View Full Version : Maps 4 Neighborhoods



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

ljbab728
08-17-2015, 10:27 PM
Bill Crum's interview with Sandino Thompson and Laura Massenat.

MAPS 4: New generation bids for quality of life investments in Oklahoma City (http://m.newsok.com/video/4426779794001)

I was very impressed by Sandino and his thoughts and enthusiasm.

mkjeeves
08-17-2015, 10:49 PM
Bingo.

OSUFan
08-18-2015, 08:09 AM
My reading comprehension might suck but what is the real goal here?

mkjeeves
08-18-2015, 08:26 AM
My reading comprehension might suck but what is the real goal here?

It's a video, no reading required.

OSUFan
08-18-2015, 08:31 AM
I read the article but don't really have time to watch a 20 minute video right now. Is there a decent summary of what the end goal is? Not trying to be difficult because I really am curious. The article was pretty vague.

LakeEffect
08-18-2015, 08:40 AM
I read the article but don't really have time to watch a 20 minute video right now. Is there a decent summary of what the end goal is? Not trying to be difficult because I really am curious. The article was pretty vague.

The end goal is to focus Maps 4 on neighborhood-level amenities/improvements.

OSUFan
08-18-2015, 08:48 AM
The end goal is to focus Maps 4 on neighborhood-level amenities/improvements.


Gotcha. Definitely seems like a worthwhile cause. I worry a little that it is one of those things that sounds great in theory but might be a tad hard to actually convey to people in a city-wide vote. It is easy to point to arena or park (or even sidewalks/trails) that everyone in the city uses. A little harder when you get to a neighborhood level. If my neighborhood doesn't get touched why would I vote for it?

Not knocking the idea at all though, just thinking out loud. I'm eager to follow the group's progress.

Laramie
08-18-2015, 09:04 AM
My reading comprehension might suck but what is the real goal here?

Definitely understood the MAPS 4 Kids theme. Anything you do with future MAPS initiatives will make an impact on the quality of life.


Do we need more sidewalks?
Do we need more bike lanes?
Do we need more trails?
Neighborhood beautification?
Entrances to Asian, Paseo, Stockyards City, Wheeler, Bricktown etc., districts need to be addressed?

We don't need to re-invent the wheel; no harm in taking a look at the innovative ideas in Dallas & Houston...

Will there be a need to deal with the cost overruns & the collection shortages from the MAPS 3 initiative?


Combined with last month’s shortfall, sales tax is running about $846,000 behind what was expected for the first two months of the fiscal year.

Oklahoma City sales tax falls short of target | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/5439299)

A 'MAPS 4 Neighborhood's theme would be a great way to market the next initiative which should run from 2017 to 2024 (7 years, $800 million). More street planters, lights, sidewalks, neighborhood park improvements, trails... Long overdue; I get it.

Are we using the trails that we have created from the previous MAPS; do we build trails that are needed or trails for the sake of trails???

Would like to see MAPS continue to include a variety of projects (diversity).



l

hoya
08-18-2015, 09:13 AM
Yeah, I think there needs to be some more specific info on what they want to do. It sounds nice to talk about "connecting neighborhoods" and stuff like that, but what are we supposed to actually do?

bchris02
08-18-2015, 09:14 AM
I like this and I think it is very badly needed in OKC.

While development in the urban core is progressing at its fast rate since urban renewal, the infrastructure still has a plethora of problems and needs some serious investment. Neighborhood specific improvements like sidewalks, streetlights, beautification, etc would go a long way towards improving the quality of life in this city. Think about what is being done on Western but on a much larger scale. It would also be great to have more and better kept neighborhood parks interconnected by a network of trails. Doing so would not only increase the quality of life but also promote healthier lifestyle choices for OKC residents.

Hopefully this comes to fruition.

OSUFan
08-18-2015, 09:16 AM
I like this and I think it is very badly needed in OKC.

While development in the urban core is progressing at its fast rate since urban renewal, the infrastructure still has a plethora of problems and needs some serious investment. Neighborhood specific improvements like sidewalks, streetlights, beautification, etc would go a long way towards improving the quality of life in this city. Think about what is being done on Western but on a much larger scale. It would also be great to have more and better kept neighborhood parks interconnected by a network of trails. Doing so would not only increase the quality of life but also promote healthier lifestyle choices for OKC residents.

Hopefully this comes to fruition.

I don't disagree but how do you sell that to someone living in Mustang/Yukon, way south OKC or Edmond? Do you try to touch every single neighborhood in OKC?

bchris02
08-18-2015, 09:27 AM
I don't disagree but how do you sell that to someone living in Mustang/Yukon, way south OKC or Edmond? Do you try to touch every single neighborhood in OKC?

Yeah I realize that is going to be an issue. It has to have something for suburbia as well if it is going to pass a citywide vote. I think there are a lot of things that can be improved in suburbia. Question is, what should be part of a MAPS package?

hoya
08-18-2015, 09:41 AM
I don't disagree but how do you sell that to someone living in Mustang/Yukon, way south OKC or Edmond? Do you try to touch every single neighborhood in OKC?

People in Mustang, Yukon, and Edmond don't get to vote in a MAPS election. So eff them. Eff them right in the ear. ;)

hoya
08-18-2015, 09:46 AM
Personally, I'd suggest a relatively short MAPS 4 proposal. Maybe 3 years. Focus it entirely on the neighborhoods. Touch on a lot of places where MAPS support wasn't as strong. Trails, sidewalks, streetlights, things like that. Bike lanes. Maybe a few community centers.

Then you gear up for MAPS 2020. That one would be the big one that has a metro-wide light rail system. You have to get Edmond, Norman, Mid/Del all on board with it. Have a big coordinated push.

OSUFan
08-18-2015, 09:53 AM
People in Mustang, Yukon, and Edmond don't get to vote in a MAPS election. So eff them. Eff them right in the ear. ;)

Not true at all. There are a lot of people with addresses in Mustang, Yukon and Edmond who are in city limits.

When you boil things down to a neighborhood level I can't imagine that would be an easy sell (not impossible). The Civic Center might not be in my neighborhood but I will go there. How can you convince someone in south OKC to vote for neighborhood improvements for somewhere off 63rd and May if you aren't fixing up their neighborhood also?

There is time to figure these things out for sure. MAPS 4 Kids worked because it touched every single school in the city and suburbs. Could you touch every single neighborhood in OKC? I honestly have no idea. Maybe you could. In my uneducated opinion you would have to for any chance of success.

Just the facts
08-18-2015, 09:53 AM
I just finished listening to the interview, and while I can appreciate what they want to accomplish, there simply isn't going to be enough money to do what they want to do. They will need billions, if not 10's of billions, and at the same time change how 1.3 million people want to live. Retrofitting urban sprawl is a significant component of New Urbanism but I am not convinced it is worth the money and effort to do it on a large scale. Creating walkable urbanism from sprawl seems like an impossible task to me.

adaniel
08-18-2015, 10:01 AM
I feel like what they are proposing would be much more achievable in a bond election. The last bond program voted on in 2007 was $835 million and did touch pretty much every corner of the city. The next one could easily fund up to $1 billion in capital projects. OKC is actually due for a bond election in 2 years.

If anything I could see a 1/2 cent of the current MAPS tax going to sustain any future RTA that may be set up, with the remaining 1/2 going towards a much more scaled down MAPS 4.

mkjeeves
08-18-2015, 10:05 AM
Yeah, I think there needs to be some more specific info on what they want to do. It sounds nice to talk about "connecting neighborhoods" and stuff like that, but what are we supposed to actually do?

The master plan for embracing and retrofitting neighborhoods in the manner they are talking about should have already been done a long time ago. But it wouldn't be the first MAPS that got sold on napkin sketches if it went forward on just the overall idea. My biggest issue with what they said was the 50% for neighborhoods and 50% for more large building projects. Forget that. We don't need more large building projects.

Just the facts
08-18-2015, 10:09 AM
50% has to go for the"Finish the Convention Center Right" campaign, or the Chamber won't back MAPS IV.

Just the facts
08-18-2015, 10:14 AM
J_uTsrxfYWQ

bchris02
08-18-2015, 10:25 AM
I just finished listening to the interview, and while I can appreciate what they want to accomplish, there simply isn't going to be enough money to do what they want to do. They will need billions, if not 10's of billions, and at the same time change how 1.3 million people want to live. Retrofitting urban sprawl is a significant component of New Urbanism but I am not convinced it is worth the money and effort to do it on a large scale. Creating walkable urbanism from sprawl seems like an impossible task to me.

I agree with what you are saying, but many neighborhoods in inner-OKC could be walkable with a little bit of investment. The primary focus should be the urban core and its deteriorating or non-existent infrastructure. There needs to be just enough for the suburbs to get them to support the plan but the real focus should be in the core. I would like to see the infrastructure in neighborhoods like Paseo, Classen-Ten-Penn, Crown Heights, Edgemere Park, and other inner-northside neighborhoods on the same level as Heritage Hills and Mesta Park. Having quality sidewalks, well-lit streets, and basic beautification would completely transform these neighborhoods.

Just the facts
08-18-2015, 10:37 AM
Yes, but those aren't the areas they were talking about. They used schools and children walking to them as one of their examples. Unless OKCPS changes their design criteria we can't have walkable schools. They are too big, accomadate too many kids, and having parking requirements that would make Walmart proud. You can't put in a sidewalk and expect a child to walk 3 miles to a school on an arterial road.

hoya
08-18-2015, 10:43 AM
Well, MAPS should be used to prepare the city for the future, for how we want it to be in 30 years. But it also has to take into account the realities of today. The best plan in the world doesn't do anything for us if it doesn't pass.

Ideally MAPS would benefit the people in OKC today, because that's who lives here right now, and also transform the city so that it is greatly improved for tomorrow.

Just the facts
08-18-2015, 10:52 AM
I agree Hoyasooner and have always thought MAPS should be exclusively used for quality of life projects.

Zuplar
08-18-2015, 10:54 AM
Not true at all. There are a lot of people with addresses in Mustang, Yukon and Edmond who are in city limits.

When you boil things down to a neighborhood level I can't imagine that would be an easy sell (not impossible). The Civic Center might not be in my neighborhood but I will go there. How can you convince someone in south OKC to vote for neighborhood improvements for somewhere off 63rd and May if you aren't fixing up their neighborhood also?

There is time to figure these things out for sure. MAPS 4 Kids worked because it touched every single school in the city and suburbs. Could you touch every single neighborhood in OKC? I honestly have no idea. Maybe you could. In my uneducated opinion you would have to for any chance of success.

When I saw this thread this is exactly the reason I wouldn't vote for a maps that did this.

bchris02
08-18-2015, 10:58 AM
This is why to pass, it would need to be at least 50% neighborhood improvements but also 50% big projects. People who live at NW 192nd and Meridian aren't going to care about sidewalks and streetlights at 23rd and Walker. To bring them on board, there has to be something for them. Since it would be impossible for something like this to touch every neighborhood in OKC, the only way to bring suburbia on board is with large projects that will benefit them. Otherwise, a bond package would probably be a better way to go for improvements in the urban core.

mkjeeves
08-18-2015, 11:49 AM
This is why to pass, it would need to be at least 50% neighborhood improvements but also 50% big projects. People who live at NW 192nd and Meridian aren't going to care about sidewalks and streetlights at 23rd and Walker. To bring them on board, there has to be something for them. Since it would be impossible for something like this to touch every neighborhood in OKC, the only way to bring suburbia on board is with large projects that will benefit them. Otherwise, a bond package would probably be a better way to go for improvements in the urban core.

Meh. I voted for all the previous MAPS because it was good for the city. There's not many of those improvements that I frequent, especially not the the big ticket ones. (Although I have benefited directly from some.)

Just the facts
08-18-2015, 11:55 AM
If I listened to their idea correctly, they want to bring sidewalks to NW 192 and Meridian. They want to urbanize the suburbs. Initially by 'neighborhood' I thought they meant the existing urban clusters of Paseo, Plaza, Capitol Hill, ...etc - but that isn't what they said.

bchris02
08-18-2015, 12:06 PM
If I listened to their idea correctly, they want to bring sidewalks to NW 192 and Meridian. They want to urbanize the suburbs. Initially by 'neighborhood' I thought they meant the existing urban clusters of Paseo, Plaza, Capitol Hill, ...etc - but that isn't what they said.

Yeah if that is what they want to do I am not sure I support it. I think all that is needed in the outer suburbs is to require sidewalk construction with future road expansion. A lot of other cities do this and it works well with sidewalks gradually filling in as roads are replaced/resurfaced. Retrofitting the outer burbs with sidewalks that won't be used is a waste of resources when so many neighborhoods in the urban core, that would otherwise be walkable, still don't have them.

mkjeeves
08-18-2015, 12:46 PM
Almost all funding for MAPS comes from the neighborhoods not in the inner core. I'm not interested in sending any more of it to the inner core until a plan similar to the above is put in place and under way. No plan. No more money. Simple.

Just the facts
08-18-2015, 01:01 PM
Going back to a point I brought up in another thread, we can't just increase walkable density willy nilly or because we want to. It has to be planned so that it grows effectively and sustainably - two criteria that haven't been required recently because technology and money are used to overcome poor planning. The City needs to come up with an urbanization plan that starts with building out the rural to urban transect based on the 5 minute pedestrian shed. If we don't start with a foundation where else is there to start?

gopokes88
08-18-2015, 01:49 PM
If the goal for Maps 5 is get RTA, better make sure Maps 4 passes.

Maps 4 will probably shape up like this.

Lots of sidewalks, bike lanes, bike trails.
Bricktown canal expansion towards the west.
District entrances/exits
More sidewalks
Street car expansion all the way up classen ending at the classen triangle.

Laramie
08-18-2015, 04:36 PM
Well, MAPS should be used to prepare the city for the future, for how we want it to be in 30 years. But it also has to take into account the realities of today. The best plan in the world doesn't do anything for us if it doesn't pass.

Ideally MAPS would benefit the people in OKC today, because that's who lives here right now, and also transform the city so that it is greatly improved for tomorrow.

Agree,

However, anytime you talk about a 15-30 year plan; many of the informed posters on this board have ADA and get turned off; just think what its like for the average voter.

Don't know if a shorter 4 year collection cycle would work. We need to at least look ahead with 7 - 10 year plans.

GaryOKC6
08-18-2015, 06:47 PM
Several things come to mind here. There has to be a change in the mentality first. People have to want to get out. There is a lot of assumption that people want to ride their bikes for example. secondly the neighborhoods have to want to be revitalized. Throwing money at problems wont help. Who will decide which neighborhoods get the money? I like the trail idea. Me personally I am a big fan of the trails. I also think that the density idea in the urban core idea is something that has come from the people who are moving her for the most part. They are hoping that throwing money at a troubled area will help. Not so sure I am on board with that idea. Lastly, they don't really have a plan. seem to be all over the place. Just my observation.

Teo9969
08-19-2015, 01:16 PM
Almost all funding for MAPS comes from the neighborhoods not in the inner core. I'm not interested in sending any more of it to the inner core until a plan similar to the above is put in place and under way. No plan. No more money. Simple.

Almost all…Unless you're talking about downtown and not the inner core, this is silly. Penn Square Mall can be reasonably argued to be part of the "inner core".

If you really think that the Kilpatrick Turnpike, I-240, and NW Expressway corridors are bringing in 90% of the sales-tax revenue in this city, you're sorely mistaken.

And as we've gone over a million times: An arena, a park, a baseball stadium, etc. are not investments in the inner core…they're investments in Oklahoma City at large. They're located in the inner core because that's geographically central. You can't put the Ford Center at Memorial and MacArthur because that's unfair for the people at Air Depot and SE 119th who are also paying for the arena. An Arena downtown *is* an investment in NW OKC…and SW OKC, and NE OKC, and SE OKC.

Teo9969
08-19-2015, 01:21 PM
If the goal for Maps 5 is get RTA, better make sure Maps 4 passes.

Maps 4 will probably shape up like this.

Lots of sidewalks, bike lanes, bike trails.
Bricktown canal expansion towards the west.
District entrances/exits
More sidewalks
Street car expansion all the way up classen ending at the classen triangle.

That streetcar expansion alone is about the size of the entire MAPS-3 Budget.

BoulderSooner
08-19-2015, 01:31 PM
That streetcar expansion alone is about the size of the entire MAPS-3 Budget.

This is not close to true. That route is less than 4.5 miles 1 way. So it is less than 9 miles of track.

We are talking somewhere between 200-270 million dollars. Total. In 2015 dollars

Teo9969
08-19-2015, 01:50 PM
Maybe I'm reading the Central OK-GO Summary incorrectly.

It says "Street car": $610-$830M for the N2 route which is the one they selected. Is that if they were going to run the street car all the way up to Edmond?

mkjeeves
08-19-2015, 02:19 PM
Almost all…Unless you're talking about downtown and not the inner core, this is silly. Penn Square Mall can be reasonably argued to be part of the "inner core".

Include it. Now count the people who live in downtown/inner core/however you want to consider it, and compare that to the total population. One thread put it at around 25,000 people living downtown. Since there's comparatively little retail downtown/ inner core, they shop elsewhere. Thus, like I said, almost all funding for MAPS comes from the neighborhoods and adjoining retail. It comes from the people who live there and what is collected on what they spend in businesses not downtown or in the inner core.


If you really think that the Kilpatrick Turnpike, I-240, and NW Expressway corridors are bringing in 90% of the sales-tax revenue in this city, you're sorely mistaken.

And the many restaurants, walmarts, grocery stores, auto parts, big box retailers, convenience stores, furniture stores, located throughout the metro, I-40, including MacArthur to Council and beyond, Memorial Rd., and on and on and on.


And as we've gone over a million times: An arena, a park, a baseball stadium, etc. are not investments in the inner core…they're investments in Oklahoma City at large. They're located in the inner core because that's geographically central. You can't put the Ford Center at Memorial and MacArthur because that's unfair for the people at Air Depot and SE 119th who are also paying for the arena. An Arena downtown *is* an investment in NW OKC…and SW OKC, and NE OKC, and SE OKC.

Agreed. And we don't need any more of any projects like that anywhere, including downtown. We need investment in the rest of OKC because it's good for all of OKC.

Lets recap.

Most of the jobs aren't downtown and never will be.

Most of the people don't live downtown and never will.

Most of the money generated for taxes for Maps and city funding in general doesn't come directly or indirectly from downtown.

We all love downtown. Most of us voted for all the MAPS projects to be built downtown and that's a good thing. I'm proud of what we did. It helps attract tourism, businesses and people.

It's time to work on the rest of the city.

Just the facts
08-19-2015, 03:02 PM
If we tried to spread $500 million across 650 sq. miles no one would even notice.

Teo9969
08-19-2015, 03:03 PM
Include it. Now count the people who live in downtown/inner core/however you want to consider it, and compare that to the total population. One thread put it at around 25,000 people living downtown. Since there's comparatively little retail downtown/ inner core, they shop elsewhere. Thus, like I said, almost all funding for MAPS comes from the neighborhoods and adjoining retail. It comes from the people who live there and what is collected on what they spend in businesses not downtown or in the inner core.



And the many restaurants, walmarts, grocery stores, auto parts, big box retailers, convenience stores, furniture stores, located throughout the metro, I-40, including MacArthur to Council and beyond, Memorial Rd., and on and on and on.



Agreed. And we don't need any more of any projects like that anywhere, including downtown. We need investment in the rest of OKC because it's good for all of OKC.

Lets recap.

Most of the jobs aren't downtown and never will be.

Most of the people don't live downtown and never will.

Most of the money generated for taxes for Maps and city funding in general doesn't come directly or indirectly from downtown.

We all love downtown. Most of us voted for all the MAPS projects to be built downtown and that's a good thing. I'm proud of what we did. It helps attract tourism, businesses and people.

It's time to work on the rest of the city.

In this post, we move the goal posts from "inner core" to "downtown".

There are a lot more than 25,000 people living in the area bordered by 44/235/40. And there is a lot of business in that area, and a lot more density which means that to make up for that area elsewhere in the city.

At this point in OKC's history, the majority of the money that this city spends, needs to occur within the Grand Boulevard loop (The real "Inner Core"). It's the best use of public dollars, and it's the only way this city is ever going to grow in a sustainable, respectable manner. We can do some things to maybe make sure that Memorial and NW Expressway don't go the way of 39th…but that alone is going to take a monumental effort.

gopokes88
08-19-2015, 03:08 PM
If we tried to spread $500 million across 650 sq. miles no one would even notice.

Thanks Eyeore. Great contribution.

bchris02
08-19-2015, 03:10 PM
I think the MAPS model would be great for expanding the streetcar and building a commuter rail system. It would also be good for a city-wide trail system connecting neighborhoods and parks, which is something I think is badly needed in OKC.

In terms of other infrastructure improvements, I think a bond package is probably the best way to go about it and not a MAPS package. The first reason is it would be difficult to bring the entire city on board for things like sidewalks and beautification in the urban core since most OKC residents don't live in the urban core. These improvements are beyond necessary though and its important that the city find a way to make it happen. The second reason is the city limits are so vast that if you tried to invest in all neighborhoods, it would be virtually impossible to do so and have any kind of impact at all.

gopokes88
08-19-2015, 03:19 PM
In this post, we move the goal posts from "inner core" to "downtown".

There are a lot more than 25,000 people living in the area bordered by 44/235/40. And there is a lot of business in that area, and a lot more density which means that to make up for that area elsewhere in the city.

At this point in OKC's history, the majority of the money that this city spends, needs to occur within the Grand Boulevard loop (The real "Inner Core"). It's the best use of public dollars, and it's the only way this city is ever going to grow in a sustainable, respectable manner. We can do some things to maybe make sure that Memorial and NW Expressway don't go the way of 39th…but that alone is going to take a monumental effort.

I don't disagree with the investing in the inner core one bit and agree with it.

I vehemently disagree with the group think on this board that nw expressway and memorial are going to go south.
First not everyone wants to live in the urban core. There is a ton of people who prefer the semi suburb life. Quick access to the core without some of the cores problems.

Second there is a ton of businesses along memorial and nw expressway that employ a lot of people. Good jobs too. There is something very appealing about a 10 min drive to work while also having quick access to anywhere else in the city because of the nearby freeways. A good chunk of the people this city love private schools so the district doesn't even matter as much. For those that don't Pc north and Edmond schools are good plus charter schools are an option.

mkjeeves
08-19-2015, 03:20 PM
In this post, we move the goal posts from "inner core" to "downtown".

The first sentence of what you responded to: "Include it. Now count the people who live in downtown/inner core/however you want to consider it, and compare that to the total population. "


There are a lot more than 25,000 people living in the area bordered by 44/235/40. And there is a lot of business in that area, and a lot more density which means that to make up for that area elsewhere in the city.

At this point in OKC's history, the majority of the money that this city spends, needs to occur within the Grand Boulevard loop (The real "Inner Core"). It's the best use of public dollars, and it's the only way this city is ever going to grow in a sustainable, respectable manner. We can do some things to maybe make sure that Memorial and NW Expressway don't go the way of 39th…but that alone is going to take a monumental effort.

If that's your boundary, whatever the name, substitute it and my statements still hold true.

bchris02
08-19-2015, 03:28 PM
MKJeeves,

I don't dispute that the Memorial corridor is important to the city because it is. My question is what improvements are needed up there that would be necessitate a MAPS package focused on that area?

mkjeeves
08-19-2015, 03:30 PM
If we tried to spread $500 million across 650 sq. miles no one would even notice.

No plan for the neighborhoods is indeed a plan. I know that's your plan. Take their money until it runs dry, build what you want and tell them tough.

It's going to take more than that to get any more MAPs votes from me.

OSUFan
08-19-2015, 03:36 PM
No plan for the neighborhoods is indeed a plan. I know that's your plan. Take their money until it runs dry, build what you want and tell them tough.

It's going to take more than that to get any more MAPs votes from me.

What specific needs would you like to see addressed in the next MAPs proposal?

Filthy
08-19-2015, 03:40 PM
I don't disagree with the investing in the inner core one bit and agree with it.

I vehemently disagree with the group think on this board that nw expressway and memorial are going to go south.

NW Expressway is already on its way. I don't see the decline for Memorial coming for a good while...if at all.


For those that don't Pc north and Edmond schools are good plus charter schools are an option.

PC North is literally a sh*t show, compared to what it was even 10 years ago. The PC district as a whole is deteriorating at an alarming rate.

Edmond schools have also started this decline. They are probably 8-10 years away from PC Schools, in their rate of decline.

mkjeeves
08-19-2015, 03:46 PM
What specific needs would you like to see addressed in the next MAPs proposal?

Cart before the horse. We need the vision first and then if tax and spend would help, decide what and how. Some people are talking about the vision for better neighborhoods and that's a good start.

bchris02
08-19-2015, 03:49 PM
NW Expressway is already on its way. I don't see the decline for Memorial coming for a good while...if at all.



PC North is literally a sh*t show, compared to what it was even 10 years ago. The PC district as a whole is deteriorating at an alarming rate.

Edmond schools have also started this decline. They are probably 8-10 years away from PC Schools, in their rate of decline.

This is what sucks about suburbs, especially in places like OKC that don't have geographical barriers. Top-notch areas 15 years ago are now becoming blighted. Today's "in" neighborhoods like west Edmond and Deer Creek will likely be a serious problem by 2035. Meanwhile the metro will be sprawling towards Guthrie and out towards Arcadia as they become the preferred places to live, creating even more infrastructure for the city to [poorly] maintain while placing a larger burden on the taxpayer. It's simply unsustainable.

OSUFan
08-19-2015, 03:55 PM
Cart before the horse. We need the vision first and then if tax and spend would help, decide what and how. Some people are talking about the vision for better neighborhoods and that's a good start.

I would just think if you are adamant that no more money is spent on the inner core until other areas of the city are addressed it would be pretty easy to rattle off 3 or 4 of those needs.

Filthy
08-19-2015, 04:09 PM
Today's "in" neighborhoods like west Edmond and Deer Creek will likely be a serious problem by 2035.
Wow! Its crazy to think, that these pockets of $400,000-$600,000 homes, will be so bad. Do you think kids will be able to safely go outside, and play on their 1-3 acre lawns? If they're going to be a serious problem, what will the current "problem areas" be like? War zones? Complete Armageddon? I hope were not looking at Mogadishu type situations for 122nd/Rockwell.

Hopefully these worst case scenarios can be avoided by building some sidewalks at NE 12th and Prospect.

mkjeeves
08-19-2015, 04:15 PM
I would just think if you are adamant that no more money is spent on the inner core until other areas of the city are addressed it would be pretty easy to rattle off 3 or 4 of those needs.

When I run out of things to do, I'll find you the thread(s) where we had a pretty good discussion about the overall issues and what might be done about it. The people in the video are making a good start.

mkjeeves
08-19-2015, 04:21 PM
Meanwhile, here's something related to think about. The worst property in the city and the plan right out of the city's mouth is we can't afford to do anything about it.

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/28218-when-will-something-done-about-lantana-apartments-10th-street.html

bchris02
08-19-2015, 04:46 PM
Wow! Its crazy to think, that these pockets of $400,000-$600,000 homes, will be so bad. Do you think kids will be able to safely go outside, and play on their 1-3 acre lawns? If they're going to be a serious problem, what will the current "problem areas" be like? War zones? Complete Armageddon? I hope were not looking at Mogadishu type situations for 122nd/Rockwell.

Hopefully these worst case scenarios can be avoided by building some sidewalks at NE 12th and Prospect.

Who would have thought 15 years ago that the Putnam City school district would be a marginal district and especially that the PC North area would be in the shape its in today? Who would have thought you would have people saying that the Edmond district is 8-10 years away from deteriorating? While yes there are $500,000 mansions going up in west Edmond there are also $150,000 tract homes and lots of suburban apartments, which may be prone to future blight if the past trends continue. How can the city prevent these areas from going the way of the NW Expressway or 122nd and Penn?

If you want an example of how bad deteriorating suburbs can get, simply look to NW OKC west of I-44 and south of NW 39th Expressway and parts of Bethany, especially around Lantana Apartments. I am sure there are some decent neighborhoods within that area but the area as a whole doesn't have the best reputation.

the michigander
08-19-2015, 07:36 PM
If u are talking neighborhoods I think a investment on 29th st and i240 would be a good thing. Being that is where the majority if the Hispanic population is and probably the fastest growing part if the city.

OSUFan
08-19-2015, 09:21 PM
So off the top of your head you can't list one specific project in the outer core that is critical before you think another dollar should be spent on the core of the city? That seems very odd to me for some one who is so adamant the inner core shouldn't see any more investment before the burbs get their cut.

Just the facts
08-20-2015, 09:40 AM
$500 million spread across 650 sq miles is only $770,000 per sq mile. What could one possibly do with that amount that would in any way be impactful; Repave a 1/4 mile of streets, lay 2 miles of sidewalks, mow a city park for 3 years?

mkjeeves
08-20-2015, 11:01 AM
$500 million spread across 650 sq miles is only $770,000 per sq mile. What could one possibly do with that amount that would in any way be impactful; Repave a 1/4 mile of streets, lay 2 miles of sidewalks, mow a city park for 3 years?

^ The argument why MAPs 4 Neighborhoods shouldn't be split with large building projects and why MAPs 5 Neighborhoods should be a continuation of MAPs 4.

(Besides the fact we don't need any more large building projects anyway.)