Wow, this is a report I know you'll be interested in:


Downtown Oklahoma City—already a revitalization success story with capital


investments of nearly $1.5 billion since 1998—is now poised for sustained


increases in downtown housing, according to a study conducted by CDS


Market Research | Spillette Consulting of Houston.


The study, commissioned by a coalition of city organizations, indicates that the


growth in downtown housing could range between 2,250 and 4,250 units in


the next five years. During the next 10 years, the total combined growth of


rental and for-sale housing in downtown could climb to between 4,000 and


7,750 units.


“Achieving this type of residential growth could have an amazing impact for


downtown Oklahoma City,” said Dave Lopez, president of Downtown OKC, Inc.,


the coordinating sponsor of the study. “Evidence that there is such a strong


desire by so many to live downtown is very positive. But this growth is not


guaranteed and getting there will require more of the public-private


partnership that revitalized downtown in recent years.”

More here:

http://www.downtownokc.com/whatsup.php

Demonstrates the strong need/demand for downtown housing but also says most that would be interested want to pay no more than $160K for a condo/townhouse.


Yet, all the recent projects approved by OCURA are much more expensive, with the majority of the units in the high 200's and low 300's.


I'm a bit of a broken record on this topic but developers without proper parameters will generally propose high-end units because they offer big profit margins. However, building luxury townhomes for executives and doctors is not the way to bring life and vitality to downtown, especially when you are trying to build momentum and establish a strong track record to entice more development and residents.


OCURA could easily set criteria that requires any new development to have a certain percentage of more afforable units, but instead when selecting a developer for the The Hill, their Chair (Stanton Young) went out of his way to endorse and ultimately select the plan that had the most expensive units -- specifically for that reason!


Development of the urban cores of other cities has shown that you first need young, adventurous types to be urban pioneers. I fail to see what a bunch of rich doctors living in very expensive townhomes will add to the area.

Well said, malibu! I would LOVE to live downtown, but by no means can I afford a $200 - 300K townhome. It's really a bummer. :(

With the new housing market study now out, there is a lot of discussion about the report and some comments like yours daisy and Malibu's, but how about stating more spicificlly what you would be looking for in an urban residence. As examples:

A 1200 sq. ft. two bedroom one and 1/2 bath second floor condo with a small balcony in a three or four story building with one inside secure parking spot within eight blocks of Hudson and Main for $150,000.00

An 800 sq. ft. studio apartment with an open floor plan and views of downtown, wood or concrete floors, one bath and a nice kitchen, low or mid-rise building. On street parking is OK but would prefer inside. $95K tops.

1700 sq. ft. row house or patio home within one mile of downtown, two or three bedrooms, two baths, two car attached garage. Small yard. Up to $175,000.

As a developer, it would be very interesting to hear what bloggers would be looking for in urban housing.

Here's what I'd be looking for (and I'm 45 BTW, not necessarily in the age group that I think is so important to attract):

1. A view of the skyline -- the very essence of urban living.
2. Places that I could walk to that I would want to frequent more than once in a while, such as a coffee shop, family-run restaurants, a deli/bakery, and a small grocery store.
3. Access to recreation, like the trails on the OK River.
4. Private, covered parking but not necessarily a private garage.
5. Private outdoor space, such as a roof-top deck or large balcony.
6. 1 bedroom, 1 3/4 baths would be enough if the living areas were large and open. 1,200 square feet would be plenty.
7. Architecture and design elements that are not commonly found in most developments, such as industrial finishes (stained concrete, exposed brick, stainless steel) and high, open ceilings. Perhaps retractable overhead doors to outdoor space... Spiral staircases up to your deck, etc.


Most of what I listed is not available elsewhere in OKC and therein lies the opportunity IMO.

I noticed on the skyscraper messageboard that someone linked in another thread that supposedly Tannenbaum plans to tear down the old downtown library and build a residential high-rise. Is this true?

Malibu and Downtown Guy,

Both excellent posts. The thing that concerns me most about what I read of the downtown housing report, as reported in the Oklahoman, is that OCURA will draw the wrong conclusions from the info.

For example, the report suggested that not many OKC residents would pay more than $200k+ for a unit in downtown. True, that seems logical given our median housing prices.
That being said, that DOES NOT mean that only rental units will work in downtown.

As someone who has lived in downtown OKC for more than 10 years now, I will say unequivocally that there is a tremendous desire to invest in for-sale units down here. The advantages for downtown of having owner-residents as opposed to strictly rental tenants are enormous and apparent to anyone who understands urban planning. But just because the study found that OKC residents aren't that jazzed about paying the same amount for a condo as they would a small mansion in Heritage Hills, DOES NOT mean that only rental units will work.

The article I read suggested that 8 or 9 out of every 10 new downtown units will be rental property. Is that truly the case?

I unfortunately do NOT trust our leaders, particularly OCURA, or our business leaders (read: suburban subdivision developers) to make the right decisions for our city. Hell, these people have no clue how a real city is run, let alone what makes it great.