View Full Version : Norman set for new job growth, development



ou48A
04-28-2013, 05:09 PM
These are the types of jobs and activity’s that I have long wanted Norman to go after.

“OU broke ground on the university’s new Radar Innovations Lab late last year. The lab will be the latest addition to OU’s Research Campus.”

I really like what John Woods said here…”We want to keep that intellectual property in Norman”
IMHO these are the jobs that keep high end OU graduates in our area and slow Oklahoma’s brain drain.
Further developing our intellectual property’s locally is where the best jobs, wealth, and prosperity will come from to keep us globally competitive. For the best benefit to our state and to the students who attend OU we should develop connectivity with OU at every opportunity.
Hopefully OU/ Norman can land the new GE energy center too.

Norman set for new job growth, development | News OK (http://newsok.com/norman-set-for-new-job-growth-development/article/3804125)
Published: April 28, 2013
NORMAN — City officials hope new parks, retail and residential development along with skilled job growth will help Norman hang on to University of Oklahoma alumni after graduation. “We want to keep that intellectual property in Norman,” John Woods said, president and CEO of the Norman Chamber of Commerce.

zookeeper
04-28-2013, 07:25 PM
Good article. Any more word on the GE research lab? Is Norman still a possibility?

soonerfan_in_okc
04-28-2013, 10:41 PM
D-Bo for mayor

ou48A
04-29-2013, 08:05 AM
D-Bo for mayor

For the benefit of all
Who is D-Bo?
Thanks

kevinpate
04-29-2013, 01:20 PM
My guess is D-Bo is a somewhat youthful reference to King David aka Gran Master Davey B aka President David Boren.

ou48A
04-29-2013, 01:43 PM
My guess is D-Bo is a somewhat youthful reference to King David aka Gran Master Davey B aka President David Boren.
That’s probably correct. But that will never happen.

adaniel
04-29-2013, 05:23 PM
You all will have to forgive me for being a little skeptical. As a former Normanite, I've just heard this song and dance a little too much. "Oh, we are really ramping up our economic development. We are serious this time!"

I would love to be wrong though. Just not sure of the current leadership in Norman can get it done. A lot of towns will kill for the fraction of human capital, low COL, and the access to a major city that Norman has.

SOONER8693
04-29-2013, 05:51 PM
You all will have to forgive me for being a little skeptical. As a former Normanite, I've just heard this song and dance a little too much. "Oh, we are really ramping up our economic development. We are serious this time!"

I would love to be wrong though. Just not sure of the current leadership in Norman can get it done. A lot of towns will kill for the fraction of human capital, low COL, and the access to a major city that Norman has.
I'm skeptical too. With all that Norman has going for it, it could easily be a city twice it's size in a short amount of time.

kevinpate
04-29-2013, 06:51 PM
Thing is .... a whole lot of folks have no interest in seeing Norman become 2X its current size, and even many of the folk what do aren't all that interested in it happening at a fast pace.

SOONER8693
04-29-2013, 07:00 PM
Thing is .... a whole lot of folks have no interest in seeing Norman become 2X its current size, and even many of the folk what do aren't all that interested in it happening at a fast pace.
Very true.

venture
04-29-2013, 07:36 PM
Thing is .... a whole lot of folks have no interest in seeing Norman become 2X its current size, and even many of the folk what do aren't all that interested in it happening at a fast pace.

I kinda shudder at Norman having 230,000 residents. At least if it done with the current pattern. The vast majority of those new residents are likely going to suburbanites that are more interested in Norman being a bedroom community than anything. So that means more development like what you see North of Robinson. It's only going to be a couple more years before houses completely connect Moore and Norman.

We need more redevelopment in the core and the city needs to get this high density debate finished. Focus it around downtown. Encourage people to buy and improve existing properties instead of building the cookie cutter $300k McMansions. Revitalized neighborhoods east of Porter and downtown are going to do more for the culture of Norman than some someone up on the NW end of town that is more liable to go to Moore or OKC instead of further into Norman.

In addition to different housing patterns I think we really need to get serious about corporate development. I've seen cities with barely over 20,000 residents but contain some of the largest corporate business parks/communities I've ever seen. Its not completely impossible to reverse the traffic flow in large metro areas where you start to have people driving from the largest city to the smaller one for people to work.

kevinpate
04-29-2013, 07:55 PM
Norman already has a fair amount of traffic that goes against the flow, in part because of numerous govt. jobs based here. When I was with a state agency, we had folk from OKC, Wellston, Guthrie area, Chickasha, Moore and some from points south as well as Norman folk of course, and we were not all that large an agency. My nderstanding is other agencies and private sector employment sees these patterns as well.

ou48A
04-29-2013, 08:31 PM
Norman already has a fair amount of traffic that goes against the flow, in part because of numerous govt. jobs based here. When I was with a state agency, we had folk from OKC, Wellston, Guthrie area, Chickasha, Moore and some from points south as well as Norman folk of course, and we were not all that large an agency. My nderstanding is other agencies and private sector employment sees these patterns as well.

What you say about folks commuting to Norman for work is more true than most people realize.
I have personally seen many dozens of examples.

ou48A
04-29-2013, 08:35 PM
Increasingly corporations and many of their high end jobs along with appropriate Gov. agencies are going to be located in very close proximity to high levels of intellectual capital. OU/ Norman is a largely untapped example that will eventually be taken advantage of rather anyone wants it or not.

As a result the growth of Norman will continue, rather anyone likes it or not. In time Norman will eventually double in population, rather it’s wanted or not…. Better planning than we have seen in the past from city and state leaders is required, rather they like it or not.
The huge untapped intellectual capital of OU/ Norman is one of the biggest reasons why I moved to Norman in 1996.

vaflyer
04-30-2013, 08:58 AM
I kinda shudder at Norman having 230,000 residents. At least if it done with the current pattern. The vast majority of those new residents are likely going to suburbanites that are more interested in Norman being a bedroom community than anything. So that means more development like what you see North of Robinson. It's only going to be a couple more years before houses completely connect Moore and Norman.

We need more redevelopment in the core and the city needs to get this high density debate finished. Focus it around downtown. Encourage people to buy and improve existing properties instead of building the cookie cutter $300k McMansions. Revitalized neighborhoods east of Porter and downtown are going to do more for the culture of Norman than some someone up on the NW end of town that is more liable to go to Moore or OKC instead of further into Norman.

Why can't Norman do both urban development (for the 20 somethings) and suburban development (for the 30 and 40 somethings)? I hear all of the time on this blog that we should encourage urban development but discourage suburban development. To do so would shut out a large segment of the market. So who moves to the suburbs and why? Usually, they are families with young kids. They move to the suburbs for the good public schools and for space for their kids to run around with other kids in a safe environment. Suburban neighborhoods provide this environment in an affordable way. High density living is just not the environment that I, and many others, want to raise their kids in. Plus, many 30 and 40 somethings do not place any value in being with in walking distance to a pub that they can crawl home from it on Friday night (that is usually not a priority for many parents). Now I understand why someone in their 20s would want to live in an urban environment and I believe Norman should try to accommodate it. But those 20 somethings will become 30s with young families in no time, and then many will want to move to the suburbs. All I am saying is lets do both!

Plutonic Panda
04-30-2013, 09:15 AM
Why can't Norman do both urban development (for the 20 somethings) and suburban development (for the 30 and 40 somethings)? I hear all of the time on this blog that we should encourage urban development but discourage suburban development. To do so would shut out a large segment of the market. So who moves to the suburbs and why? Usually, they are families with young kids. They move to the suburbs for the good public schools and for space for their kids to run around with other kids in a safe environment. Suburban neighborhoods provide this environment in an affordable way. High density living is just not the environment that I, and many others, want to raise their kids in. Plus, many 30 and 40 somethings do not place any value in being with in walking distance to a pub that they can crawl home from it on Friday night (that is usually not a priority for many parents). Now I understand why someone in their 20s would want to live in an urban environment and I believe Norman should try to accommodate it. But those 20 somethings will become 30s with young families in no time, and then many will want to move to the suburbs. All I am saying is lets do both!+1

ou48A
04-30-2013, 09:25 AM
+1+2

venture
04-30-2013, 09:33 AM
Why can't Norman do both urban development (for the 20 somethings) and suburban development (for the 30 and 40 somethings)? I hear all of the time on this blog that we should encourage urban development but discourage suburban development. To do so would shut out a large segment of the market. So who moves to the suburbs and why? Usually, they are families with young kids. They move to the suburbs for the good public schools and for space for their kids to run around with other kids in a safe environment. Suburban neighborhoods provide this environment in an affordable way. High density living is just not the environment that I, and many others, want to raise their kids in. Plus, many 30 and 40 somethings do not place any value in being with in walking distance to a pub that they can crawl home from it on Friday night (that is usually not a priority for many parents). Now I understand why someone in their 20s would want to live in an urban environment and I believe Norman should try to accommodate it. But those 20 somethings will become 30s with young families in no time, and then many will want to move to the suburbs. All I am saying is lets do both!

Oh I don't disagree with the value behind a more suburban setting. I can't say much on that because I'm a 30-something living in a suburban-type neighborhood (though have no desire to do the whole kid thing). However, I'm not more than a mile from the core of the city. What I'm pointing out is the important to also continue to have redevelopment and infill in the core. Go east of Porter on any of the east/west roads in Central Norman and you'll see the type of neighborhoods I'm talking about that need some TLC. A ton of homes in the $30s-50s that could be purchased and redone. Either as a refurbishment or a complete tear down and buildout of a new house.

I just don't want us to get in the mode of every new development has to be on the fringes of the city and ignore the core of Norman.

Video Expert
05-02-2013, 05:10 PM
+2

+3

Mississippi Blues
05-02-2013, 10:32 PM
+3

+4

Plutonic Panda
05-03-2013, 10:13 AM
lol

ou48A
05-03-2013, 10:34 AM
+4

+5

Oh, wait minute?






Woops

BG918
05-03-2013, 10:58 AM
Venture, I'd say that infill is already very popular in Norman in certain neighborhoods near OU. And that demand is reflected in the higher housing prices. I agree there are several neighborhoods in east-central Norman that are ripe for redevelopment, and some areas will need to see increased density. These are areas that could (will) eventually be the last stops on the commuter rail from downtown OKC, and likely would be in downtown and just east of campus. Downtown naturally favors higher density especially along the tracks and along Jenkins. Another area is the east campus bordered by Jenkins, Boyd, Brooks and the tracks.

These should be high density areas within Norman, as well as the areas south of the dorms and areas around Campus Corner. Single family home or townhouse redevelopment should happen in other central neighborhoods where prices are much lower i.e. east of Porter downtown and south of Brooks/east of Classen/north of Lindsey.

venture
05-03-2013, 12:18 PM
Venture, I'd say that infill is already very popular in Norman in certain neighborhoods near OU. And that demand is reflected in the higher housing prices. I agree there are several neighborhoods in east-central Norman that are ripe for redevelopment, and some areas will need to see increased density. These are areas that could (will) eventually be the last stops on the commuter rail from downtown OKC, and likely would be in downtown and just east of campus. Downtown naturally favors higher density especially along the tracks and along Jenkins. Another area is the east campus bordered by Jenkins, Boyd, Brooks and the tracks.

These should be high density areas within Norman, as well as the areas south of the dorms and areas around Campus Corner. Single family home or townhouse redevelopment should happen in other central neighborhoods where prices are much lower i.e. east of Porter downtown and south of Brooks/east of Classen/north of Lindsey.

Yeah exactly what I was thinking. If we can keep it balanced that these old neighborhoods get some new life then we should be in good shape. My biggest fear is we start to see a donut development with the older areas decline rapidly while everyone keeps sprawling out. Perhaps part of that solution is require lots outside of a certain perimeter must have at least 5 acres of land with them.

The city of course needs to get off their butt and finish up the high density discussions too though. Get areas in/near Downtown and in appropriate areas around campus zoned to permit it.

BG918
05-07-2013, 12:26 PM
The city of course needs to get off their butt and finish up the high density discussions too though. Get areas in/near Downtown and in appropriate areas around campus zoned to permit it.

Agree and I worry this isn't as high a priority as it should be for city officials. The tracks are key in Norman and is where the higher density needs to be, which also happens to be next to the existing higher density areas like OU, Campus Corner and downtown. Outside of downtown OKC I think Norman has the best potential for TOD if planned correctly.

ou48A
05-07-2013, 12:56 PM
Somthing hindering high density development near OU is available private land.
If you want to build multi story apartments or condos within a few blocks of campus something would probably need to be torn down.
I have always thought there would be a demand for high end condos near OU that were not right next to the RR tracks.