This involves too many different aspects to add to any one thread.

Downtown street improvements receive Oklahoma City Council approval | News OK (http://newsok.com/downtown-street-improvements-receive-oklahoma-city-council-approval/article/3759390)

$750,000 for sprucing up Bricktown.

"Sprucing up" is a strange descriptive term for an allocation of funds.

Wonder what those Bricktown improvements really are?

maybe $750,000 dollars for spruce trees. Would make Bricktown rival the Sandridge forest.

Spruce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spruce)

Wonder what those Bricktown improvements really are?

Steve made the comment 'some rides are coming to Bricktown' in one of his chats. I remember when someone had proposed a giant merry-go-round a few years back......makes me wonder if something like this may happen ?

I saw that comment from Steve and thought it was strange. My first thought was the 'rides' in the Boathouse District, but maybe he meant something like cars or motorcycles. Maybe someone want to open a business renting/selling these around the core.

http://www.scootcoupe.com/

Steve made the comment 'some rides are coming to Bricktown' in one of his chats. I remember when someone had proposed a giant merry-go-round a few years back......makes me wonder if something like this may happen ?

Maybe some rides are coming to Bricktown, but I doubt that's what the sprucing up is about. Probably means some outdoor planters and benches added along some streets. Maybe some paint touch-ups here and there. Possibly a few more strategically placed public trash cans. Possibly a few trees planted in some available spots. Maybe a few more informational signs. Etc, etc. -- stuff like that.

Steve made the comment 'some rides are coming to Bricktown' in one of his chats. I remember when someone had proposed a giant merry-go-round a few years back......makes me wonder if something like this may happen ?

Oh man, I hope not. 'Sprucing up' is a term I would used to describe throwing some paint on something, not improvemnts to a major downtown district. I hope whatever is done is a quality improvement.

$750,000 for sprucing up Bricktown.

"Sprucing up" is a strange descriptive term for an allocation of funds.

A little paint here, a planter there and over yonder a ways, some signage, some striping and pretty soon you're back asking for another quarter mil because you dinna quite get r done.

A little paint here, a planter there and over yonder a ways, some signage, some striping and pretty soon you're back asking for another quarter mil because you dinna quite get r done.

Nah, they'll need another quarter mil for the third party consultant they hire to tell them what needs to be "spruced", which they will of course ignore.

Seriously, though, 750k really just sounds like a bunch of patch work, which is fine. You gotta constantly take care of it or entropy takes hold.

Entropy? That is a thermodynamics term for a heat movement algorithm. Do you mean atrophy?

Entropy can generally be simplified as the transition from order to disorder which is the foundation for the direction of time. In other words, given enough time everything will decay to an unusable state. It takes constant maintenance to counter-act entropy (which is why suburban sprawl tends to become a rolling ghetto as 'new' places are built and funding shifts) or in the case of uban cores - revolution, in which order is restored to a previously disordered system.

Entropy (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/entrop.html)

Interesting take on applying the definition. However, I see what you are saying. In the Bricktown case, it seems more like disrepair is the issue rather than disorder evolving from order. Degrading is different than disorder. Bricktown, or any entertainment first district needs to keep evolving and being fresh. Otherwise, people tend to go to the newer, fresher, more exciting entertainment areas. One would hope the BT merchants and owners would fill this requirement rather than to go back to the public till.

Revolution doesn't come free. However, with funding coming from a TIF district which is by defenition tax money collected from within the district then you might says they are directly supporting themselves. There is an idea within the new urbanist community that thinks tax revenue should be shared across the entire metro area. The theory is that Moore would be less inclined to approve large shopping centers if they didn't have a preceived financial advantage to do so (a WalMart in Moore would produce no more tax revenue for Moore than if the WalMart was built in Edmond). I think the exact opposite approach is better - keep all tax revenue local (and by local I mean at the neighborhood level). OKC should contain 100 TIF districts which would stop sprawl dead in its tracks because each neighborhood would have to be self-supporting and the ones that are best at it would receive the most benefit. Good quality cost-effective development would prevail and substandard wasteful development would die.

3396

3396

lol :congrats:

$750 K probably won't go very far, but we could use that money to take care of some of the "Entropy" on our road in far NE Okc.

3396

Hah! That's great.

To borrow a line from Donny and Marie: the one on the left is a little bit country, and the one on the right is a little bit rock-n-roll.
:)

$750 K probably won't go very far, but we could use that money to take care of some of the "Entropy" on our road in far NE Okc.

It probably would do less in that respect. Especially when you factor in the density and per capita use.

Do you mean atrophy?

No. But that probably would have been clearer. :)

$750 K probably won't go very far, but we could use that money to take care of some of the "Entropy" on our road in far NE Okc.

How far east? Are you within city limits? And have you checked to see if it's scheduled to be improved with funds from the 2008 Bond issue? Those bonds are being sold as far out as 2017, I think. If you are within the city limits and your road is not scheduled for improvements, you might speak with your city councilman.

atrophy? Isn't that what you get when you win a contest? :Smiley259

Yes, a contest for who can sit still the longest.

So if I'm reading this correctly, city funding for the Century Center renovation will run just north of $6.5 million?

So if I'm reading this correctly, city funding for the Century Center renovation will run just north of $6.5 million?

Thats what Im thinking. Before it was just $1.5mil to OPUBCO to move. Now its several million more for building and parking improvements. All for a company that is already located in OKC and is no threat to move out of town. This has me scratching my head.

So if I'm reading this correctly, city funding for the Century Center renovation will run just north of $6.5 million?

I see it at 4.4 million, unless i'm missing something...?

There is a breakout (kind of) over in the Century Center thread, I believe post # 327.

It probably would do less in that respect. Especially when you factor in the density and per capita use.

It is in Oklahoma City. I know it wasn't part of the original proposals, and I don't think it is scheduled for resurfacing anytime soon. But I am trying to find out.

Actually, one side of the road is Oklahoma City, and the other side is Edmond.

Wonder what those Bricktown improvements really are?

One thing I would like is to replace those cheap looking metal railings along the canal with something more substantial.

$750K... how big of a surface parking lot can you build with that? :-P

Thats what Im thinking. Before it was just $1.5mil to OPUBCO to move. Now its several million more for building and parking improvements. All for a company that is already located in OKC and is no threat to move out of town. This has me scratching my head.

the 1.5 to OPUBCO is the only "different" payment the 2.9 mil to the building owner (2.1 TIF 800k loan) is to help support the 27 mil renovation of the building and add to 2 parking decks

the 1 mil for parking (split between CC and sante FE) will only go to the parking decks that COPTA will still own

Dismantling suburban sprawl is expensive, but it is a one-time up front cost.

Urban sprawl?

Urban sprawl?

LOL - good catch. At least we know you read :)

Ah, come on man. I read, watch, and listen (when I have time). ;P lol

Ah, come on man. I read, watch, and listen (when I have time). ;P lol

I know, I just wish that could be said about everyone :).

I know, I just wish that could be said about everyone :).I know exactly what you mean. haha :)

I'm sorry ..what was that? :tongue:

Ayyyy you talkin' to me rezman? (said in a Newyorker accent) lol...

Ayyyy you talkin' to me rezman? (said in a Newyorker accent) lol...

:)

Wouldn't this type of financing be the best source to finally get a Quiet Zone? Looking at the list of projects, it really seems like a quiet zone would outpace all of them in return on investment.

Wouldn't this type of financing be the best source to finally get a Quiet Zone? Looking at the list of projects, it really seems like a quiet zone would outpace all of them in return on investment.

I agree wholeheartedly!

Here's a Gazette article that provides the background for the funding of these projects -- namely, the stellar performance of TIF 2:

Oklahoma Gazette News: TIF funds (http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-17716-all-about-tif.html)

Some movement on the quiet zone:

Funding plan approved for downtown railway quiet zone | News OK (http://newsok.com/funding-plan-approved-for-downtown-railway-quiet-zone/article/3835642)


Ward 4 Councilman Pete White cast the only “no” vote, citing concerns that surrounding property owners and developers were not contributing enough to the cost.


Mickey Clagg, a partner in MidTown Renaissance Group and leader of the private fundraising effort, presented a list of 28 contributors pledging to pay $668,700 toward the $2.9 million project.

I'll have to remember that when bonds are floated for infrastructure improvements in ward 4.

I can see why they'd want to shut down SE 23rd. It's located on the curve. You should see the amount of flashers at that crossing. They should just have a 360 degree swirling red beacon.

I can see why they'd want to shut down SE 23rd. It's located on the curve. You should see the amount of flashers at that crossing. They should just have a 360 degree swirling red beacon.

They tried to shut it down before they added the 3rd track as part of the I-40 project. It didn't get far because it was poorly presented to Planning Commission and City Council... Long story.

An interesting commentary by Steve about this subject.

Living and Working by the Tracks ? Without Investment Downtown | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2013/05/29/living-and-working-by-the-tracks-without-investment-downtown/)

As I mentioned in another thread – a large number of people are living with a world-view that is rapidly disappearing and they seem to have a hard reconciling with that despite all the evidence around them.

The 60 year experiment with suburbia is ending and it will be gone in a generation. A recent magazine article here in Jax points out that 77% of the Millennial generation wants to live in walkable urban neighborhoods. As the baby boomers themselves opt for traditional neighborhoods in their retirement years it is going to leave a lot of housing stock vacant. Throw in the fact that in the next 20 years more than 80% of all families will not have children (50% today) and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the demand for 4 bedroom houses on cul-de-sacs is going to vanish – which happens to be the largest housing inventory in suburban America.

As further proof, gasoline consumption and miles driven peaked 6 years ago and has been declining ever since – which leads to a whole other problem; who is going to pay the maintenance tab for all of the infrastructure we created that made urban sprawl possible? Or do we just let it continue to slowly decay?

Data released last week shows that the suburbs have the fastest growing population of poor and that is a trend that is only going to continue. While some will deny that is happening, we have 10,000 years of human urbanization and the vast majority of the modern world as evidence that sprawl and poverty go hand in hand. America spent vast (and I mean vast) sums of money trying to counter-act human nature and in the end – we couldn’t do it. As Steve pointed out, sprawl is nothing more than rolling ghetto.

So if Pete White thinks that not providing the housing options that current and future generation demand then he is as squirrely as the day is long.

The 60 year experiment with suburbia is ending and it will be gone in a generation. A recent magazine article here in Jax points out that 77% of the Millennial generation wants to live in walkable urban neighborhoods.



Just because a minority percent of people what something, doesn't mean they can afford it. We and they can't for the most part. Massive subsidies again? I thought you were against that.




As further proof, gasoline consumption and miles driven peaked 6 years ago and has been declining ever since – which leads to a whole other problem; who is going to pay the maintenance tab for all of the infrastructure we created that made urban sprawl possible? Or do we just let it continue to slowly decay?



There was a recession. I guess you forgot. Correlation does not equal causation, and you haven't even really established correlation.




Data released last week shows that the suburbs have the fastest growing population of poor and that is a trend that is only going to continue. While some will deny that is happening, we have 10,000 years of human urbanization and the vast majority of the modern world as evidence that sprawl and poverty go hand in hand. America spent vast (and I mean vast) sums of money trying to counter-act human nature and in the end – we couldn’t do it. As Steve pointed out, sprawl is nothing more than rolling ghetto.


Yep. Much of the movement to downtown is our generations version of "white flight" only it's not race, it's class. Move or drive the poor out and vilify them. In some world views, if that all gets done before the End of World, I guess they would go ahead and wall the downtown with their horde of gold and guns creating a city state, cut off whatever resources they control and let the poor they have pushed out fight it out.

The fastest way we can kill the maps brand and downtown subsidy is to continue to try to co-opt it into a war on the burbs, AKA 90% of the working, taxpaying and most importantly, voting citizens of the city.

I think it's time I reconnected with my councilman again and remind him who he represents.

mkjeeves - I am going to put you down in the Pete White camp. Good luck with that. The rest of us are moving on.

You and others of you who are in a small (yet vocal) minority can do whatever you want. You don't even live here so good luck with getting representation on the council.

You and others of you who are in a small (yet vocal) minority can do whatever you want. You don't even live here so good luck with getting representation on the council.

By "The rest of us are moving on" I meant the rest of American society.

The fastest way we can kill the maps brand and downtown subsidy is to continue to try to co-opt it into a war on the burbs, AKA 90% of the working, taxpaying and most importantly, voting citizens of the city.

That's exactly what Mr. White is doing. In fact, it's much broader than that. He is essentially saying that the city should not spend money on safety and infrastructure improvements unless nearby businesses and residents privately contribute "enough" to the projects. I can only guess what his idea of "nearby" or "enough" is, but in this case we know that 28 entities are contributing almost a quarter of the initial cost (23.7%), so I can only assume it's not enough unless it's much greater than that.

Does this mean he will vote against infrastructure improvements for Ward 4 in the future unless private investment in those projects totals significantly more than the amount pledged here? I know for a fact that many, many people have voted for and paid for infrastructure projects within this 600 square mile city that they will rarely, if ever, use. I don't remember a big push for matching private investment contributions for the last round of bond issues that benefited a lot of the more rural areas of the city. It seems some people think that MAPS is the only public investment this city does and are using its historical focus on the core to manufacture this "war on the burbs" idea.

The reality is that there is just no other area of the city that creates a better return on public investment than downtown. It's central location and current infrastructure make it more accessible for a greater number of residents than any other part of the city. It's simply a utilitarian conclusion to spend money on downtown, where the greatest benefit for the greatest amount of people is more likely. There is no doubt that a $2.9 million dollar investment in ward 4 would affect far less people and generate a far less immediate return than the same investment downtown, unless it was an investment necessary to sustain Tinker Air Force base (which has happened).

It's sad that this "what about me" backlash is creeping into our city politics. Investment in downtown is a sign people all over the municipality are thinking of the city as a singular entity. It has cultivated a sense of community I have never seen in this city. Mr. White's movement reflects a desire to fragment the town in order to compete for resources and spread them out as thin as possible. It's simply an inefficient model that seems equally motivated by a desire to undo the growing sense of collective community in the city and by simple power grab politics by some wanting to make sure that benefits of public investment are more limited to their specific interests or geographic focus.

The reality is that there is just no other area of the city that creates a better return on public investment than downtown. It's central location and current infrastructure make it more accessible for a greater number of residents than any other part of the city. It's simply a utilitarian conclusion to spend money on downtown, where the greatest benefit for the greatest amount of people is more likely. There is no doubt that a $2.9 million dollar investment in ward 4 would affect far less people and generate a far less immediate return than the same investment downtown, unless it was an investment necessary to sustain Tinker Air Force base (which has happened).

It's sad that this "what about me" backlash is creeping into our city politics. Investment in downtown is a sign people all over the municipality are thinking of the city as a singular entity. It has cultivated a sense of community I have never seen in this city. Mr. White's movement reflects a desire to fragment the town in order to compete for resources and spread them out as thin as possible. It's simply an inefficient model that seems equally motivated by a desire to undo the growing sense of collective community in the city and by simple power grab politics by some wanting to make sure that benefits of public investment are more limited to their specific interests or geographic focus.

Right as rain. Steve Lackmeyer's article: Living and Working by the Tracks ? Without Investment Downtown | OKC Central (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2013/05/29/living-and-working-by-the-tracks-without-investment-downtown/) also cited in post #49, says it too.

Investment in downtown is a sign people all over the municipality are thinking of the city as a singular entity. It has cultivated a sense of community I have never seen in this city. Mr. White's movement reflects a desire to fragment the town in order to compete for resources and spread them out as thin as possible. It's simply an inefficient model that seems equally motivated by a desire to undo the growing sense of collective community in the city and by simple power grab politics by some wanting to make sure that benefits of public investment are more limited to their specific interests or geographic focus.

That's what it started out being and what the citizens of OKC mostly support. That was the vision of Norick, build downtown to serve OKC et al. That is not the "let the suburbs rot" we keep hearing from some on this forum, repeatedly. That's what I spoke to. Not what you spoke to.

You want to kill maps and hamstring downtown subsidy. Keep it up.

That's exactly what Mr. White is doing. In fact, it's much broader than that. He is essentially saying that the city should not spend money on safety and infrastructure improvements unless nearby businesses and residents privately contribute "enough" to the projects. I can only guess what his idea of "nearby" or "enough" is, but in this case we know that 28 entities are contributing almost a quarter of the initial cost (23.7%), so I can only assume it's not enough unless it's much greater than that.

Does this mean he will vote against infrastructure improvements for Ward 4 in the future unless private investment in those projects totals significantly more than the amount pledged here? I know for a fact that many, many people have voted for and paid for infrastructure projects within this 600 square mile city that they will rarely, if ever, use. I don't remember a big push for matching private investment contributions for the last round of bond issues that benefited a lot of the more rural areas of the city. It seems some people think that MAPS is the only public investment this city does and are using its historical focus on the core to manufacture this "war on the burbs" idea.

The reality is that there is just no other area of the city that creates a better return on public investment than downtown. It's central location and current infrastructure make it more accessible for a greater number of residents than any other part of the city. It's simply a utilitarian conclusion to spend money on downtown, where the greatest benefit for the greatest amount of people is more likely. There is no doubt that a $2.9 million dollar investment in ward 4 would affect far less people and generate a far less immediate return than the same investment downtown, unless it was an investment necessary to sustain Tinker Air Force base (which has happened).

It's sad that this "what about me" backlash is creeping into our city politics. Investment in downtown is a sign people all over the municipality are thinking of the city as a singular entity. It has cultivated a sense of community I have never seen in this city. Mr. White's movement reflects a desire to fragment the town in order to compete for resources and spread them out as thin as possible. It's simply an inefficient model that seems equally motivated by a desire to undo the growing sense of collective community in the city and by simple power grab politics by some wanting to make sure that benefits of public investment are more limited to their specific interests or geographic focus.

Wonderful post, BDP. And of course, we'll never see Pete White demand that projects in his ward require the people "close enough" privately contribute "enough".

To be fair, aren't we really hearing this repeatedly only because it is being said by a couple people, many times a day?

I don't know. You guys are hanging Mr White up because he listened to his constituents that have concerns. Why do they have those concerns?

If I have to be the singular person who stands up to the regular posters on this well read forum who call for that, I can. But it's tiring when the rest of you bite your tongue or show agreement. Probably more effective if I just go ahead and make my desires and concerns directly to the councilman, the mayor and the other powers that be.

I don't know. You guys are hanging Mr White up because he listened to his constituents that have concerns. Why do they have those concerns?

They're whiny and/or selfish?

To be fair, aren't we really hearing this repeatedly only because it is being said by a couple people, many times a day?

HA. Precisely.

I don't know. You guys are hanging Mr White up because he listened to his constituents that have concerns. Why do they have those concerns?

If I have to be the singular person who stands up to the regular posters on this well read forum who call for that, I can. But it's tiring when the rest of you bite your lip. Probably more effective if I just go ahead and make my desires and concerns directly to the councilman, the mayor and the other powers that be.

Which constituents? I posted this in the Quiet Zone thread too. The population spread in Ward 4 actually leans urban, and how many of them do you think he's actually talked with instead of the far-flung people?

3769

I think some of you are overthinking this. The vote of one councilmember signifies nothing except the fact that he's an ornery old councilman.

I'm quite suprised that Griener didn't oppose this. Isn't he the champion of the taxpayer? Or maybe he is smart enough to recogize good policy?