism: Back to the Future for Metro Vancouver
Christopher B. Leinberger, Metropolitan Land Strategist and Developer, The Brookings Institution, Washington DC
April 25, 2008

Was urban sprawl an accident?
Why do the Europeans (and nearly every other country) value land more than the US?
Were railroad suburbs the first urban sprawl?
Are TV sitcoms a reflection of reality?
Will rapidly changing demographics render suburbia obsolete in the next 20 years?
Why did NW OKC grow at such a fast pace while NE OKC didn't grow at all?
Who will buy my suburban house when I am ready to move again?
Why is your Zip Code the most important demographic data point?
Why is every strip shopping center exactly the same?
How many walkable urban districts should OKC have?

All these questions are answered in this video. Although it is nearly 2 hours long the main presentation is only 54 minutes. The remainder is a panel discussion.

FuHLzcg3Cjs

Here is the same basic presentation as above but it was done for Kansas City as part of their public awareness campaign for their new downtown streetcar. This was filmed at the Kansas City Public Library. It differs slightly from the Vancouver presentation because he get a little more into the future of America and how urban sprawl played a major role in 2 of the 3 major recessions and why we aren’t seeing a significant suburban real-estate rebound now.

26xOvGADc4c

The Option of Urbanism: Back to the Future for Metro Vancouver
Christopher B. Leinberger, Metropolitan Land Strategist and Developer, The Brookings Institution, Washington DC
April 25, 2008

Was urban sprawl an accident?
Why do the Europeans (and nearly every other country) value land more than the US?
Were railroad suburbs the first urban sprawl?
Are TV sitcoms a reflection of reality?
Will rapidly changing demographics render suburbia obsolete in the next 20 years?
Why did NW OKC grow at such a fast pace while NE OKC didn't grow at all?
Who will buy my suburban house when I am ready to move again?
Why is your Zip Code the most important demographic data point?
Why is every strip shopping center exactly the same?
How many walkable urban districts should OKC have?

All these questions are answered in this video. Although it is nearly 2 hours long the main presentation is only 54 minutes. The remainder is a panel discussion.

FuHLzcg3Cjs

He talks about OKC?

He talks about OKC?

Not directly no, but in pretty specific terms of urban and suburban development that directly tie in to OKC. Watch the video and you will easily see it.

Not directly no, but in pretty specific terms of urban and suburban development that directly tie in to OKC. Watch the video and you will easily see it.

Kerry, while I'm sure there are some good points made in the video, I just don't have the time to watch all of the ones you post. It might be helpful if you could provide a synopsis of the major points.

Is it true that the first new urbanism development in the world was the Cotton District in Starkville, MS?

Kerry, while I'm sure there are some good points made in the video, I just don't have the time to watch all of the ones you post. It might be helpful if you could provide a synopsis of the major points.

I am traveling this week but when I get home I'll see what I can put together. I watch them on TV so it makes it seem more like watching a tv program instead of a YouTube video.

Is it true that the first new urbanism development in the world was the Cotton District in Starkville, MS?

Good question. According to Leinberger it was Country Club Plaza in KC. It was the first greenfield walkable development built from scratch.

Seaside, Florida doesn't claim to be first but does claim to be one of the first cities. It's a neat place but antithetical to New Urbanism IMO in that it's a playground with a huge investment of resources for part time use rather than a real 24/7 community.

Good question. According to Leinberger it was Country Club Plaza in KC. It was the first greenfield walkable development built from scratch.

Didn't he say that was built before the depression and managed not to be destroyed before it was gentrified, so not really new urbanism but the kind of neighborhood they were looking for as a template.

There isn't much difference between NEW urbanism and OLD urbanism other than old urbanism grew organically out of necessity because cars didn't exist. New urbanism is a choice (where legally allowed) because cars do exist.

Charles Marohn (Strong Towns) at the National Conference of State Legislatures 2012 .

Most of this presentation is related to the growth Ponzi schemes that most cities use to fund expansion. Everything works great until A) A city runs out of room, B) Growth stops, or C) Infrastructure exceeds its lifespan. He also spends a fair amount of time comparing property taxes and employment rates between various levels of density.

52NhFMFgLEY

I thought this was pretty good.

Built to Last
VGJt_YXIoJI

Just came across this from the producers of the Built to Last video.

XoVXoB6x3vM

Ed Glaeser, interviewed on the Feb 17, 2001 episode of Freakonomics Radio's podcast Freakonomics » Why Cities Rock (http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/02/18/freakonomics-radio-why-cities-rock/) calls cities our greatest invention and states that they will save the earth.

Ed Glaeser, interviewed on the Feb 17, 2001 episode of Freakonomics Radio's podcast Freakonomics » Why Cities Rock (http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/02/18/freakonomics-radio-why-cities-rock/) calls cities our greatest invention and states that they will save the earth.

No way that guy is a Harvard professor. He must be the most hated guy on campus. For those that want to listen it is only 17 minutes long. There is a 'Listen Now' button in the middle column just above Ed Glasser's picture.

Here is a 2 part series done by one of the local Atlanta news stations on the new 22 mile Beltline around central Atlanta. This is one big project that will encircle central Atlanta with light rail, major urban parks, and 30+ miles of bike highways and jogging paths. One place they looked at for inspiration was Charlotte and they do a segment on the building boom created by Charlotte's rail system.

Atlanta BeltLine // Connecting Atlanta's rich history to a vibrant future. (http://beltline.org/)

c5wWTf_Nhxw G07509_Zt4w

Oh good. They're finally doing the Beltline. My daughter owns a house on it that plummeted in value in 2008. Maybe it will finally get some of its value back.

If anyone is interested in a very short read - here is one on the economic growth ponzi scheme many communities think they are 'living' by.

The Growth Ponzi Scheme - Strong Towns (http://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme)

Here is a short video that goes along with it.

giebF6knWxM

New movie recommendation: The Parking Lot Movie

I have seen the movie listed on Netflix for a while now but just couldn't muster up the desire to watch it but tonight I had an hour to kill so I turned it on - thinking I would probably turn it off in 10 minutes. This was a really good movie. It is the story of a small parking lot in Charlottesville, VA and the people who work at it. They have some very interesting opinions of the people who park there and the mentality of the average parker.

I will probably end up watching this movie 2 or 3 more times because there were so many good quotes and ah-ah moments that it took me a while to process them. For example, the simple phrase "What if Rosa Parks drove a car" sent me on a mental tangent for a good 2 minutes. Another one was about people who pay $40,000 for a car, $70 to fill the tank, and then cry that they have to pay $5 to park it, as if they assume it comes from the dealership with a parking space included and they are finding out for the first time that it doesn't. If you have 70 minutes to kill this isn't a bad way to kill it.

3BSjUENLpkk

hcT9rylhEdY

Kerry, I know this isn't quite the focus of your thread but I wondered how much of this show you have watched.

Strip the City : Science Channel (http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/strip-the-city)

I find it fascinating.

Thanks ljbab728 - I'll start watching it tonight.

Here is a brief look at the re-urbanization of downtown Albany, New York. There are a lot of parallels with mistakes made in OKC over the years. For example, in the 60' they tore down 1000 buildings to create the Emprie State Plaza which is now a desolate black hole in the urban fabric.

809xbjbvQd8

Kerry, I know this isn't quite the focus of your thread but I wondered how much of this show you have watched.

Strip the City : Science Channel (http://science.discovery.com/tv-shows/strip-the-city)

I find it fascinating.

I watched 2 of the episodes (London and Toronto) and found them to be pretty neat. One of the things that kind of saddened me in both cities is how many natural streams and small rivers they build over. What a shame that they would literally pave over one of their most important natural features. It makes me curious how many natural creeks OKC has placed in concrete boxes and covered up. I wonder if the 'creek' flowing out of east Bricktown where the Staybridge is proposed was a natural creek at one time. If OKC has done this in the path I wish they could open them back up and find other methods of flood control.

Two books I was surprised you haven't mentioned yet are Suburban Nation and Walkable City. Checked these out at the library, just finished the first one and starting on Walkable. Will report back when I finish it, but SN was awesome, can't believe I neglected it for so long.

SN was great. One of the best books I have read in years. I'll need to check out Walkable City. If you get a chance try The Geography of Nowhere. The first 2 chapters are a little slow but it picks up after than. I am currently taking the New Urbanism On-line course so right now I am suffering from information over-load. The info is coming faster than I can absorb it.

I know what you mean Sid. After watching the Kunstler video I had a strange urge to kick someone's ass to start righting the wrongs. For the New Urbanism course there is a 2 hour lecture from him that isn't available anywhere else.

The Geography of Nowhere...was a hugely important book for me. I read it while sitting in an Army ambulance in Iraq. Then I got to watch this video: James Kunstler: How bad architecture wrecked cities | Video on TED.com (http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia.html).

I was hooked. Ready to fight for making America a better place. Not just 'more free', 'more prosperous', or whatever we are selling this month.

Well said. Thanks for your service in Iraq, Sid.

While some of the most walkable cities also happen to be some of the most opposed to the Iraq war, veterans have my personal respect for their service.

While some of the most walkable cities also happen to be some of the most opposed to the Iraq war, veterans have my personal respect for their service.

That's because they don't rely on the oil as much as we do.

I came across this tonight and I haven't watched it all but if this game is real I need to find it.

fz38_nYgnxA

It is going on my Christmas list.

Find your T#. I am a T5.

Transect Collection | T-1 NATURAL (http://transect-collection.org/p821206394)

Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places

by

Sharon Zukin


"As Cities Have Gentrified, educated urbanites have come to prize what they regard as "authentic" urban life: aging buildings, art galleries, small boutiques, upscale food markets, neighborhood old-timers, funky ethnic restaurants, and old, family-owned shops. These signify a place's authenticity, in contrast to the bland standardization of the suburbs and exurbs." But as Sharon Zukin shows in Naked City, the rapid and pervasive demand for authenticity - evident in escalating real estate prices, expensive stores, and closely monitored urban streetscapes - has helped drive out the very people who first lent a neighborhood its authentic aura: immigrants, the working class, and artists. Zukin traces this economic and social evolution in six archetypal New York areas - Williamsburg, Harlem, the East Village, Union Square, Red Hook, and the city's community gardens - and travels to both the city's first IKEA store and the World Trade Center site. She shows that for followers of Jane Jacobs, this transformation is a perversion of what was supposed to happen. Indeed, Naked City is a sobering update of Jacobs's legendary 1961 book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Like Jacobs, Zukin looks at what gives neighborhoods a sense of place, but argues that over time, the emphasis on neighborhood distinctiveness has become a tool of economic elites to drive up real estate values and effectively force out the neighborhood "characters" that Jacobs so evocatively idealized.

Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places by Sharon Zukin | 9780195382853 | Hardcover | Barnes & Noble (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/naked-city-sharon-zukin/1101394771?ean=9780195382853)

7th Street in St. Paul and the "Nordeast" part of Minneapolis still seem pretty authentic to me.
Urbanismwise. Are either of those locations mentioned in the book?

There is no doubt that when property values rise, the original inhabitants sell at a profit and move else ware. One of the biggest problems in areas that undergo gentrification is that low and even moderate income people are priced out of the market. That is why the New Urbanism pushes for at least 10% of new and redeveloped properties to be set aside for affordable housing. The alternative is the concentration of poverty and we already know how that turns out. BTW - nothing segregates people by income and socio-economic status more than modern suburbia. The suburban home building industry has that down to a science right down to the individual lot.

Affordable housing can be accomplished in a number of ways but unfortunately there is a lot of resistance to it, and when it is done the architects want to experiment with architectural styles, which only stigmatize low-income development. They need to stop experimenting on the poor. Save that for the rich who can afford to make architectural mistakes.

http://www.cnu.org/presentations/2008/affordable-housing-new-urbanism


From a policy standpoint, there are four main approaches to affordable housing relevant to New Urbanists: Developing affordable housing using tax credits and grants; increasing affordable homeownership opportunities through programs like Habitat; encouraging resident-controlled limited-equity ownership via community land trusts; or leveraging market-rate development through inclusionary zoning. This panel compared and contrasted these strategies as relevant options for New Urbanism.

That is why the New Urbanism pushes for at least 10% of new and redeveloped properties to be set aside for affordable housing.

<snip>

Affordable housing can be accomplished in a number of ways but unfortunately there is a lot of resistance to it,
...

Exactly. Since we're all schooled that:

1. Gentrification drives out the lower and middle class.
2. The search for authenticity leads to the unauthentic or disneyfication.
3. Alternatives offered are disproportionate to the population demographic at large.
4. Alternatives are not well received and rarely implemented. Certainly not in Oklahoma.

thus, the results will be 1 and 2, an inauthentic disneyfied environment for the wealthy.

The side show will be all faults and extended costs will be cast on the lower and middle class who will have financed the catalyzing forces but are forced to live in the suburbs, even if they want to live in the urban center.

Now that we're all in agreement that's what is being promoted, we can drop the pretenses and proceed.

Exactly. Since we're all schooled that:

1. Gentrification drives out the lower and middle class.
2. The search for authenticity leads to the unauthentic or disneyfication.
3. Alternatives offered are disproportionate to the population demographic at large.
4. Alternatives are not well received and rarely implemented. Certainly not in Oklahoma.

thus, the results will be 1 and 2, an inauthentic disneyfied environment for the wealthy.

The side show will be all faults and extended costs will be cast on the lower and middle class who will have financed the catalyzing forces but are forced to live in the suburbs, even if they want to live in the urban center.

Now that we're all in agreement that's what is being promoted, we can drop the pretenses and proceed.

That post is amazing. Thank you. Really.
There are differences between "Urbans" that were built in the 1600's . . . the 1800's . . . the 1889's . . . and the 2010sPlus.
I LOVE the term "Disneyfication" . . . and apparently a lot of developers do too. from California to Florida.

(why . . . i remember when people used to go out on the east side of rustic Lake Hefner t' fish . . . and later fly kites . . . jog and bicycle . . . Then Came "Louie's" . . . and . . .)

That post is amazing. Thank you. Really.
There are differences between "Urbans" that were built in the 1600's . . . the 1800's . . . the 1889's . . . and the 2010sPlus.
I LOVE the term "Disneyfication" . . . and apparently a lot of developers do too. from California to Florida.

That's not my invention, nor this person's, who uses it too. My last post was a reference to this link posted before elsewhere in case you missed it. He and the woman above are not the only ones who have talked about this:

Fake Authenticity | HiLobrow (http://hilobrow.com/2010/06/01/fake-authenticity/)

Thanks, again, Sir.

When I first moved down here in the early '70s downtown was a neglected slum.
At some point, "The Pei Plan" apparantly removed a lot of architectural history/background ambiance and I'm sure that "Authenticity" suffered.
I still remember marvelling at the then abandoned Skirvin Hotel and not long after going downtown to watch the "deconstruction" of The Biltmore.
("My my this is dusty . . . What do you suppose it is?"
("Nothing to worry about . . . Just asbestos residue"

Personally, I think that--as a result of and in light of those facts--OKC is doing some wonderful things downtown.
Adding "Disneyfication" to the mix makes it even better. Even if the term has some negative connotations . . . There is a certain practicality associated with it in terms of moving from where you reside to a place worth paying a visit.

I just remembered a couple of lines from a "song" i wrote, not long after moving here (almost 40 years ago):
(after the part in the song about construction having the highways all shut down)
and when you're standing in the rain
waiting for a train that never shows,
hold your nose,
and you'll know
that you're in Oklahoma City.

fyi: The "hold your nose" part was a combinational reference to the water treatment plant on Eastern and Stockyards City. =)

Unseasoned observations from an OkieNoob, yet . . .
in retrospect: what a selfish, naive, dumbass. =)

btw: "Packin' Town" is still fairly "authentic" isn't it?

Thanks, again, Sir.

When I first moved down here in the early '70s downtown was a neglected slum.
At some point, "The Pei Plan" apparantly removed a lot of architectural history/background ambiance and I'm sure that "Authenticity" suffered.
I still remember marvelling at the then abandoned Skirvin Hotel and not long after going downtown to watch the "deconstrution" of The Biltmore.

Personally, I think that--as a result of and in light of those facts--OKC is doing some wonderful things downtown.
Adding "Disneyfication" to the mix makes it even better. Even if the term has some negative connotations . . . There is a certain practicality associated with it in terms of moving from where you reside to a place worth paying a visit.

Agreed. I too went downtown when they blew the Biltmore and watched it from the top of the Wonder Bread building. I voted for all the maps projects. Just calling a spade a spade, especially at those with their noses in the air as Urbanists! who pretend it's otherwise, the answer to all things, all people and The Future! It isn't, not by a long stretch. It's Disneyland for the wealthy to live and for some to visit.

You know, there's a win/win possible here. Disneyland-for-the-wealthy still has to purchase it from the existing land owner, who can take his or her money and purchase something, too. Maybe he or she will purchase something in Choctaw and start to miss his or her urban existence, urge the city of Choctaw to embrace new urbanism and do the right thing. Then, he or she will help Choctaw grow without (new) sprawl and create a seed of new urbanism where it's desperately needed. I see this gentrification as a natural progression, like how the trees that grow in a old forest are radically different than those that started the forest eons ago.

You know, there's a win/win possible here. Disneyland-for-the-wealthy still has to purchase it from the existing land owner, who can take his or her money and purchase something, too. Maybe he or she will purchase something in Choctaw and start to miss his or her urban existence, urge the city of Choctaw to embrace new urbanism and do the right thing. Then, he or she will help Choctaw grow without (new) sprawl and create a seed of new urbanism where it's desperately needed. I see this gentrificatio]n as a natural progression, like how the trees that grow in a old forest are radically different than those that started the forest eons ago.

I might suggest that [The "Disneyizer Developers"] turn a learned eye toward the [Hoarded Train Station Property and adjacent Parking Triangle currently Under Heated Debate].

No. Sorry. Scratch That. There are much more immediate and important issues with which to deal.

Agreed. I too went downtown when they blew the Biltmore and watched it from the top of the Wonder Bread building. I voted for all the maps projects. Just calling a spade a spade, especially at those with their noses in the air as Urbanists! who pretend it's otherwise, the answer to all things, all people and The Future! It isn't, not by a long stretch. It's Disneyland for the wealthy to live and for some to visit.

I was at Street Level on the Northside of The Improvement.
(i journeyed all the way from Jones to see it. i grew up in a "walkable" town--a.c.t. "urban, not")
It was impressive and uncomfortable.
fyi: be careful about calling a "spade a spade" . . . unless you are referring to a shovel or a gardening tool.

(btw: in case you missed it, i agree with many of your points)

Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places

by

Sharon Zukin


"As Cities Have Gentrified, educated urbanites have come to prize what they regard as "authentic" urban life: aging buildings, art galleries, small boutiques, upscale food markets, neighborhood old-timers, funky ethnic restaurants, and old, family-owned shops. These signify a place's authenticity, in contrast to the bland standardization of the suburbs and exurbs." But as Sharon Zukin shows in Naked City, the rapid and pervasive demand for authenticity - evident in escalating real estate prices, expensive stores, and closely monitored urban streetscapes - has helped drive out the very people who first lent a neighborhood its authentic aura: immigrants, the working class, and artists. Zukin traces this economic and social evolution in six archetypal New York areas - Williamsburg, Harlem, the East Village, Union Square, Red Hook, and the city's community gardens - and travels to both the city's first IKEA store and the World Trade Center site. She shows that for followers of Jane Jacobs, this transformation is a perversion of what was supposed to happen. Indeed, Naked City is a sobering update of Jacobs's legendary 1961 book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Like Jacobs, Zukin looks at what gives neighborhoods a sense of place, but argues that over time, the emphasis on neighborhood distinctiveness has become a tool of economic elites to drive up real estate values and effectively force out the neighborhood "characters" that Jacobs so evocatively idealized.

Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places by Sharon Zukin | 9780195382853 | Hardcover | Barnes & Noble (http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/naked-city-sharon-zukin/1101394771?ean=9780195382853)


As cities develop, they begin to value different things. The "authentic urban life" wasn't valued much when we initiated the Pei Plan, because "authentic" meant scary homeless people and vacant buildings. Authentic meant you were afraid to walk to your car at night. On the other end of the scale, when cities prosper and Disney-fy, they think of "authentic" as a place where you can get a burger that doesn't cost twelve dollars. Places like Coney Island and the Lunch Box are what they are talking about. They want places like that to still be around, but the nicer you make the area, the more their rent goes up, and the more that changes those places.

Cities grow and evolve over time. You can't have some enforced static perfect equilibrium where you have 3/4 million dollar apartments next door to the greasy place where you get $2 hot dogs. You get things like the Lunch Box going away and Kitchen 324 kind of taking its place. That doesn't change the principles behind urbanism though.

The thing about Disneyfication is that the only place you can perfectly replicate it is literally at a Walt Disney theme park, where it is perfectly maintained, exists purely for show, and isn't affected by economic patterns. Bricktown started as a Disneyfied development. That canal isn't real, it doesn't go anywhere. They built new buildings designed to look like old brick warehouses. But it doesn't stay Disneyfied because it grows and develops and changes. Every new building is a reflection of its time, even if that time said "I think old buildings look cool and will try to mirror them". The more people live and work and create, the more the fabric of our city will change. The Disneyfied portions will become integrated with the rest of the city. Coney Island and other "authentic" places were reflections of the city at a particular time. As the city changes so will they. Artificially preventing that change makes Coney Island into just as much a Disney locale as what you are trying to avoid.

Just look at the 1st and Perry hotel thread to find the development snobs. I don't support exclusionary zoning.

I fully support masstrans. I voted for the nebulous measure we have bringing something and I admit I haven't tried to stay fully informed of the twists up to this point. I hope this isn't what we end up with, another ride for our affluent Urbanist dwellers, but from here it looks to me like that's what it's going to be. More disneyland than useful to the masses.

http://www.montgomeryparks.org/enterprise/park_facilities/trains/images/MiniatureTrain.jpg

I am sure whatever rail system we end up with there won't be a credit check to ride it. While downtown does have some expensive for-sale housing the vast majority of it is rental and while above market rate per sq foot, is still affordable to a wide cross-section of incomes. Plus, people of every shape, size, color, and income work downtown - from billionaire CEOs to restaurant busboys. Access to mass transit will be available to all of them and hopefully it will be free to ride.

Here is something you might be interested in when it comes to affordability.

The H+T Affordability Index

http://www.htaindex.org/

Also, did you know that making the average car payment is equal to a $125,000 mortgage. If you have a spouse and neither of you make a car payment it is the equivalent of gaining $250,000 in purchasing power for a home. With a good mass transit system living car-free is possible. Heck, Sid does it in spite of a poor mass transit system. On a relate note - we were watching House Hunters International a couple of weeks ago and a Paris apartment was going for nearly $1 million. My wife said, "See, we can't afford to do that." I told her we could if we got rid of our cars. Think about that.

Just look at the 1st and Perry hotel thread to find the development snobs. I don't support exclusionary zoning.

The "development snobs" would like to see construction that gains, not loses, value with time. That concept actually works very nicely with that of sustainability. I could care less what the hotel brand is, but I would rather see an empty lot than a building that looks far worse in ten years than it does at the completion of construction. When we wink at construction techniques just to get something, anything, built, we do not do our city a favor. A quick cruise going west on Reno with a right turn at Meridien, driving to the airport demonstrates my point. Contrast that with the buildings on Film Row which withstood years of neglect rather admirably.

I am sure whatever rail system we end up with there won't be a credit check to ride it.

Free to ride?




While downtown does have some expensive for-sale housing the vast majority of it is rental and while above market rate per sq foot, is still affordable to a wide cross-section of incomes.

We are just getting started and property values have increased dramatically. It will continue to get less affordable over time.



Plus, people of every shape, size, color, and income work downtown - from billionaire CEOs to restaurant busboys. Access to mass transit will be available to all of them and hopefully it will be free to ride.


Not my intent to enter a long winded discussion about it, there's a thread for that, but there was at least one study that said the masses would have been best served if it were extended east. That wouldn't do, east side isn't in the mix of Urban property value escalation. Either way the point is, masstrans serves the masses when it extends to where the masses are, which isn't downtown.

Also, while I live in Disneyland, I fully expect my house (with 8 inch concrete and rebar walls and a brick skin) to go through the usual urban cycles of high end to low end and then be rediscovered by the creative class and move through the cycle again. That's because it was built to be here in 100 years. But that kind of construction isn't cheap so it will be awhile before it's available as housing for the poor. It will happen though, so over its lifetime it will be very class unconscious. Anyone want to bet on what LEVEL will look like in 100 years?

As far as Disneyland being only accessible to the wealthy, that's a comment that can only be made by someone who spends no time downtown. There is a wider range of socioeconomic groups enjoying our downtown than anywhere I have ever visited.

Not my intent to enter a long winded discussion about it, there's a thread for that, but there was at least one study that said the masses would have been best served if it were extended east. That wouldn't do, east side isn't in the mix of Urban property value escalation. Either way the point is, masstrans serves the masses when it extends to where the masses are, which isn't downtown.

While the east side may have more people willing to use it, the city went several decades not been built in a way we have enough massed residential for mass transit (especially rail) in any direction away from downtown.

I fully support masstrans. I voted for the nebulous measure we have bringing something and I admit I haven't tried to stay fully informed of the twists up to this point. I hope this isn't what we end up with, another ride for our affluent Urbanist dwellers, but from here it looks to me like that's what it's going to be. More disneyland than useful to the masses.

First of all, there is a reasonable possibility that the streetcar will be free to ride. There is some data to suggest that the infrastructure and labor required to take tickets costs more than it generates and that advertising on the trains and a stops, as well as perhaps creating mixed use for the storage barn, is a more cost effective way of supporting operations. As far as usefulness is concerned, if one regards the streetcar as Oklahoma City's only mass transit, then yes, its usefulness can be called into question. It is really meant to be only one part of a broader mass transit system that people who are pro-transit hope to implement over time. A more effective bus system and commuter rail have to be part of the picture, as no 5 to 6 mile transit option can stand alone. Most of the people who are actively pro-streetcar are also pro-transit as a whole and understand that we all need to work together to create a better system for the entire city and for the people who live here, regardless of their socioeconomic status. But, it will take time and effort. I encourage anyone who is interested to plan to devote the time and effort to help with this endeavor over the next ten years or so.


We are just getting started and property values have increased dramatically. It will continue to get less affordable over time.

As happens in most larger cities. Care to guess what it costs to live in Manhattan, on the average? Or downtown San Francisco? No one is guaranteed that they can live in a particular part of a city. We all live in the part of the city that appeals to us the most that is in our price range. I would like to have one of the City Place apartments, but I cannot afford one. Even more, I would like to have a brownstone in New York City, but I really can't afford one of those. Is that unfair? It depends on your worldview. A wise person said something to me that at first listen sounded elitist. Over time, I realized there was a lot of value in understanding what he said. "Everyone pays for everything. Those who have the money to pay, pay with money. Those without money pay with time." "Our time is valuable" and "wasting my valuable time" are interesting sayings, because with our time we work for the money that buys what we want. Many people who make more money than others gave up a lot of their time (and frequently money) to get the training that allows them to make more money. If you don't want to spend the time to get training that allows you to make more money, or you don't want to work at all, then your time is the currency you use to pay. If something costs more than your time is worth, you don't or can't buy it. Living downtown saves time. It allows easy access to desirable activities. So, it's not surprising that people who have a lot of money and/or work downtown like living nearby. That may well happen here as well. But, short of redistributing wealth, I'm not sure that can be changed.


Not my intent to enter a long winded discussion about it, there's a thread for that, but there was at least one study that said the masses would have been best served if it were extended east. That wouldn't do, east side isn't in the mix of Urban property value escalation. Either way the point is, masstrans serves the masses when it extends to where the masses are, which isn't downtown.

Again, this would be a valid argument if the streetcar were our only mass trans. Also, one of the secondary uses of a streetcar is to change thinking about cars. The more people who ride mass transit, the better the quality of life in the city for everyone. The more people who ride mass transit, the more they are willing to spend money to improve the system. One of the benefits of a streetcar is that it has the ability to change people's thinking about mass transit. It's got more cachet than a bus and there will be a lot of people willing to ride the streetcar who right now wouldn't be caught dead on a bus. As I've often said, most people in OKC think buses are for people not fortunate enough to have a car. But, if people get on some system of mass transit and realize how convenient it is, how nice it is not to have to search for and pay for parking, their thinking may well change. We need a lot of people (voters) in this city to think they personally need improved mass transit, because it's quite obvious they aren't willing to pay for much for those who cannot afford to pay for themselves.

While many people eventually may not be able to afford to live downtown, as people who live farther away move in towards the city, the housing they leave behind farther out will become more affordable and you will see movements in where people on particular incomes live. If people with less money live farther out, then having a great transit system is even more imperative. Emphasis on the word "system". However, I still will argue that our downtown provides entertainment for everyone. Go to Bricktown, to the Harkins Theatre, to the Myriad Gardens or a Thunder game and you will see people of every socioeconomic class enjoying what the city offers. That's what is so great about our downtown: it really is accessible to everyone and will continue to be so. We're making it easier to get to the river from Bricktown, we will soon have a great new free central park. I think for years to come downtown will be a leisure time destination for everyone.

While the east side may have more people willing to use it, the city went several decades not been built in a way we have enough massed residential for mass transit (especially rail) in any direction away from downtown.

That underscores my point about the trolley. We can't support mass trans for the masses (which is really what the voters voted for IMO). But we did vote for it and it is going to built. It will serve some downtown dwellers and tourists and primarily add to the disneyfied Urban feeling than actually serve the grander purpose of moving the masses.


Maybe that's fine.

That's what a lot of maps has done and that's why we did many of those projects, entertainment. It's a lot cheaper to go to downtown OKC, ride the trolley ride, ride the canal boat ride, buy some cotton candy or some Pitznickle candy than it is to go spend a similar weekend in Chicago, New York or the actual Disneyland.

As far as affluence goes, I don't have a problem with people having money or living downtown. I'm not part of the 1% but have plenty of money and can afford to live just about anywhere I want, including downtown. Rich people have to live somewhere. If I worked there I would want to live there. I don't and I don't.

To underscore what I said and to bring back the literature referenced, this all comes at a price and does not stand up to the social and political claims some make that our great new Urbanism is going to save all of us from the evils of suburbia or that if only we didn't have suburbia to drag down the urban life we could have urban life the way we want it.

We've encouraged "revitalizing" downtown. That means gentrification and all that comes with it, including disnification of our downtown and Urbanista snobs unfortunately.

Again, this would be a valid argument if the streetcar were our only mass trans. Also, one of the secondary uses of a streetcar is to change thinking about cars. The more people who ride mass transit, the better the quality of life in the city for everyone. The more people who ride mass transit, the more they are willing to spend money to improve the system. One of the benefits of a streetcar is that it has the ability to change people's thinking about mass transit. It's got more cachet than a bus and there will be a lot of people willing to ride the streetcar who right now wouldn't be caught dead on a bus. As I've often said, most people in OKC think buses are for people not fortunate enough to have a car. But, if people get on some system of mass transit and realize how convenient it is, how nice it is not to have to search for and pay for parking, their thinking may well change. We need a lot of people (voters) in this city to think they personally need improved mass transit, because it's quite obvious they aren't willing to pay for much for those who cannot afford to pay for themselves.


This is a fantastic point. The majority of people in this city (not people who post on OKCTalk, and not the people we yammer at incessantly in our personal lives) don't think about mass transit at all. If you asked my parents about mass transit in Oklahoma City they would stare at you blankly. "Why would we want that?" Most people have very little interest in it. After all, they have cars. But a streetcar? That sounds kind of cool. It will be a Disneyland ride to people at first, they will get on it just to get on it. But if it is designed properly, people will notice how useful it is. After some time to adjust to the idea, people may be much more willing to consider funding light rail.

We are taking baby steps here.

mkjeeves, it would be interesting to hear your solutions to the problems that are trying to be solved. Would you like to share them?