Something I've tried to to a bit of research on is the projected expansion and population increase of not only Oklahoma City, but the metro area in general in the coming decades. I read something by Steve Lackmeyer where he said that in 20 years he sees the gaps between OKC and Yukon, and El Reno being filled in as the metro continues to expand. I was wondering if anyone had seen any population or growth projections for the city. On a related note, considering that El Reno is fairly close to Oklahoma City, I'm surprised it's growth hasn't picked up much. I know it's got a lot of beautification to do, but it would still be an appealing city to live in for some who don't want to live in the inner part of the metro.

Something I've tried to to a bit of research on is the projected expansion and population increase of not only Oklahoma City, but the metro area in general in the coming decades. I read something by Steve Lackmeyer where he said that in 20 years he sees the gaps between OKC and Yukon, and El Reno being filled in as the metro continues to expand. I was wondering if anyone had seen any population or growth projections for the city. On a related note, considering that El Reno is fairly close to Oklahoma City, I'm surprised it's growth hasn't picked up much. I know it's got a lot of beautification to do, but it would still be an appealing city to live in for some who don't want to live in the inner part of the metro.

Suburban expansion largely depends on school district. Right now, there really isn't a lot of incentive to live out in El Reno if you work in OKC when you can get into good suburban schools closer in. Personally I think sprawl will continue north and south and not so much out west. The OKC metro area is already extremely sprawled for its size and I would like to see more infill prior to expanding further outward.

Suburban expansion largely depends on school district. Right now, there really isn't a lot of incentive to live out in El Reno if you work in OKC when you can get into good suburban schools closer in. Personally I think sprawl will continue north and south and not so much out west. The OKC metro area is already extremely sprawled for its size and I would like to see more infill prior to expanding further outward.

If you go back 10 or 15 years, Canadian County has been one of if not the fastest growing county in the state.

Im pretty sure Mustang/Yukon are the majority of why that is.

Im pretty sure Mustang/Yukon are the majority of why that is.

True, but if you look at the actual city boundaries, OKC dominates the county.

Something I've tried to to a bit of research on is the projected expansion and population increase of not only Oklahoma City, but the metro area in general in the coming decades. I read something by Steve Lackmeyer where he said that in 20 years he sees the gaps between OKC and Yukon, and El Reno being filled in as the metro continues to expand. I was wondering if anyone had seen any population or growth projections for the city. On a related note, considering that El Reno is fairly close to Oklahoma City, I'm surprised it's growth hasn't picked up much. I know it's got a lot of beautification to do, but it would still be an appealing city to live in for some who don't want to live in the inner part of the metro.

My wife's family lives in El Reno. She couldn't wait to get out of there. And I worked out there for several years in the late 80's -early 90's. Not much has changed. They don't call it El Ghetto for nothing.

True, but if you look at the actual city boundaries, OKC dominates the county.

I'm wondering what Edmond will look like in another 20 yrs. The east of I-35 area will most likely be built out, as fast as new subdivisions are being planned. I'm also thinking of what is going to happen with all the land that is now within the 100 yr flood plain. Would be nice if it winds up as park land.

My wife's family lives in El Reno. She couldn't wait to get out of there. And I worked out there for several years in the late 80's -early 90's. Not much has changed. They don't call it El Ghetto for nothing.

Sadly I agree. I did a lot of work in El Reno during my last job...that town is rough around the edges, to say the least and their school system is subpar compared to a lot of suburban OKC districts closer to job centers. All hope is not lost, however. I could see El Reno growing independent of the immediate OKC urbanized area. There's quite a bit of oil and gas activity out there and the Cheyenne Arapahoe Nation is headquartered there. I know the Chickasaws and Choctaws have been a huge boon for Ada and Durant respectively; C&A is not a "civilized tribe" and is limited by the BIA, but it has room to grow.

The C&A is actually HQ'd in Concho about 5 miles North of El Reno, but their tribal membership mostly resides in points further West. They also have 2 Lucky Star casinos, one in Concho and the other in Clinton across the street from their cultural center.

I'd add NE OK county to the high growth areas. Those forested and rolling hills are quickly losing their stigma and are seeing a LOT of small developments.

I'd add NE OK county to the high growth areas. Those forested and rolling hills are quickly losing their stigma and are seeing a LOT of small developments.

The north east of the county stigma? The NE corner of the county is just as far out from downtown as ElReno, it's main issues for growth rate seems to be there are closer options and sprawl tends to continue to move in the directions that started in the 40s.

The north east of the county stigma? The NE corner of the county is just as far out from downtown as ElReno, it's main issues for growth rate seems to be there are closer options and sprawl tends to continue to move in the directions that started in the 40s.

Mugofbeer may mean the stigma of being out there towards the Welston area.... dilapidated singlewides, thieves and methville. The very eastern part of Okla county and western Lincoln county has had and still has some not so savory areas.

Mugofbeer may mean the stigma of being out there towards the Welston area.... dilapidated singlewides, thieves and methville. The very eastern part of Okla county and western Lincoln county has had and still has some not so savory areas.

If we are talking about this area then yeah I tend to agree. I actually thought he was referring the Oakdale/Apple Valley area east of Frontier City for whatever reason. Simply put, it is not in the best school system, not a lot of jobs out that way, and the only way to commute to OKC is a toll road with only one or two exits. I think you'll see development pick up more in eastern Edmond before Luther and Wellston start growing in any meaningful form.


The C&A is actually HQ'd in Concho about 5 miles North of El Reno, but their tribal membership mostly resides in points further West. They also have 2 Lucky Star casinos, one in Concho and the other in Clinton across the street from their cultural center.

You are right...I think I'm getting my wires crossed with the BIA office in El Reno, which is in some random strip mall on the edge of town.

[QUOTE=adaniel;829439]If we are talking about this area then yeah I tend to agree. I actually thought he was referring the Oakdale/Apple Valley area east of Frontier City for whatever reason. Simply put, it is not in the best school system, not a lot of jobs out that way, and the only way to commute to OKC is a toll road with only one or two exits. I think you'll see development pick up more in eastern Edmond before Luther and Wellston start growing in any meaningful form.

I got you. Having lived out southeast of Arcadia, ..to me, from there to Potawatomi Road is eastern Okla County. But I see what you're saying. I guess anything east of I-35 could be considered Eastern Oklahoma County.

2014?s Fastest Growing Cities | WalletHub® (http://wallethub.com/edu/fastest-growing-cities/7010/)

Having lived in Westbury (SW 29th and Morgan Rd) area for the last 4 years, the growth in residential housing has accelerated in the last 12 months. The gaps of farmland are quickly being filled in. Castlebrook Crossing at SW 29th and Sara started on Phase III late last year and its nearly full, about 60 houses in that phase with a handful of lots left. One issue that has affected OKC in its growth trajectory I believe is the lack of homebuilders. As our growth accelerated in the late 2000's, a lot of the lending froze up cooling off the housing market. In the last 3 months now the commercial lending is finally opening up. The biggest problem right now besides crumbling roads in the WOKC/Yukon area is that retail and restaurants are virtually non-existent. As the commercial money starts to flow back into the market a lot of retail and dining options will hopefully start opening up on the west side.

Eventually all the residential development in Mustang and Yukon will spur the development of commercial areas. I'd like to see one along the routes between the two towns. We're already going to see one on the west side of Yukon along 40.

Availability of existing infrastructure, proximity to downtown OKC and existing and growing retail corridors have driven the high growth along the I-35 corridor from OKC to Moore and Norman. Increasing gridlock though will have to be addressed, even after the widening and interchange work is finished. You have the 1st and 3rd largest cities in the state basically sharing one major corridor.

My hope is that commuter rail could be seen as a viable alternative and that growth continues in the south metro but more clustered around the rail stations in Moore and especially Norman (downtown/campus area).

We live in the far NW OKC area it is growing by leaps and bounds. New subdivisions in the Deer Creek district, closely followed by more commercial development. If whoever is responsible gets off their duff and expands 74 to match Hefner Parkway, that area will probably grow even faster. Or maybe it works in the opposite direction.

I'm fascinated by all of the what I consider "new urban" thinking on this board. It seems to me that if that's what people wanted, that's what we would have. Instead, urban sprawl shows little signs of slowing down which is a good indicator that people DON'T want to live in a dense and urbanized environment.

We live in the far NW OKC area it is growing by leaps and bounds. New subdivisions in the Deer Creek district, closely followed by more commercial development. If whoever is responsible gets off their duff and expands 74 to match Hefner Parkway, that area will probably grow even faster. Or maybe it works in the opposite direction.

I'm fascinated by all of the what I consider "new urban" thinking on this board. It seems to me that if that's what people wanted, that's what we would have. Instead, urban sprawl shows little signs of slowing down which is a good indicator that people DON'T want to live in a dense and urbanized environment.well, there is growing population that wants to live in urban areas, but the sprawl does show the majority of people still want to live in the suburbs.

NW OKC is starting to resemble what Frisco did back in 2005 to me when I was there except this state is extremely slow to widen roads and build new highways and will probably wait until traffic is an absolute nightmare until anything gets. This place has no clue about staying on top of things and it's a joke.

We live in the far NW OKC area it is growing by leaps and bounds. New subdivisions in the Deer Creek district, closely followed by more commercial development. If whoever is responsible gets off their duff and expands 74 to match Hefner Parkway, that area will probably grow even faster. Or maybe it works in the opposite direction.

I'm fascinated by all of the what I consider "new urban" thinking on this board. It seems to me that if that's what people wanted, that's what we would have. Instead, urban sprawl shows little signs of slowing down which is a good indicator that people DON'T want to live in a dense and urbanized environment.

I agree with this. As PluPan pointed out, there is a growing population that wants to live in the urban core and that is a great thing. It is NOT the majority of OKC however and this city needs both the core and the suburbs to be successful. I think its way, way too early for OKC to be developing this urban vs suburban rivalry that seems to be developing. The city doesn't yet have a large enough urban population in its core and at this point if the suburbs fail, OKC fails.

Also, one only has to look at the political leanings of this board compared to the city as a whole to see that OKCTalk is definitely not a microcosm of OKC.

SOME of the Yukon/Mustang/West OKC growth may be attributable to the growth in jobs at FAA/MMAC...

I feel like now is a good time to point out the vast majority of growth in the metro in these past few years has been in Oklahoma County, and OKC itself is growing at a faster rate than the MSA as a whole.

I feel like now is a good time to point out the vast majority of growth in the metro in these past few years has been in Oklahoma County, and OKC itself is growing at a faster rate than the MSA as a whole.I'm sure a huge part of that is in NW OKC

I feel like now is a good time to point out the vast majority of growth in the metro in these past few years has been in Oklahoma County, and OKC itself is growing at a faster rate than the MSA as a whole.

I am sure you are aware of this, but much of what constitutes the "suburbs" in OKC is actually in the city limits of OKC itself. The standards that apply to most cities don't apply here. It would be interesting to compare the growth of OKC within the I-40/I-44/I-235 loop with the rest of the city limits outside of that loop.

I am sure you are aware of this, but much of what constitutes the "suburbs" in OKC is actually in the city limits of OKC itself. The standards that apply to most cities don't apply here. It would be interesting to compare the growth of OKC within the I-40/I-44/I-235 loop with the rest of the city limits outside of that loop.

Especially Dallas, where there is hardly unincorporated county land like in Houston, and you not like here because OKC's boundaries are so huge.

I usually exit Mustang by going North to hit I-40 or the Turnpike. I been driving some of the other roads recently and there is a heck of a lot of construction going on everywhere. Schools and neighborhoods. I wish some of these developments could happen with out knocking down so many old growth trees. Except the cottonwoods, hate them!

I see the widening of Mustang and Sara Roads in the near future if the growth of Mustang and Yukon continues like this. Eventually the two towns will butt up against each other.

I see the widening of Mustang and Sara Roads in the near future if the growth of Mustang and Yukon continues like this. Eventually the two towns will butt up against each other.

While Sara Road is due some improvement, Mustang is already four lanes from Mustang to Yukon and the section between i40 & Yukon was just redone a few years ago.

Yeah, you're right. I'm trying to think of the other route connecting the two towns that's two lanes.

I agree with this. As PluPan pointed out, there is a growing population that wants to live in the urban core and that is a great thing. It is NOT the majority of OKC however and this city needs both the core and the suburbs to be successful. I think its way, way too early for OKC to be developing this urban vs suburban rivalry that seems to be developing. The city doesn't yet have a large enough urban population in its core and at this point if the suburbs fail, OKC fails.

Also, one only has to look at the political leanings of this board compared to the city as a whole to see that OKCTalk is definitely not a microcosm of OKC.
But it shouldn't be a rivalry between urban and suburban, anyway. The suburbs aren't going anywhere, ESPECIALLY in OKC. Our existing suburbs CAN be made much better, though.

If it has to be _____________ vs. _____________, it should be ALL OF US vs. unchecked new sprawl at the fringe. That sprawl has a false economy, lowers the value of the existing suburbs, and requires new infrastructure and services at a geometric rate, which is in turn subsidized by the rest of us (really, anyone who already lives/shops here. There is no economy of scale at the fringe like there is in the existing city; it merely steals from the rest of the community. The "affordability" to the individual homeowner is actually borne on the backs of the rest of us, who pay in quality of life and safety.

"Urban vs. suburban" is a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue, often by BOTH urbanism advocates AND urbanism haters. As a city, we need to provide both lifestyles - and make them as excellent as possible - but we DON'T (and shouldn't) allow poorly-planned sprawl to continue to metastasize at the fringe.

Unchecked sprawl isn't going anywhere. It's not a uniquely OKC problem either. As long as there is a free market, it will continue. In the case of OKC, the problem is virtually unfixable since so much of the "suburbs" were built to minimal standards and to be disposable. Nothing short of coming in with a bulldozer and mowing over miles and miles of suburbia can fix certain areas of the city. What can be done is higher standards can be put into place for new development that gets built. High-quality development will still be attractive and valuable 20 years from now while the cheap, minimally functional development will become blighted. However, I don't see such regulations being enforced in OKC given that the city doesn't even enforce regulations in the core, and the result of that would likely be an increase in housing prices and cost of living which most people probably wouldn't accept.

In addition to all of this, I will say this once again that an urban vs suburban rivalry at this point in OKC's development cycle is a dangerous thing politically. OKC's urban core is still a small minority of the metro. Right now, its the suburbs that are subsidizing downtown.

...Right now, its the suburbs that are subsidizing downtown.
I'm not arguing that point. What I AM saying is that downtown, the inner city AND the existing suburbs are subsidizing wrongheaded growth at the fringe. It has had and will continue to have devastating consequences.

I'm not arguing that point. What I AM saying is that downtown, the inner city AND the existing suburbs are subsidizing wrongheaded growth at the fringe. It has had and will continue to have devastating consequences.

Urbanized, what is your solution for the problem? De-annexation? Higher building quality standards for new subdivisions? Tax breaks for businesses, developers, and even residents who choose the core over the suburbs and/or "sprawl taxes" on anybody who chooses to live or develop north of 63rd?

In a city on the open prairie like OKC without the land limitations of somewhere like Portland, how would you solve this problem?

Well, I'm no planner, so I certainly don't have all of the answers. First I would EMPOWER planners, which has never REALLY happened in OKC. Instead of planning our way around problems, we historically always stumble into them and then try to engineer our way out of them, generally with unintended consequences. Planners are professionally trained to solve these problems (even before they exist if only given a chance) and I'm certain there are a lot of tools in their anti-sprawl toolboxes.

Impact fees are an OK start. I would take those up to levels that actually take fully into account the anticipated impact on ALL services and infrastructure, now and future. It would likely help tip the scale for more suburban (and inner city) infill. I would consider some de annexation, but would also consider growth boundaries that clearly state that if you live beyond this line - fair warning - don't expect services at the same level as those who live in areas with more density (read: places to which it is less expensive for the City to provide services).

We have to break free of this notion that someone living many miles away from the city's center with only a few neighbors per square mile is automatically entitled to exactly the same level of ever services as someone living in town near existing services and thousands (or tens of thousands) of neighbors. Just because they (sometimes) pay as much (or even more) in taxes doesn't mitigate the fact that delivery of services costs geometrically more. I say sometimes because - thanks to our gerrymandered school districts and depending on where they shop - someone can live in the city limits of OKC and literally pay little or no taxes here.

I would DEFINITELY stop building huge, wide ribbons of concrete out into the middle of nowhere.

I would also explore Priority Development Areas (both urban and suburban), incentive zoning (carefully administered) and other incentive methods for encouraging development within the existing city.

Finally, I think the City is definitely on the right track in developing cultural amenities in the middle of the community and attempting to put the school system on even footing with suburban districts. Making the inner city that much more attractive helps reverse the centrifugal force that keeps sending people to the edges (this has already begun in fact). There should be continued effort in that regard, ESPECIALLY as far as the school system is concerned. Core neighborhoods also need to be high on the list for reinvestment.

Excellent post Urbanized.

Well, I'm no planner, so I certainly don't have all of the answers. First I would EMPOWER planners, which has never REALLY happened in OKC. Instead of planning our way around problems, we historically always stumble into them and then try to engineer our way out of them, generally with unintended consequences. Planners are professionally trained to solve these problems (even before they exist if only given a chance) and I'm certain there are a lot of tools in their anti-sprawl toolboxes.

Impact fees are an OK start. I would take those up to levels that actually take fully into account the anticipated impact on ALL services and infrastructure, now and future. It would likely help tip the scale for more suburban (and inner city) infill. I would consider some de annexation, but would also consider growth boundaries that clearly state that if you live beyond this line - fair warning - don't expect services at the same level as those who live in areas with more density (read: places to which it is less expensive for the City to provide services).

We have to break free of this notion that someone living many miles away from the city's center with only a few neighbors per square mile is automatically entitled to exactly the same level of ever services as someone living in town near existing services and thousands (or tens of thousands) of neighbors. Just because they (sometimes) pay as much (or even more) in taxes doesn't mitigate the fact that delivery of services costs geometrically more. I say sometimes because - thanks to our gerrymandered school districts and depending on where they shop - someone can live in the city limits of OKC and literally pay little or no taxes here.

I would DEFINITELY stop building huge, wide ribbons of concrete out into the middle of nowhere.

I would also explore Priority Development Areas (both urban and suburban), incentive zoning (carefully administered) and other incentive methods for encouraging development within the existing city.

Finally, I think the City is definitely on the right track in developing cultural amenities in the middle of the community and attempting to put the school system on even footing with suburban districts. Making the inner city that much more attractive helps reverse the centrifugal force that keeps sending people to the edges (this has already begun in fact). There should be continued effort in that regard, ESPECIALLY as far as the school system is concerned. Core neighborhoods also need to be high on the list for reinvestment.

Excellent post. I would add, though, that we are already seeing a dearth of affordable for-sale housing in the inner core. Most professionally employed -- and even well paid -- people cannot afford $350k to $400k for an inner city abode. Unless you want to pay high rents, there is virtually nothing else to buy in the downtown / Midtown area. Similarly, areas like Mesta, Gatewood -- and even Jefferson Park -- are seeing a shortage of available housing.

There is infill housing going in but even lots are becoming prohibitively expensive.

All of these factors spell doom to any fantasy that the inner core is going to become an attractive destination for a lot of folks. There is simply not enough available affordable housing stock to reverse or even slow this rush to the exurban fringe.

You all know how excited I am by OKC's success in redeveloping its inner city, but we are reaching a tipping point of sorts.

Frankly, we need imaginative and non-greedy developers who are willing to invest in mid-rise to high-rise condos. This would create a real alternative to the suburbs that perhaps some middle class folks could afford.

I read an article quoting a local real estate expert suggesting that "land costs" are preventing developers from building for-sale housing downtown. What? Weren't most of these large-scale developments on Urban Renewal land? Didn't we virtually deed them the land once their developments were approved?

I'm getting tired of the excuses and limited thinking of the local development community. We have much to celebrate but we need some new thinking, and like Urbanized, I agree that our neutered Planning Department should be given a bigger seat at the table. We desperately need to plan right now, even amid and perhaps because of this striking boom we are experiencing.

You can still get some good deals in inner areas for under $250K, but I otherwise agree completely with this. I was always really disappointed in the fact that in other cities that have either weaker economies or far less "ahead" in their core revitalizations you still had more housing options than you do in OKC. Gary Brooks and Marva Ellard are fantastic but the vast majority of those in development or real estate here are unimaginative and stuck in their ways. The Wheeler District could really be the first step in getting us out of this rut, but its probably going to take some out of state developer to finally get us over the hump per say.

We are going to have to build up the core bit by bit. The good news is, if you want to look at it this way, we could build downtown housing at twice the rate we've been building it, and we won't run out of room for 30 or 40 years. There's an immense amount of land downtown and downtown-adjacent.

I think what you'll see is that once Bricktown / Midtown / Auto Alley / Deep Deuce grow together and completely connect, urban development will start spreading out into previously blighted areas. If you go west of Western, just a 10 minute walk from downtown, there's a huge amount of very very very low cost homes. You don't want to live there right now, but it's available. I think in 20 years it will be unrecognizable.

I have met numerous people who live in Edmond who wanted to live downtown but could not find anything affordable. The Wheeler District and other developments like it can't come fast enough.

Why did OKC miss out on the urban housing boom in the mid '00s? Even Little Rock got a few mid-rise towers and several low-rise condo development and lofts. OKC did have a few but nothing like what cities half its size were getting. Is there any real reason or was the market here just not ready? Lower Bricktown was filling in during that time and it seems to be that would have been the perfect locale for some serious residential construction.

P.S. I in no means want this post to be taken negatively or a knock on OKC. It is a legitimate question.

One of the reasons people want the subs is that they want bigger lots. I'm one of them (I did work for the City of Edmond and am now retired) you cannot have 6 horses and 30 chickens in downtown OKC or Edmond for that mater. Some of us want to be able to be close eough to town to show but still have our animals/pets and garden. I for one don't want to have a close neighbor that has a dog. I'm allergic to them and just don't like them. So living out east of I-35 (which is now going single family housing developments was my choice. I've been here 30+yrs.

One of the reasons people want the subs is that they want bigger lots. I'm one of them (I did work for the City of Edmond and am now retired) you cannot have 6 horses and 30 chickens in downtown OKC or Edmond for that mater. Some of us want to be able to be close eough to town to show but still have our animals/pets and garden. I for one don't want to have a close neighbor that has a dog. I'm allergic to them and just don't like them. So living out east of I-35 (which is now going single family housing developments was my choice. I've been here 30+yrs.

Plus a lot of people like the idea of having a large, new home with a decent-sized yard. In the core, they would either have to live in a development such as The Edge or an older, smaller home with a smaller yard. A lot, if not most people prefer the suburban way of life.

One of the reasons people want the subs is that they want bigger lots. I'm one of them (I did work for the City of Edmond and am now retired) you cannot have 6 horses and 30 chickens in downtown OKC or Edmond for that mater. Some of us want to be able to be close eough to town to show but still have our animals/pets and garden. I for one don't want to have a close neighbor that has a dog. I'm allergic to them and just don't like them. So living out east of I-35 (which is now going single family housing developments was my choice. I've been here 30+yrs.

Most people living north of 63rd and South of Covell have no desire to have chickens horses and tons of dogs, nor do they Garden.

There is nothing wrong with having lots of space if you use it. It's incredibly wasteful and has a net negative impact to have lots of space and *not* use it. There are a lot of reasons people have maintained sprawl…need for space is not a legitimate one.

I disagree with the premise that guru posted that we're running out of building stock to buy affordable housing in the core. Look at anything between 23rd/Penn/50th/Classen…there is a ton of housing in there that just needs a bit of gentrification.

The way I see it, we're essentially entering a time where we will have sprawling gentrification mixed with a re-urbanizing in areas where that is possible. Hopefully the sprawling gentrification is met with some retrofitting of these suburban styles, especially in places where urban fabric is extant or easily developed (36th/Youngs or 37th/Penn respectively) to create areas of urbanity that can help sustain the bettering of these "inner city" neighborhoods. Essentially what Urbanized said is the key to finding equilibrium: "Priority Development Areas (both urban and suburban), incentive zoning (carefully administered) and other incentive methods for encouraging development within the existing city."

Successful Urban development OUTside of downtown is the key to a successfully developed urban city.

Go to just about any city and Europe and ask where downtown is…you'll get a blank stare. We've created a bad definition of downtown that essentially means "The most urban area of the city". While that generally holds true, we need to not wait for downtowns to become urban utopias before we work on re-urbanizing the rest of our cities, particularly the rings that were developed before the 1960s.

And perhaps more key than anything was Urbanized point that we need to actually strengthen existing suburbs.

As an example: if OKC can manage to find a way to salvage the Putnam City North area so that it can maintain/rebuild a middle to upper-middle class status rather than sinking toward lower-middle class that would be a major win for OKC. That means investing in the schools and infrastructure at Hefner/Rockwell at the expense of development on Portland and 174th.

I disagree with the premise that guru posted that we're running out of building stock to buy affordable housing in the core. Look at anything between 23rd/Penn/50th/Classen…there is a ton of housing in there that just needs a bit of gentrification.


There is plenty of housing stock in the core that still needs gentrification. Things are starting to look pretty good in the Paseo/Uptown area, but Classen Ten Penn could used quite a bit of work. I also think the area along NW 36th St from about May to Broadway has great potential. Some blocks are already gentrified and is VERY nice, some of the nicest in the city in fact, but other blocks are still dilapidated.


And perhaps more key than anything was Urbanized point that we need to actually strengthen existing suburbs.

As an example: if OKC can manage to find a way to salvage the Putnam City North area so that it can maintain/rebuild a middle to upper-middle class status rather than sinking toward lower-middle class that would be a major win for OKC. That means investing in the schools and infrastructure at Hefner/Rockwell at the expense of development on Portland and 174th.

True. There is still a lot of very nice housing in that area. There are warning signs here and there but overall it's still a good area. OKC needs to get on top of it to prevent it from going the way of the Putnam City area south of NW Expressway. It will happen in 10-15 years if nothing changes.

There is nothing wrong with having lots of space if you use it. It's incredibly wasteful and has a net negative impact to have lots of space and *not* use it. There are a lot of reasons people have maintained sprawl…need for space is not a legitimate one.

I agree, people don't need to have a reason. If they want it and can afford it, then go for it.

And perhaps more key than anything was Urbanized point that we need to actually strengthen existing suburbs.

As an example: if OKC can manage to find a way to salvage the Putnam City North area so that it can maintain/rebuild a middle to upper-middle class status rather than sinking toward lower-middle class that would be a major win for OKC. That means investing in the schools and infrastructure at Hefner/Rockwell at the expense of development on Portland and 174th.


Still finding this discussion (and more generally, this entire topic) to be fascinating. I moved to the Putnam City North area back in the late 90's when I got an apartment at Britton & McCarthur, right next to Lake Hefner. Federally subsidized housing destroyed the area in which I was living and I fled to 122nd & Rockwell and a gated condo complex and then bought a house out past NW 178th.

I had to look up the definition of "gentrification" and it turns out to be a phenomena that I'm aware of without knowing the proper term. My question would be, where do all of the lower income people go when this happens? They don't just disappear, they move somewhere else and that area likely suffers. It seems that for every area that is gentrified, another suffers for it. Is it just a cycle that goes on and on with different neighborhoods being gentrified, eventually degrading and then being gentrified again? Do the poor and non-poor just periodically (over decades) change places?

I really should get some reading material on community planning. This is really interesting stuff!

I really like the idea of "new urbanism" influenced development so long as it remains completely voluntary. I do have a problem with social engineers trying to force people, who would prefer to live in a more suburban setting, to live in urban areas.

I do have a problem with social engineers trying to force people, who would prefer to live in a more suburban setting, to live in urban areas.

When has anyone in Oklahoma ever been forced to live in an Urban setting???

When has anyone in Oklahoma ever been forced to live in an Urban setting???

THIS. People get SO worked up about others promoting a revitalized urban environment...when it's simply expanding the choice for people who don't want what the majority of Oklahoma City residents want.

THIS. People get SO worked up about others promoting a revitalized urban environment...when it's simply expanding the choice for people who don't want what the majority of Oklahoma City residents want.

Not necessarily. Few people on this board actually oppose continued urban revitalization. In fact most informed people know thats whats best for everyone in OKC. The only place I've seen people complain about it is in the NewsOK comments. However, there have been numerous calls from urbanists on this board and otherwise to penalize and discourage suburban development in the name of limiting sprawl. That's what people get worked up about.

I agree, people don't need to have a reason. If they want it and can afford it, then go for it.

Under current development standards on the fringe, they actually can't afford it. *WE* can afford it for them. That's the part being missed in this discussion. Just because a person buys a $350k house on 175th/MacArthur does not mean that the house cost $350k. It cost a lot more than that in "planning" developments, paving and maintaing streets, running and maintaining utilities/electric/gas, land usage, environmental stress, increased inefficiency of decentralized amenities and civil services, etc.

Sprawl is based far more in government subsidy than it is in the free market.

Still finding this discussion (and more generally, this entire topic) to be fascinating. I moved to the Putnam City North area back in the late 90's when I got an apartment at Britton & McCarthur, right next to Lake Hefner. Federally subsidized housing destroyed the area in which I was living and I fled to 122nd & Rockwell and a gated condo complex and then bought a house out past NW 178th.

I had to look up the definition of "gentrification" and it turns out to be a phenomena that I'm aware of without knowing the proper term. My question would be, where do all of the lower income people go when this happens? They don't just disappear, they move somewhere else and that area likely suffers. It seems that for every area that is gentrified, another suffers for it. Is it just a cycle that goes on and on with different neighborhoods being gentrified, eventually degrading and then being gentrified again? Do the poor and non-poor just periodically (over decades) change places?

I really should get some reading material on community planning. This is really interesting stuff!

I really like the idea of "new urbanism" influenced development so long as it remains completely voluntary. I do have a problem with social engineers trying to force people, who would prefer to live in a more suburban setting, to live in urban areas.

The solution to the problem you posited lies way outside of development practice and more on the development of society as a whole. As a society, the goal should be to reach a point where lower income residents do not bring down the value of a neighborhood.

But the answer to your question lies in history. Look at the rest of the cities in the world. The center has always been (one of) the strongest/richest area of the city and the poor have always lived (generally) on the outskirts. What we've created in the United States is actually somewhat mind-blowing in how it opposes historical precedent and was only made possible on the scale that it was because of a very unique set of circumstances in the world at the time. Cities could never have developed as such as recently as the early-mid 20th century.

When has anyone in Oklahoma ever been forced to live in an Urban setting???Protesting any new highway proposal, road widenings, and criticizing any suburban development is something a lot of urbanist are notorious for and in a way, that is attempting to force people to live in an urban area closer to the core.

Under current development standards on the fringe, they actually can't afford it. *WE* can afford it for them. That's the part being missed in this discussion. Just because a person buys a $350k house on 175th/MacArthur does not mean that the house cost $350k. It cost a lot more than that in "planning" developments, paving and maintaing streets, running and maintaining utilities/electric/gas, land usage, environmental stress, increased inefficiency of decentralized amenities and civil services, etc.

Sprawl is based far more in government subsidy than it is in the free market.Well, people are choosing to sprawl out. No one is forcing that. People are choosing that on their own free will because the majority prefer it at this time.

Dallas is a great example. They are building a great mass transit system while still choosing to build massive freeways, and guess what... people are choosing their cars over DART and the other mass transit options Dallas offers and is constantly improving.

Under current development standards on the fringe, they actually can't afford it. *WE* can afford it for them. That's the part being missed in this discussion. Just because a person buys a $350k house on 175th/MacArthur does not mean that the house cost $350k. It cost a lot more than that in "planning" developments, paving and maintaing streets, running and maintaining utilities/electric/gas, land usage, environmental stress, increased inefficiency of decentralized amenities and civil services, etc.

Sprawl is based far more in government subsidy than it is in the free market.

The irony there is place that same house in a more 'urban' setting and the price could double. People will go where the cheap land is.

Dallas is a great example. They are building a great mass transit system while still choosing to build massive freeways, and guess what... people are choosing their cars over DART and the other mass transit options Dallas offers and is constantly improving.

No, Dallas is building massive TOLLWAYS that are starting to generate quite a bit of opposition right now. And you are being quite charitable in calling DART rail "great."

In any event, there are lots of cities out there...more than just one city for OKC to emulate. Nobody should be holding Dallas or Houston as models of good planning IMO.

As far as what people are choosing...last time I checked cities are collectively growing faster than their suburbs at the current moment. So there's that.

No, Dallas is building massive TOLLWAYS that are starting to generate quite a bit of opposition right now. And you are being quite charitable in calling DART rail "great."

In any event, there are lots of cities out there...more than just one city for OKC to emulate. Nobody should be holding Dallas or Houston as models of good planning IMO.

As far as what people are choosing...last time I checked cities are collectively growing faster than their suburbs at the current moment. So there's that.DART rail is great and is being expanded. There is one controversial project that Dallas is proposing which is the Trinity River Toll and get this, I actually oppose that.

Dallas is a great model for city planning, imo, but I think OKC should set its own way. We don't need to copy anyone in planning our city as a whole.

We can have a great urban, dense urban core served by an amazing mass transit system, but I will still support multi-billion dollar highway being built out in the suburbs fed by six-lane streets. This is not an either or issue. Someone living in NW OKC should most certainly be able to have the same services as someone in downtown, but substitute the mass transit for 6 lane roads and 10 lane highways.

I'm am aware that cities have passed suburbs in growth, but we'll see how long that lasts. Suburbs aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and that is said for a lot of cities. I was in Jacksonville and New Orleans, both cities with great urban areas, and they still have huge highway under construction and big suburban investments. It's more than just Texas cities. As I've also stated, even London has suburbs with new suburban development taking place.

The irony there is place that same house in a more 'urban' setting and the price could double. People will go where the cheap land is.

The price could double based on supply/demand, free market economics, not at all because of infrastructure and the need for municipal resources.

The price could double based on supply/demand, free market economics, not at all because of infrastructure and the need for municipal resources.Yeah, and it's the infrastructure where the new-urbanist try to prohibit suburban growth.

People will go will cheap land is, but there's more to it than that for a lot of people.

Well, people are choosing to sprawl out. No one is forcing that. People are choosing that on their own free will because the majority prefer it at this time.

Dallas is a great example. They are building a great mass transit system while still choosing to build massive freeways, and guess what... people are choosing their cars over DART and the other mass transit options Dallas offers and is constantly improving.

1. We're not forcing it, we're subsidizing it.

2. It's not a great mass transit system because you cannot have a great mass transit system in a sprawled city. It's functional and does well for what it is, but the system doesn't have hundreds of thousands of riders per day because it doesn't service hundreds of thousands of riders. Why does it not service hundreds of thousands of riders in a metro of more than 6 million? Because you can't service low density development with public transit. See the OKC bus system.