https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/opinion/cities-suburbs-housing-crime.html?smid=fb-share

Here is an interesting piece in the New York Times that is predicting that the urban revival we've seen over the past 15 years may be coming to an end and we may be approach a shift back to the kind of suburbanization we saw in the 1970s and 1980s. Rising crime and ever-increasing cost of living in urban areas is what the article suggests will be catalysts for driving Americans back to suburbia.

One elephant in the room is that most of the urban boom has happened as Millennials have been in their young adult years. It's 2017 now and Millennials are getting married and having children. That means that school districts are important and it's almost universal that suburban school districts are superior to urban ones. I know many pro-downtown people here in OKC who have chosen to live in Edmond for this reason alone.

So what are your thoughts? I think while the author may be onto something, I think urban revitalization still has a ways to go in OKC being that this city had such a late start compared to its peers and is thus not experiencing the kind of cost of living issues that places like Seattle and the Bay Area are.

Especially in OKC, the number of people living in the urban core is actually only a small factor when considering all the new urban development.

Its pretty obvious that the large majority of people going downtown and patronizing the various businesses and accessing the amenities do not live down there. No matter where you live in the metro area, getting downtown is a 10 to 20 minute proposition and easily accomplished.

Also, cities like OKC still are on the upswing simply because we were so far behind the curve with urban housing. Even with by far the biggest number of units added in one year, they were all pretty much absorbed within the last 6-9 months.

I will also restate something I've said several times now: We are heading for a housing shortage downtown. The only decent-sized projects slated to open in the next couple of years are the Steelyard and West Village.

I know many pro-downtown people here in OKC who have chosen to live in Edmond for this reason alone.

WHY YOU GOTTA CALL ME OUT LIKE THIS?

Lol. But really, being 29, I purchased in Edmond for two reasons. 1) Public schools for my son (Edmond North) and 2, proximity to the thousands of White Baptist Churches in Edmond. It's like a Baptist Buffet. You just don't get that downtown.

WHY YOU GOTTA CALL ME OUT LIKE THIS?

Lol. But really, being 29, I purchased in Edmond for two reasons. 1) Public schools for my son (Edmond North) and 2, proximity to the thousands of White Baptist Churches in Edmond. It's like a Baptist Buffet. You just don't get that downtown.

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

Is there a hope that our downtown becomes expensive and congested?

Is there a hope that our downtown becomes expensive and congested?

Last time I looked, downtown townhomes were selling for ~$300-$500/sq. ft, not too far off from nicer properties in Dallas. Developers are charging a fortune for these properties and they aren't selling. It's the 'ol supply vs. demand thing. There were a lot of people who wanted to live downtown no matter what the cost, but there was a limited number of those people. Now developers can build homes and post them for sale for $300-$500 / sq. ft. and those properties will sit unoccupied for a good while.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/01/opinion/cities-suburbs-housing-crime.html?smid=fb-share

...Rising crime and ever-increasing cost of living in urban areas is what the article suggests will be catalysts for driving Americans back to suburbia.

... It's 2017 now and Millennials are getting married and having children. That means that school districts are important and it's almost universal that suburban school districts are superior to urban ones. I know many pro-downtown people here in OKC who have chosen to live in Edmond for this reason alone.

...So what are your thoughts? .

*Forewarning: Anecdotal evidence follows*

My wife and I are millennials, born in 1987, and we are intentionally building a life near downtown. We have our first kid on the way (yay!) and we just bought our second home very close to the Capitol. The draw of suburbia just doesn't exist for us. We both grew up in a suburban setting and have no desire to live in sprawl. Oklahoma is already very lackluster in terms of culture and arts. Living in an endless sea of beige colored shopping centers is depressing. I know my strong feelings are not shared by all my peers, but they are definitely shared by many. Most of my classmates from college are buying in and around the city center. Those who can't afford to buy south of NW Expressway are choosing to rent near downtown and save money to buy old and renovate.

As for rising crime, I do not believe this is the case for OKC. Downtown and the connected neighborhoods are becoming safer by the day, from my understanding. Crime is way down in neighborhoods that used to be crime heavy, such as Classen Ten Penn. Others will follow as residential downtown begins to creep west.

Speaking of residences, my crystal ball says the new neighborhoods being built in the outskirts of NW OKC, Edmond, Yukon, etc. will not be profitable for anyone but the builder. I have no desire to own 1/8 acre lot with a new home in a neighborhood that likely won't see a significant increase in value. The homes are being built out of cheap materials, and any potential new purchaser will just buy in the 'hood being constructed one street north. It's a bad cycle. I think Zillow and other similar housing sites already reflect this for OKC. Don't ask a realtor, they will tell you all homes are good investments. :D

As for schooling. I believe the future of OKC schools are impossible to predict, but I think charters like John Rex will take over if OKC public schools can't find a way to compensate their teachers in addition to the state funding. If OKC does come together for its teachers, I anticipate the inner city schools start to compete with those in Yukon, Mustang, etc.. We will be many years down the road, but I do see this happening. Who knows, though? The market will find a way to adapt, even if it means more private schooling options.

In summary, I don't think millennials will make a mass exodus to the burbs. I think many are investing in downtown and the surrounding areas. Now, if we could just get a damn grocery store near downtown! hahaha

*Forewarning: Anecdotal evidence follows*

My wife and I are millennials, born in 1987, and we are intentionally building a life near downtown. We have our first kid on the way (yay!) and we just bought our second home very close to the Capitol. The draw of suburbia just doesn't exist for us. We both grew up in a suburban setting and have no desire to live in sprawl. Oklahoma is already very lackluster in terms of culture and arts. Living in an endless sea of beige colored shopping centers is depressing. I know my strong feelings are not shared by all my peers, but they are definitely shared by many. Most of my classmates from college are buying in and around the city center. Those who can't afford to buy south of NW Expressway are choosing to rent near downtown and save money to buy old and renovate.

As for rising crime, I do not believe this is the case for OKC. Downtown and the connected neighborhoods are becoming safer by the day, from my understanding. Crime is way down in neighborhoods that used to be crime heavy, such as Classen Ten Penn. Others will follow as residential downtown begins to creep west.

Speaking of residences, my crystal ball says the new neighborhoods being built in the outskirts of NW OKC, Edmond, Yukon, etc. will not be profitable for anyone but the builder. I have no desire to own 1/8 acre lot with a new home in a neighborhood that likely won't see a significant increase in value. The homes are being built out of cheap materials, and any potential new purchaser will just buy in the 'hood being constructed one street north. It's a bad cycle. I think Zillow and other similar housing sites already reflect this for OKC. Don't ask a realtor, they will tell you all homes are good investments. :D

As for schooling. I believe the future of OKC schools are impossible to predict, but I think charters like John Rex will take over if OKC public schools can't find a way to compensate their teachers in addition to the state funding. If OKC does come together for its teachers, I anticipate the inner city schools start to compete with those in Yukon, Mustang, etc.. We will be many years down the road, but I do see this happening. Who knows, though? The market will find a way to adapt, even if it means more private schooling options.

In summary, I don't think millennials will make a mass exodus to the burbs. I think many are investing in downtown and the surrounding areas. Now, if we could just get a damn grocery store near downtown! hahaha

That's okay. Henderson Hills doesn't want you. Have fun at Life Church!

My wife and I are millennials, born in 1987, and we are intentionally building a life near downtown. We have our first kid on the way (yay!) and we just bought our second home very close to the Capitol. The draw of suburbia just doesn't exist for us. We both grew up in a suburban setting and have no desire to live in sprawl. Oklahoma is already very lackluster in terms of culture and arts. Living in an endless sea of beige colored shopping centers is depressing. I know my strong feelings are not shared by all my peers, but they are definitely shared by many. Most of my classmates from college are buying in and around the city center. Those who can't afford to buy south of NW Expressway are choosing to rent near downtown and save money to buy old and renovate.

I think the premise here is a bit questionable. If you have, say, $800,000 to spend on a home, would you rather have a 4,000 sq/ft. urban farmhouse on five acres (https://www.trulia.com/property/3235811133-10250-E-Covell-Rd-Arcadia-OK-73007) or a 1650 sq/ft. condo on 2nd street (https://www.trulia.com/property/3270106129-700-N-Broadway-Ave-302-Oklahoma-City-OK-73102)? And you can easily get downtown within 15-20 minutes and find either free or cheap parking in most cases. If you have a few dogs, some chickens and a couple kids, this seems like a no-brainer; the urban farmhouse is an extremely attractive option. Now, if the city were to rid itself of the surface parking lots, install nice garages with street-facing retail (which cost $24 for 8 hours), attract an urban Target or some comparable mid-market grocer, and make your commute from Arcadia sufficiently annoying, then the condo downtown starts to look more appealing.


As for rising crime, I do not believe this is the case for OKC. Downtown and the connected neighborhoods are becoming safer by the day, from my understanding. Crime is way down in neighborhoods that used to be crime heavy, such as Classen Ten Penn. Others will follow as residential downtown begins to creep west.

Speaking of residences, my crystal ball says the new neighborhoods being built in the outskirts of NW OKC, Edmond, Yukon, etc. will not be profitable for anyone but the builder. I have no desire to own 1/8 acre lot with a new home in a neighborhood that likely won't see a significant increase in value. The homes are being built out of cheap materials, and any potential new purchaser will just buy in the 'hood being constructed one street north. It's a bad cycle. I think Zillow and other similar housing sites already reflect this for OKC. Don't ask a realtor, they will tell you all homes are good investments. :D

If you were to buy the condo downtown at $500/sq.ft., how much appreciation do you really expect to realize over the course of 10-15 years? I just don't see a great deal of upside if you were to enter at most of the price points the downtown developers are trying to achieve. And, let's remember, there IS going to be a recession in the next few years. Except this time, oil will not be at $100+/bbl to save the city's collective a$$. Finally, I don't think the developers in the suburban areas have the market cornered on cheap materials. When you're buying downtown, you're not necessarily paying for quality construction. You are paying for the value of the land. Go look at some of the places around the Deep Deuce. The developers are asking for big money, but even a quick glance would reveal that, in many cases, the construction quality is nothing more than mediocre.


As for schooling. I believe the future of OKC schools are impossible to predict, but I think charters like John Rex will take over if OKC public schools can't find a way to compensate their teachers in addition to the state funding. If OKC does come together for its teachers, I anticipate the inner city schools start to compete with those in Yukon, Mustang, etc.. We will be many years down the road, but I do see this happening. Who knows, though? The market will find a way to adapt, even if it means more private schooling options.

In summary, I don't think millennials will make a mass exodus to the burbs. I think many are investing in downtown and the surrounding areas. Now, if we could just get a damn grocery store near downtown! hahaha

Most millennials simply don't have the finances at this point. I know a couple folks who recently bought in Heritage Hills, but they're pulling down at least $400K+ per year. The average, college educated millennial couple isn't going to have that type of cash flow which is why places like Edmond, Mustang, Yukon, and Moore will continue their present ascendancy.

I lived downtown for about two years. We almost purchased in Block 42 but our jobs moved us close to Norman. I couldn't really justify buying in downtown and commuting both of us to Norman daily.

We are young married folks but we really though about schooling. Norman has good schools and I just couldn't stomach the idea of having to take my child to a private school if we lived downtown.

Weather its baby boomers or other generations, some of us just like living on larger land then is possible in the OKC core. Can you have horses and chickens? Can you have a large garden and fruit trees. NO. City life has no apeal for me. I rarely eat out other then a breakfast sandwich or coffee. To me there is not much to do in downtown areas. Maybe a horse show. I'll Arcadia and some land thank you. There are others who might want to get away to peace and quiet after a busy day around people and want the quiet of country life.

There are numerous reasons that people might prefer the suburbs over the urban core. Cost, schools, and convenience are among them. Also, as far as downtown has come compared to what it used to be, it's not quite there yet. There is still no grocery store for instance.

The important thing is that OKC now has options for people who want to live a more urban life. Ten years ago, you pretty much had to move to another city if you wanted anything other than suburbs or rural. And while by OKC standards it's more expensive to live downtown than in the burbs, downtown OKC is much more affordable than most of its peer cities. It's quite easy to live in a walkable up-and-coming neighborhood in OKC without breaking the bank or needing four roommates in a one or two bedroom apartment such as is common in other cities.

https://i.imgur.com/MdwuO5u.jpg

Chuck5815. I think we are discussing the merits of both from different standpoints. You are of the opinion that living in the "urban core" requires spending $500 a sq ft. I guess if we limit the "urban core" to "the Hill at Bricktown" then your numbers hold up. I would argue that anything within 2-3 miles of downtown is "urban living." I have personally owned two homes, both of which were less than a 15 minute bike ride from the center of dowtown, which cost me less than $100 a sq ft. So yes, millenials who can afford to buy homes can afford to buy homes in the urban core. If your definition of "urban core" ends at Heritage Hills then I guess we have an objective difference of opinion. Which is fine.

Your discussion of the merits of "urban farmhouse" is confusing. The article is concerned with suburban living, aka sprawling neighborhoods and white picket fences. No one is talking about raising chickens. Some millennials may want that, but it's not what is being discussed here.

As for the statement that suburban living puts you 15-20 minutes from downtown, I respectfully disagree. For millennials who work downtown, commuting from Edmond is frequently more than 40 minutes. Commuting from Norman can be closer to an hour. I've done the latter. It's way better than traffic in Dallas or L.A., but it's traffic nonetheless. Hop on your google maps app around 8:30 and look at the commute time from north edmond to downtown, with traffic included. That's the reality of Oklahoma City, although that's still not a terribly long commute. However, we millennials were educated on the hidden cost of commutes. Those student loan sites link directly to budgeting sites, after all. This is something I frequently discuss with my peers who are around 30 and choose to live close to downtown. http://lifehacker.com/5848665/the-true-cost-of-commuting

Your second paragraph again presumes millennials are buying $500 sq ft homes. I agree with you that millennials can't afford that cost of living, but that's not where the millennials are living. The only millennial I've ever known to live in those areas is Kevin Durant. Millennials are buying in the following hoods: Paseo, Crestwood, Las Vegas, Gatewood, Classen Ten Penn, Shephard, Jefferson, Putnam Heights, Douglas, Lincoln Terrace, etc. The wealthier millennials are buying in Mesta, Edgemere, and Gatewood. There is affordable housing near the urban core. Every neighborhood I just mentioned is less than 2.5 miles from the center of downtown. Most have homes that cost less than $100 sq ft and are older ranging in size from 1,300 sq ft to 2,100 sq ft . The new homes being built in Edmond, which are within the average millennial couples' budget, are at least 15 miles north. The difference in commuting time is massive. Not having to get on any highways is wildly different.

Also, claiming there "IS going to be a recession" is defeating to wanting people to take your argument serious. There's no objective evidence of an oncoming recession. If there was, the market would already reflect that or it already does.

Weather its baby boomers or other generations, some of us just like living on larger land then is possible in the OKC core. Can you have horses and chickens? Can you have a large garden and fruit trees. NO. City life has no apeal for me. I rarely eat out other then a breakfast sandwich or coffee. To me there is not much to do in downtown areas. Maybe a horse show. I'll Arcadia and some land thank you. There are others who might want to get away to peace and quiet after a busy day around people and want the quiet of country life.

That's perfectly fine. It's also not what is being discussed in the article.

The article, and the OP, are talking about moving due to violent crime, increased costs of living downtown, and cities' failures to invest in transit, housing, school, etc.

I would like to preface this with the fact that I am a 23 year old millennial who grew up so far from a town that I didn't have reliable access to the internet until I moved to college, so the suburbs are pretty urban to me as it is.

I feel that the suburbs around Oklahoma City have their own appeal which may attract certain groups of people. I have lived in Edmond, NW OKC, and the Village, so I can't speak to the downtown OKC experience, but living in Edmond was really enjoyable for me. Edmond by far has some great amenities, and really has a lot more to offer than people give them credit for. They have free public transit, Heard on Hurd, the Jazz Lab, plenty of green spaces, and I have seen a lot of change in just the 5 years I have lived in the Metro. While I was at UCO, I spent a year or so without a car but I did not have the trouble being able to live or work without a car I frequently hear about. My quality of life did not decline, and I rather enjoyed that period of time. I feel there is a disconnect between what some new urbanists assume the suburbs to be, and what they really are. I could see in Edmond where some developers could take a risk creating urban lifestyle housing in the suburbs (If the voters don't overturn your zoning change) and create a product that appeals to those like me who may prefer to live an urban lifestyle on a smaller scale. Chapman's new townhouse on Broadway and Ayers is a great example of what can be done to create urban living in the suburbs, and I think he is onto something. I just don't really see the choice between urban and suburban as being black and white.

The article, and the OP, are talking about moving due to violent crime, increased costs of living downtown, and cities' failures to invest in transit, housing, school, etc.

This. I think in OKC, things like infrastructure and schools in the inner city are problems but thankfully this city hasn't seen the uptick in violent crime or absurd cost of living increases that a lot of places have.

I would like to preface this with the fact that I am a 23 year old millennial who grew up so far from a town that I didn't have reliable access to the internet until I moved to college, so the suburbs are pretty urban to me as it is.

I feel that the suburbs around Oklahoma City have their own appeal which may attract certain groups of people. I have lived in Edmond, NW OKC, and the Village, so I can't speak to the downtown OKC experience, but living in Edmond was really enjoyable for me. Edmond by far has some great amenities, and really has a lot more to offer than people give them credit for. They have free public transit, Heard on Hurd, the Jazz Lab, plenty of green spaces, and I have seen a lot of change in just the 5 years I have lived in the Metro. While I was at UCO, I spent a year or so without a car but I did not have the trouble being able to live or work without a car I frequently hear about. My quality of life did not decline, and I rather enjoyed that period of time. I feel there is a disconnect between what some new urbanists assume the suburbs to be, and what they really are. I could see in Edmond where some developers could take a risk creating urban lifestyle housing in the suburbs (If the voters don't overturn your zoning change) and create a product that appeals to those like me who may prefer to live an urban lifestyle on a smaller scale. Chapman's new townhouse on Broadway and Ayers is a great example of what can be done to create urban living in the suburbs, and I think he is onto something. I just don't really see the choice between urban and suburban as being black and white.

I lived in far NW OKC for three years (basically Edmond) and I really didn't like it very well. As a single late twentysomething without kids, I found it very isolating. I've been significantly happier since living closer to downtown than I was living out in the suburbs. Everyone is different though. From what I've heard, Edmond as a young person can be a lot of fun if you go to UCO and/or have a social scene that is tied in with the university. On the other hand if you are single, over age 25, and not religious, I would highly recommend living closer to downtown over Edmond. If you are married and have kids, the situation is entirely different and I think Edmond is a great place to live and raise a family.

I do agree with you on creating urban lifestyle housing in the suburbs and its something I would like to see more of in OKC. Like you said, urban vs suburban is not black and white and it is possible to do quality walkable development in the suburbs. It's already quite common in other cities. Edmond had the opportunity for a great mixed-use development by Hafer Park but the NIMBYs were able to get it stopped.

I would like to preface this with the fact that I am a 23 year old millennial who grew up so far from a town that I didn't have reliable access to the internet until I moved to college, so the suburbs are pretty urban to me as it is.

I feel that the suburbs around Oklahoma City have their own appeal which may attract certain groups of people. I have lived in Edmond, NW OKC, and the Village, so I can't speak to the downtown OKC experience, but living in Edmond was really enjoyable for me. Edmond by far has some great amenities, and really has a lot more to offer than people give them credit for. They have free public transit, Heard on Hurd, the Jazz Lab, plenty of green spaces, and I have seen a lot of change in just the 5 years I have lived in the Metro... I feel there is a disconnect between what some new urbanists assume the suburbs to be, and what they really are.... I just don't really see the choice between urban and suburban as being black and white.

I agree with you, it's definitely not a black and white issue. I'd also agree that Edmond has done a lot to create an urbanist feel while maintaining ease of transport, etc. Edmond, and suburbs in general, are not bad.

All that said, I don't think millennials in OKC are leaving downtown, or the urban core, in droves for school and/or suburban amenities.

I think the article quoted by OP is highly true of cities where the cost of buying a home has quintupled for millennials who were previously able to afford living near downtown. I don't think the suburbs becoming "cooler" and a thriving, livable, young downtown are mutually exclusive. I don't think OP's article's insight is applicable to cities like OKC. Rapid growth in OKC is a decade (maybe 2?) behind the other major cities it is discussing.

As for schooling. I believe the future of OKC schools are impossible to predict, but I think charters like John Rex will take over if OKC public schools can't find a way to compensate their teachers in addition to the state funding. If OKC does come together for its teachers, I anticipate the inner city schools start to compete with those in Yukon, Mustang, etc.. We will be many years down the road, but I do see this happening. Who knows, though? The market will find a way to adapt, even if it means more private schooling options.

Just a note on OKCPS vs. Edmond schools. The number one problem with most urban school districts is that those with means leave them. What these schools need is committed citizens. Integrated schools is arguably the most proven school reform effort ever tried as it led to significant reductions in the "achievement gap." Often, white people in particular, assume most schools in urban districts are bad because (a) they have low ratings and (b) they have a lot of black and brown kids attending them. Atlanta parent Abby Norman does a good job of explaining this issue ("Why White Parents Won’t Choose Black Schools (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abby-norman2/why-white-parents-wont-ch_b_8294908.html)") that comes up repeatedly in my conversations with my friends. Almost none of my friends can answer any specific questions about why they won't send their children to schools in urban districts. They rarely have visited the schools or even put in a phone call. They just tell me they're rated "bad" and "not going to put their kids through that." They never seem concerned other people's children are "put through that."

In my podcast, education reporter Ben Felder talks about how his son goes to a lowly rated OKCPS school with lots of students of color and they really like it (Episode 29: Education Reporting with Ben Felder (https://visionsofed.com/2016/10/25/episode-29-education-reporting-with-ben-felder/)). Unfortunately, most people don't do the research Ben does to realize that his school isn't actually bad and the school rankings are a major cause of schools losing residents and students and all this leads to highly segregated schools by race and socioeconomic class.

Anyway, my point is, the only way OKCPS improves is if citizens with the means to leave the district actually commit to them. They won't be able to somehow "compensate their teachers in addition to the state funding" even though I completely agree that teachers in high poverty districts should be paid more as such pracrtices are common in other areas like the military. And, to be clear, this is not at all a rant intended at you aDark, but one for everyone as I commonly hear people talk about OKCPS getting it's act together when the main problem for the district is white flight. School re-segregation is one of the biggest problems in our society and we've basically given up on integration even though data shows that it works. Nikole Hannah-Jones has written a lot of tremendous articles on the topic for anyone interested in learning more. And, of course, good schools are integral to urban communities.

Alright, in all seriousness. I'm 29. Wife is 28. Son is 2. I've rented in the Village for the past 5 years. In my opinion, there is no better neighborhood in the metro than The Village. It's easy access to everything. There's gotta be 15 parks within The Village. They are everywhere. If you're into adult sports, there are two indoor soccer facilities with 5 minutes driving, you've got the Lighthouse on Hefner. Then there's the 5 minute WALK from where I lived to Lake Hefner. 5 minute drive to NW Expressway, I could drive straight down Penn, through gorgeous and SLOW Nichols Hills, and still be downtown with 12 minutes. Again, that's using Penn and not Broadway or Hefner Pkwy. For kids, Nichols Hills Elementary and Quail Creek Elementary are fantastic. And you can actually attempt to get your kids into PC North from the Village for HS, though it's difficult. The Village has access to the absolute BEST grocery shopping in the city. And easy access to one great mall and one alright mall. Its a third of thw price of downtown and its half the price of Edmond. I think the average home price in The Village is like $130,000. Probably not even that high.

With that said, I moved to Edmond. Not downtown. Not The Village. I live on Danforth and Sante Fe. I work right by Penn Square Mall. It takes me, on the dot, 15 minutes to get to work at 9 am. Traffic is literally no issue. Granted I hop off Broadway before the I-44 construction. If I'm going downtown it takes me roughly 20 minutes. That's totally inconsequential. I have never in my life RUSHED downtown.

My house is about 1800 sq. ft. I bought it at about $95 a sq. ft. which i was pretty damn happy with. Im smack between Mitch Park and the Edmond Soccer Club fields. So my son has EASY access to basketball leagues, baseball, football, soccer, the YMCA, recreational Frisbee Golf, and cool areas to hike/walk. I'm in about the LEAST easily accessible area of Edmond. No easy highways within several miles of me, and its still no issue.

The neighborhood I purchased in has a $13 a month HOA, and as much as I hate HOA's, we have two neighborhood parks and a large swimming pool and a large greenbelt the requires some maintenance. So that's not bad. Plus, again, the pool is awesome. My backyard is easily large enough for a pool if I wanted it, but instead I built a custom firepit with cool seating all around, I've got a 14 foot trampoline back there and I have a roughly 10x12 covered patio. Plus all of the additional space of said backyard.

My mortgage is cheaper than every single 1 bedroom currently available in any downtown apartment. I'm a millennial and I'm an Urbanist for sure. But it's just a WAY better deal in Norman/Moore/Edmond/Yukon/Mustang. And I haven't even mentioned schools. It sucks OKC's school are in the shape they are in, but I'm certainly not the person that has a clue how to fix it or can. So instead, I'm in Edmond. I love downtown as much as the next OKCtalker.

I don't hate suburbia, I don't love it either. Id rather be downtown. Well, actually, I'd rather own in Crown Heights or Heritage Hills, but I can't afford those. So anyway, all this to say, I wish I could live downtown, with good schools and a decent sized backyard. But the reality is that Edmond is just better at that right now. And thats perfectly fine. Its not a problem at all. My property value will increase every year I own my house, I'll eventually sell it for much more than I paid for it. All the while downtown OKC will ALSO increase in value. Our downtown is getting better and better and I know more and more people will move there. Both Edmond and downtown OKC will be fine. As more people move into the metro, those splits will both rise.

Its nice to have good options.

Basically, we all like living different places for different reasons/needs and none of us are wrong for our choices.

Basically, we all like living different places for different reasons/needs and none of us are wrong for our choices.

Exactly. And as the OKC metro grows, there will be more and more people in the suburbs as well as downtown. There will be pretty equal growth, which is awesome. Even just 10 years ago downtown had little to no housing growth. And i feel like it's doing a great job of catching up with the suburbs. Even if it stagnants a little, it will still grow as a good rate.

This whole urban vs suburban thing is so misdirected and divisive. There are legitimate reasons to live either lifestyle. There is only good planning/design and bad planning/design. You can have really excellent suburbs from a livability and sustainability standpoint, but this ONLY happens by design, and to this point OKC really has only ever built unsustainable suburbs. The problem with this is that infrastructure and services costs increase (literally) geometrically, at a much more rapid pace than does the tax base. This cripples a city's ability to prosper. We simply MUST begin to address this through a more careful approach to development, consideration of impact assessments, and also via sprawl retrofit.

Whether millennials drive a shift back to suburbanism or not, we have to understand that the suburbs aren't going anywhere. We need to make the suburban experience better, healthier, more liveable and more sustainable.

Basically, we all like living different places for different reasons/needs and none of us are wrong for our choices.

Not at all. People should live where they want to live and no way of living is objectively better than another when it comes to personal taste. The only reason urban vs. suburban is even an issue (besides personal taste) is that suburban development is overwhelmingly easier to get done because of zoning and other political factors and is sustained by the financial successes of other areas with higher intensity per land area. While it may be cheaper for an individual to buy a house far out in the burbs, it costs our city more over time due to road and infrastructure maintenance and emergency services getting spread out. When we talk about how our city should be designed it isn't just a matter of taste, but creating an environment in which our city can not only sustain itself minimally but also be able to have nice roads, bridges, etc and city staff and emergency personnel be able to work more efficiently.

In addition, we talk about being able to have a choice, but suburban living is like 95% of what OKC has to offer. While some parts of the city are becoming more walk able, almost all new development is suburban and car oriented. That doesn't seem like much of an even choice to me, especially when suburban development is the path of least resistance with the city. (That choice doesn't have to be even, but my point is that it isn't really an issue of hating suburbia as much as it is a please give us a chance to build a little bit of urbanism..) While some of us have a choice between living in a walkable area or a house with a backyard in NW OKC or whatever, what about people who can't afford cars and also can't afford to live close to any walkable areas? That guy in the wheel chair who has to wheel across classen every day? Personal taste indeed isn't an issue of right or wrong. How we build our city, however has financial ramifications and severely impacts the lives of less fortunate folks.

Just a note on OKCPS vs. Edmond schools. The number one problem with most urban school districts is that those with means leave them. What these schools need is committed citizens. Integrated schools is arguably the most proven school reform effort ever tried as it led to significant reductions in the "achievement gap." Often, white people in particular, assume most schools in urban districts are bad because (a) they have low ratings and (b) they have a lot of black and brown kids attending them. Atlanta parent Abby Norman does a good job of explaining this issue ("Why White Parents Won’t Choose Black Schools (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abby-norman2/why-white-parents-wont-ch_b_8294908.html)") that comes up repeatedly in my conversations with my friends. Almost none of my friends can answer any specific questions about why they won't send their children to schools in urban districts. They rarely have visited the schools or even put in a phone call. They just tell me they're rated "bad" and "not going to put their kids through that." They never seem concerned other people's children are "put through that."

In my podcast, education reporter Ben Felder talks about how his son goes to a lowly rated OKCPS school with lots of students of color and they really like it (Episode 29: Education Reporting with Ben Felder (https://visionsofed.com/2016/10/25/episode-29-education-reporting-with-ben-felder/)). Unfortunately, most people don't do the research Ben does to realize that his school isn't actually bad and the school rankings are a major cause of schools losing residents and students and all this leads to highly segregated schools by race and socioeconomic class.

Anyway, my point is, the only way OKCPS improves is if citizens with the means to leave the district actually commit to them. They won't be able to somehow "compensate their teachers in addition to the state funding" even though I completely agree that teachers in high poverty districts should be paid more as such pracrtices are common in other areas like the military. And, to be clear, this is not at all a rant intended at you aDark, but one for everyone as I commonly hear people talk about OKCPS getting it's act together when the main problem for the district is white flight. School re-segregation is one of the biggest problems in our society and we've basically given up on integration even though data shows that it works. Nikole Hannah-Jones has written a lot of tremendous articles on the topic for anyone interested in learning more. And, of course, good schools are integral to urban communities.

Totally agree with this, glad someone posted this viewpoint!

I grew up on NW 67th/May, went (walked) to Burbank Elementary just a few blocks away, which had kids bussed in from almost the time I started (in 1970). Got bussed to Longfellow 5th grade center over on Lincoln somewhere, then got bussed to Hoover Middle School in The Village, then got bussed to Northeast HS (on NE 36th/Kelley). During all of my entire K-12 education, I was in integrated "bad" OKC schools. But it didn't suck - diversity was great, teachers were great (entire HS walked out in support of the teachers' strike back then), learning was great (I was in the Honor Society and top 10% of my class, and Northeast was kind of a magnet for science and other advanced classes back then, in addition to being a normal HS). Around Xmas during my senior year, my family moved to Edmond, and my brother started going to Edmond schools (I stayed in OKC), where they had (I think) 3 black students. I credit my school experience being integrated with me being a better person than a lot I've known that have gone to almost all white schools, and as has been said all over - society (and schools, and workplaces, and ...) needs to be diverse in order to function up to its potential. I moved out of Edmond as fast as I could, and hate going back there even though my mom and brother still live there. It's a shame that huge amounts of people just flee without staying to make things better. I never thought I'd come back to OKC, never wanted to, but I did due to the recession and no jobs anywhere except one I found here, but we eventually moved to Venice in OKC (after living in a horrible place for a few years because we only had a couple of days to find a place when we moved back here (NW 164th/May) and are fighting to make OKC a better place instead of just living in Edmond (or Edmond-ish areas) blissfully unaware of things across the city limits. Wish more people would not take the easy way out...

Disclaimer - we do not and have never had children, so we're in the 0.000000001% in OK, so that gives anybody pretty much license to discount what I said above ("How dare you tell me about schools when you've never had a kid in one" :)).

By the way, I self-transferred in high school from an "elite" school in Cascia Hall to a "bad" school in Tulsa Memorial. It was one of the best decisions I ever made. I went from going to school in socioeconomic, racial, and cultural bubble to attending a school that was diverse on all fronts. I loved it. I learned far more about life and people than I could of at Cascia Hall. And, for full disclosure, I did teacher in Edmond Public Schools and really enjoyed it. Edmond schools do a lot of things right, but they're able to because they have a lot of support and resources that OKCPS does not have.

This whole urban vs suburban thing is so misdirected and divisive. There are legitimate reasons to live either lifestyle. There is only good planning/design and bad planning/design. You can have really excellent suburbs from a livability and sustainability standpoint, but this ONLY happens by design, and to this point OKC really has only ever built unsustainable suburbs. The problem with this is that infrastructure and services costs increase (literally) geometrically, at a much more rapid pace than does the tax base. This cripples a city's ability to prosper. We simply MUST begin to address this through a more careful approach to development, consideration of impact assessments, and also via sprawl retrofit.

Whether millennials drive a shift back to suburbanism or not, we have to understand that the suburbs aren't going anywhere. We need to make the suburban experience better, healthier, more liveable and more sustainable.

:yeahthat:

The urban revival, I think has really failed to live up to what we had hoped for thus far. What I see going up are in most cases wood frame, 4 story structures with no retail on the bottom floors, probably all of which will be falling apart in 20 years or so. The more interesting, luxury housing seems to be going for around the same $/sq. ft. as what you'd see in downtown Dallas. I am not convinced downtown real estate will continue to increase in value. I don't think it's necessarily a wise investment compared to suburban property. I have reason to believe that there's a price bubble which will pop as soon as inventory shoots past demand, which is something which is bound to happen with all of the development we have going on right now.

One thing pretty unique to OKC is the fact you can live near the core, get almost all the benefits but also still get very reasonable housing.

This is why I moved to 50th & Penn. I wanted a yard for my big dogs and a one-story house that could easily be made into an open floor plan while at the same time having easy access to everything downtown.

I rented an apartment downtown when I first moved back but didn't want to spend the big bucks to buy down there. My current house started as a compromise but now I'm not sure you could blast me out of here.

I can be almost anywhere in the core in 10 minutes, door-to-door. You can't do much better if you live downtown. In fact, even though I walked a lot when I lived down there, I did so far less than I would have thought because ultimately I had to get in my car to go shopping, have business meetings, meet friends and family, etc. So it frequently did not make sense to walk somewhere just knowing I'd have to walk all the way home again to get my car for whatever came next.

I contrast this to when I lived in Manhattan Beach and I would go days without touching my car. Had a full-service grocery, bank, and everything else within blocks. OKC is still very far from that fully realized urban model.

And in fact, now I live very near all the shopping and theaters and when I do have to go to Edmond or Bethany or Norman, it's often easier to do so from here than the city center.

AND I can do so on a 1/3 of an acre, just over $110 / SF for a fully renovated house with a 2-car garage, backing up to a beautiful park and I can't even see any neighboring houses from my backyard unless I make a point to do so. This is about as close in as you can get and still get a mid-century ranch house, which I strongly prefer over the expense and headaches of older homes with small rooms, a staircase right in the middle of everything and detached garages.

And oddly, I even have buried utilities! I absolutely love my neighborhood.

To me, it's a near perfect situation. I doubt I'll ever live downtown again even though I do more down there than ever before.

Just a note on OKCPS vs. Edmond schools. The number one problem with most urban school districts is that those with means leave them. What these schools need is committed citizens. Integrated schools is arguably the most proven school reform effort ever tried as it led to significant reductions in the "achievement gap." Often, white people in particular, assume most schools in urban districts are bad because (a) they have low ratings and (b) they have a lot of black and brown kids attending them. Atlanta parent Abby Norman does a good job of explaining this issue ("Why White Parents Won’t Choose Black Schools (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abby-norman2/why-white-parents-wont-ch_b_8294908.html)") that comes up repeatedly in my conversations with my friends. Almost none of my friends can answer any specific questions about why they won't send their children to schools in urban districts. They rarely have visited the schools or even put in a phone call. They just tell me they're rated "bad" and "not going to put their kids through that." They never seem concerned other people's children are "put through that."

In my podcast, education reporter Ben Felder talks about how his son goes to a lowly rated OKCPS school with lots of students of color and they really like it (Episode 29: Education Reporting with Ben Felder (https://visionsofed.com/2016/10/25/episode-29-education-reporting-with-ben-felder/)). Unfortunately, most people don't do the research Ben does to realize that his school isn't actually bad and the school rankings are a major cause of schools losing residents and students and all this leads to highly segregated schools by race and socioeconomic class.

Anyway, my point is, the only way OKCPS improves is if citizens with the means to leave the district actually commit to them. They won't be able to somehow "compensate their teachers in addition to the state funding" even though I completely agree that teachers in high poverty districts should be paid more as such pracrtices are common in other areas like the military. And, to be clear, this is not at all a rant intended at you aDark, but one for everyone as I commonly hear people talk about OKCPS getting it's act together when the main problem for the district is white flight. School re-segregation is one of the biggest problems in our society and we've basically given up on integration even though data shows that it works. Nikole Hannah-Jones has written a lot of tremendous articles on the topic for anyone interested in learning more. And, of course, good schools are integral to urban communities.

This is a really good point. I completely agree that the bad ratings are a dangerous self-fulfilling prophecy. You are absolutely correct that focusing our conversations on teacher pay, and ignoring white-flight, is misdirection of the real issue. Thanks for bringing it up and I'll definitely give the podcast a listen. Big fan of Ben Felder! Also, don't worry about ranting at me as I am always interested in hearing well-thought out counter points. It helps me gain perspective, so thanks!

As someone who is not highly educated on the issue, am I incorrect in understanding that Edmond, Norman, Mustang, Deer Creek, etc. are all school districts have a different teacher compensation structure than the OKC public school system? If so, I think the point I was making, albeit very poorly, is that if compensation is off (even by a little) it is tempting for a teacher living in an urban OKC school district to make the short drive to another district and OKC schools loses out on new talent. Similarly, if OKC has less monies to pay their teachers they suffer from a worse teacher to student ratio.

Again, I agree that the major underlying issue is definitely that those with means choose to leave them. As of today, my wife and I plan to send our kid to an OKCPS school, regardless of the rating. We are firm believers that school is as much about social integration as it is education. Likewise, we believe education is as much about at-home teaching as it is homework.

Do you think we are starting to see the tide turning with OKC urban schools?

If white people leave an area seeking a better lifestyle for their family then it is white flight. If white people move into an area that is predominantly minority then it is gentrification. Either way they are accused of racism. OKC Public Schools has had a bad reputation for a long time. Long before it was predominately minority. Whether that reputation is deserved is open to debate.

One thing pretty unique to OKC is the fact you can live near the core, get almost all the benefits but also still get very reasonable housing.

This is why I moved to 50th & Penn. I wanted a yard for my big dogs and a one-story house that could easily be made into an open floor plan while at the same time having easy access to everything downtown.

I rented an apartment downtown when I first moved back but didn't want to spend the big bucks to buy down there. My current house started as a compromise but now I'm not sure you could blast me out of here.

I can be almost anywhere in the core in 10 minutes, door-to-door. You can't do much better if you live downtown. In fact, even though I walked a lot when I lived down there, I did so far less than I would have thought because ultimately I had to get in my car to go shopping, have business meetings, meet friends and family, etc. So it frequently did not make sense to walk somewhere just knowing I'd have to walk all the way home again to get my car for whatever came next.

I contrast this to when I lived in Manhattan Beach and I would go days without touching my car. Had a full-service grocery, bank, and everything else within blocks. OKC is still very far from that fully realized urban model.

And in fact, now I live very near all the shopping and theaters and when I do have to go to Edmond or Bethany or Norman, it's often easier to do so from here than the city center.

AND I can do so on a 1/3 of an acre, just over $110 / SF for a fully renovated house with a 2-car garage, backing up to a beautiful park and I can't even see any neighboring houses from my backyard unless I make a point to do so. This is about as close in as you can get and still get a mid-century ranch house, which I strongly prefer over the expense and headaches of older homes with small rooms, a staircase right in the middle of everything and detached garages.

And oddly, I even have buried utilities! I absolutely love my neighborhood.

To me, it's a near perfect situation. I doubt I'll ever live downtown again even though I do more down there than ever before.

Those neighborhoods along NW expressway from Penn to meridian are some of the best spots to live in the city for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

When we move back to OKC we will be very happy to live in the suburbs and eventually possibly get a larger lot with a little bit of land further out at a later point. Apartment living in 2 big cities has made me dream of having some personal space. I can be okay with driving 15 minutes and paying to park downtown when I want to be around people or do fun things at night.

When we move back to OKC we will be very happy to live in the suburbs and eventually possibly get a larger lot with a little bit of land further out at a later point. Apartment living in 2 big cities has made me dream of having some personal space. I can be okay with driving 15 minutes and paying to park downtown when I want to be around people or do fun things at night.

That represents quite a transformation in thought for you, doesn't it?

That represents quite a transformation in thought for you, doesn't it?

Yes, 180 degrees. Don't get me wrong, the benefits of urban living are amazing. And I think OKC provides a great value for it. However, living in pure congestion and exponential density has changed my mind on how good of a fit it is for me personally. I've already started eyeing lawn mowers.

Edited to add: that also does not mean that I view urbanity any different. I think the same of urban design, walkability, and the quality that neighborhood development provides on the human scale as I did before. Personally I need space, and living in 2 large and dense growing cities has taught me that.

Yes, 180 degrees. Don't get me wrong, the benefits of urban living are amazing. And I think OKC provides a great value for it. However, living in pure congestion and exponential density has changed my mind on how good of a fit it is for me personally. I've already started eyeing lawn mowers.

I'm for you. I simultaneously see the benefits and liabilities of urbanism, suburbanism, and ruralism. I just wish the proponents of each would operate in a more collaborative, and less adversarial, tension.

In other words, I believe it should be possible to love one, live in another, and not be called a hypocrite.

When do you move back to OKC?

I'm for you. I simultaneously see the benefits and liabilities of urbanism, suburbanism, and ruralism. I just wish the proponents of each would operate in a more collaborative, and less adversarial, tension.

In other words, I believe it should be possible to love one, live in another, and not be called a hypocrite.

When do you move back to OKC?

And before I was as you described. Thinking evil on the other. Age and experience make you wiser I suppose.

Nothing set in stone. But it's a matter of when not if. I will say sooner rather than later.

And before I was as you described. Thinking evil on the other. Age and experience make you wiser I suppose.

Nothing set in stone. But it's a matter of when not if. I will say sooner rather than later.

Good for you, man.

Several in here have alluded to this, but to reiterate, the problems inherent to suburbia have received significantly less attention and debate than the shortcomings of New Urbanism/Urban Revival. The problem is not suburbia's relative distance to downtown: It's the "What makes your suburb better than mine?" and "Why should I stick it out in a dying suburb"?

I have a friend who bought a brand new home just on the other side of County Line, north of Wilshire @ $86/sf in July 2010. Bought because he got married and his wife liked the place, but he was never super into the house. His wife got cold feet and divorced him super quickly. Obviously not a house he wants to hold onto for long given the circumstances, but he's been renting it out and making it work. Now that he's in-between tenants he put it on the market and he can't generate interest listed at $87/sf.

CPI inflation calculator shows 07/10 $86 should be $96 in 07/17. The market has obviously blown away Inflation over the last 7 years. So how can you look at that purchase as anything other than a bad investment?

Alternatively, anything purchased inside the NW part of the grand loop in 2010 has absolutely crushed the <15% inflation over the last 7 years and almost all of it was selling for less than $86/sf in 2010. Unlike previous generations, the odds that this falls off again are quite low. The mechanisms that enticed US urban sprawl were historically unique, and it is beyond clear that mistakes were made in the planning of these areas and in understanding how the political climate would affect those areas. The city center has been a development in the making for over what, 1,000 years? That's not changing anytime soon. People by and large, want to be in "close" community. That's not to say that everyone wants to live in a 600 square foot condo with 2,500 on the same block, but the suburbs are an affirmation of that desire...not a negation of it. So I think you have to strongly consider that NW 36th and Walker is not going to go through another 30 year boom/bust cycle given the importance of downtown. Downtown may see a slow down in price increases if we're already hitting $500/sf...but it's not going to go backward, and is at least going to keep pace with inflation. Those $130/sf homes @ NW 180th and May vs. Inflation...I think we can pretty well predict where those are going to be in 10 years.

It's just hard to justify the numbers of suburbia at some point.

To me, the problem with NW 180 and May & County Line and Wilshire, from an investment standpoint, comes down to this:

NW 190 and May & County Line and Britton

And in a few years, NW 200 and May & County Line and Hefner

Seems to me that the kind of people who are drawn to the more outer fringes often have a "brand new house" as their priority. Which is fine, except that when the frontier moves a couple miles farther out, the market for last decade's subdivision wanes a bit. Why would "outer fringe" buyers in 5-10 years not just buy in the newest subdivision? I would never by in the more outer suburbs if my primary motivation was investment. If you like the house, then fine, but just know the appreciation will probably not be there unless there's something really special about the neighborhood.

When we move back to OKC we will be very happy to live in the suburbs and eventually possibly get a larger lot with a little bit of land further out at a later point. Apartment living in 2 big cities has made me dream of having some personal space. I can be okay with driving 15 minutes and paying to park downtown when I want to be around people or do fun things at night.
That was my experience growing up. I'll never live in a urban/downtown area again. I can see the appeal for someone that's never experienced that lifestyle, but it wears you down over time and you just end up craving quiet nights and some s p a c e. :D

Yes, 180 degrees. Don't get me wrong, the benefits of urban living are amazing. And I think OKC provides a great value for it. However, living in pure congestion and exponential density has changed my mind on how good of a fit it is for me personally. I've already started eyeing lawn mowers.

Edited to add: that also does not mean that I view urbanity any different. I think the same of urban design, walkability, and the quality that neighborhood development provides on the human scale as I did before. Personally I need space, and living in 2 large and dense growing cities has taught me that.

There are lawns in the city proper, too... :) We lived at NW 164th/May and *never* got down into the city as much as we wanted to for things, but since we've moved to Venice, it's *so* much easier that we go to all kinds of places we wouldn't even have thought about before (bad for the checking account, though). The atmosphere in the city is so much better, too - Neighbors Night Out last night for Venice had about 40 or so people, and we *never* would've had that many (or even a Neighbors Night Out) where we used to live, for example.

Even the most devout urbanists tend to go through different phases in their lives; I know I sure have.

I used to live in Manhattan Beach, two blocks from the sand and right in the middle of one of the greatest beach communities anywhere. Within a few blocks there was almost everything from a full grocery store to my cleaners, dentist, haircutter, library, theater, all types of recreation and tons of shops, restaurants and bars. Apart from work, I almost never touched my car.

But after seven years I was way past ready to move. The density and constant noise; it's particularly bad by the beach because the weather is such that your windows are open year round, but that's also true of everyone else. I could hear more than a few of my neighbors having sex, for example. That gets old fast.

Living there was the fulfillment of a life-long dream yet it wore me out. The simple truth is that like most people I worked a lot and when I was home I didn't want to hear people arguing or car alarms going off or frat boys puking in the bushes when the bars closed at 2AM.

But then after living in burbs and having a yard and dog and tons of open space all around, I chose to move downtown when I came back to OKC.

And on and on it will go although as I've stated upthread I think I have a best of both worlds situation at present.

OKC is a becoming a great blend of urban cool and quiet privacy. We have choices of where to live and how to live without sacrificing lifestyle choices.

I live in the 63rd and Penn/Western area in a zero lot line home (no lawn mowing) but live in a highly landscaped area near the great walking, park along Grand in Nichols Hills. I have quiet patios to enjoy my mornings and evenings outdoors. I am easy walking distance to a Whole Foods, Trader Joes, any number of quality restaurants, Starbucks, All about Cha, and more and more shopping (and I even walk to Penn Square). I have a very good hotel nearby (Waterford) for guests. My neighborhood is safe and secure without being gated. I can easily bike to and around Lake Hefner. I am literally 10-15 minutes to downtown and less to the Plaza area, and 5 minutes from the the Western shopping/eating area. I am 15-20 minutes to the airport. And, the best part is that this is affordable in Oklahoma City unlike this arrangement would be in most developed cities. So, we can actually do more.

I think many here don't realize how good we have it. It isn't perfect, but after spending a lot of years in a lot of cities I think it's pretty darn good to live right here. And, it just keeps getting better.

This whole urban vs suburban thing is so misdirected and divisive. There are legitimate reasons to live either lifestyle. There is only good planning/design and bad planning/design. You can have really excellent suburbs from a livability and sustainability standpoint, but this ONLY happens by design, and to this point OKC really has only ever built unsustainable suburbs. The problem with this is that infrastructure and services costs increase (literally) geometrically, at a much more rapid pace than does the tax base. This cripples a city's ability to prosper. We simply MUST begin to address this through a more careful approach to development, consideration of impact assessments, and also via sprawl retrofit.

Whether millennials drive a shift back to suburbanism or not, we have to understand that the suburbs aren't going anywhere. We need to make the suburban experience better, healthier, more liveable and more sustainable.

Good points. And I guess if the people who made OKC more livable by transforming and revitalizing our urban districts like the Plaza district, Midtown, Uptown, Paseo, AA, etc. into vibrant districts with their own identities decide to turn their sights on the suburbs, maybe they'll improve too. I think it's already happening, to be honest, which is great. Even the proposed development in far north Norman is more community minded than we usually see in our suburbs. Really, all communities are a reflection of the people who live in it and if a community's growth is made up of people who wanted to escape the problems of the last community they lived in, then what will they do when their new community is faced with similar problems? Often times, I think they just leave that one too...

What people seem to miss in the petty "lifestyle war" is how much the success of one depends on the other. And no one should be wishing for the success of the urban core more than someone who is seeking a more quiet, low key life in the suburbs. The more people who live and stay in the city core, the less there are to move into the suburbs. Really, no area of OKC feels more congested than Edmond and the Memorial corridor, imo. The only time I ever consider that traffic may be a factor for me is when I go up there. If anything, suburban planners should be focused on maintaining the space and lifestyle that people are originally drawn to. It must suck for someone who moves there because they can have more land and less traffic congestion, only for it to be swallowed up by sprawl within 5 or 10 years of moving there.

^^^^^
100% agree.

This is one of the reasons I have hopes that developments like Chisholm Creek and - ESPECIALLY - Wheeler District will adjust the local consumer's expectations for their suburban community. Wheeler at its heart is still a mostly suburban neighborhood; it's just not the type of suburb we are used to in OKC, or really, in the region. My hope is that people will visit friends or family in these areas once completed, or go there to shop or to eat, and think "man, I want this type of thing in Edmond..." or Yukon, or NW OKC, or wherever they call home. That's not to say all suburbs must have this treatment, but it should be AVAILABLE, and optimally even the very car-centric suburban neighborhoods would benefit from a connected walkable area nearby.

It's also important to distinguish between suburban and rural, which are two very different things, but often viewed as the same by many people.

^^^^^
100% agree.

This is one of the reasons I have hopes that developments like Chisholm Creek and - ESPECIALLY - Wheeler District will adjust the local consumer's expectations for their suburban community. Wheeler at its heart is still a mostly suburban neighborhood; it's just not the type of suburb we are used to in OKC, or really, in the region. My hope is that people will visit friends or family in these areas once completed, or go there to shop or to eat, and think "man, I want this type of thing in Edmond..." or Yukon, or NW OKC, or wherever they call home. That's not to say all suburbs must have this treatment, but it should be AVAILABLE, and optimally even the very car-centric suburban neighborhoods would benefit from a connected walkable area nearby.

It's also important to distinguish between suburban and rural, which are two very different things, but often viewed as the same by many people.

I agree with this completely. One thing is while OKC has plenty of other cities it can look to for examples of good urban and suburban development, every market is different.

For such a suburb-centric city, the way OKC has developed its suburbs until recently has been stuck in the 1980s. With developments like Chisholm Creek and the new development just posted today in Norman, that is starting to change and should continue improving as each new development sets the bar higher. It's unfortunate that the Spring Creek expansion was NIMBYed and that the Classen Curve expansion might also be, but hopefully more developments like that eventually make their way here.

The same thing happened in the core. I doubt there would be the 21c development or the Steelyard without Deep Deuce and Midtown having been developed first to up the standard (compared to Lower Bricktown). If/when a developers takes a gamble and builds a residential high-rise, things might really get interesting.

Agree with above posters. "Suburban vs. Urban" as a lifestyle choice is kinda silly to argue. I prefer, and think there are lifestyle advantages to being in a more connected and walkable area with daily needs in close proximity, but that doesn't mean it's for everybody and certainly there is nothing wrong with wanting to have everything that comes with suburban living...

However, what IS an important discussion is sustainability. Most of our suburban areas are not sustainable (not enough income vs. cost of s..t to maintain) and depend on urban areas to survive/not be cost prohibitive. If you want to live on an acre on the outskirts of okc thats fine, but understand that if the city doesn't up it's game on more intensely developed areas, at best we will always have bad streets and be short on city staff and at worst, the outskirts would lose basic services and have their roads be converted back to dirt. The other option to densification is charging citizens who live away from nodes of sustainability extra fees.

Agree with above posters. "Suburban vs. Urban" as a lifestyle choice is kinda silly to argue. I prefer, and think there are lifestyle advantages to being in a more connected and walkable area with daily needs in close proximity, but that doesn't mean it's for everybody and certainly there is nothing wrong with wanting to have everything that comes with suburban living...

However, what IS an important discussion is sustainability. Most of our suburban areas are not sustainable (not enough income vs. cost of s..t to maintain) and depend on urban areas to survive/not be cost prohibitive. If you want to live on an acre on the outskirts of okc thats fine, but understand that if the city doesn't up it's game on more intensely developed areas, at best we will always have bad streets and be short on city staff and at worst, the outskirts would lose basic services and have their roads be converted back to dirt. The other option to densification is charging citizens who live away from nodes of sustainability extra fees.

Maybe OKC should give up some of it 600 square miles?

I think the biggest roadblock for OKC urban revival continuing will be the schools. I agree with a previous poster that a lot of it can be tied to white flight, but that doesn't mean I want my kid to be the trail blazer in fixing that issue. When parents have the best school districts in the state in very close proximity, not many are going to chose to send their kids to one of the worst. I know that a lot of the poor ratings are due to socioeconomic situations of the kids that actually go to the schools, not the teaching itself. But that also means that your kids will be exposed to all the issues that come with low socioeconomic situations of drugs, crime, etc. And if the majority of kids in the class are behind, it will slow the education of the advanced kids as well.

I don't know a real way to fix inner city schools, but I know it is the number 1 reason I live in Edmond and not around Penn Square or farther south. Just hoping that people with means send their kids to OKCPS probably won't fix them, though.

OKC schools really shouldn't be an issue if you've bothered to do a little research. There are outstanding charter schools which are going to rank as high as or higher than your Edmond or Deer Creek schools. Aside from those, there are plenty of affordable Catholic schools which receive rave reviews. I get not wanting your kid to be the trail blazer. I'm looking at a hard choice here in a couple years with whether we send our kid to Putnam City schools vs. Catholic schools for pre-K (leaning hard on the Catholic route or trying to transfer in to Rex). The point is that if you live in OKC proper, there are lots of good options if you do your homework.

I don't know a real way to fix inner city schools, but I know it is the number 1 reason I live in Edmond and not around Penn Square or farther south. Just hoping that people with means send their kids to OKCPS probably won't fix them, though.

It's a tough equation for sure and I certainly get locating your family based on schools. I also agree that you can't just hope for people with means to send their kids to an under performing school. I don't have the answers either, but I don't think one has to send their own kids to OKCPS to help the system. I think what has to happen first is for people to begin to care about the schools and the kids at the schools that their own kids don't go to, and that seems to be a tough sell lately.

The problem is how the state funds schools and everyone prizing low property taxes over proper school funding. We need leadership in this state to insist on education over right wing populist politics. Shoot, the leaders of the state can't even understand science.

The problem is how the state funds schools and everyone prizing low property taxes over proper school funding. We need leadership in this state to insist on education over right wing populist politics. Shoot, the leaders of the state can't even understand science.

The problem isnt so much our low property tax rates but more of good ol boy county assessors not valuing property at market rates. This is a much bigger problem in rural counties.

The problem is how the state funds schools and everyone prizing low property taxes over proper school funding. We need leadership in this state to insist on education over right wing populist politics. Shoot, the leaders of the state can't even understand science.

Or math.

The urban revival, I think has really failed to live up to what we had hoped for thus far. What I see going up are in most cases wood frame, 4 story structures with no retail on the bottom floors, probably all of which will be falling apart in 20 years or so. The more interesting, luxury housing seems to be going for around the same $/sq. ft. as what you'd see in downtown Dallas. I am not convinced downtown real estate will continue to increase in value. I don't think it's necessarily a wise investment compared to suburban property. I have reason to believe that there's a price bubble which will pop as soon as inventory shoots past demand, which is something which is bound to happen with all of the development we have going on right now.

Honestly, we're going to have to experience some boom and bust periods. No city escapes market volatility. This is just part of ongoing development.

If we're currently riding a bubble, then when it pops, the market will have to readjust. You exaggerate when you say a lot of these structures are going to be falling apart in 20 years. They won't be as nice as they are now, but they won't be structurally unsound. If you want affordable housing downtown, that may be the only way you get it. Yes, some people might lose their shirts in the process, but that's not unique to downtown real estate.

I don't think OKC's downtown growth is showing any sign of slowing down. There seem to be a lot of new things in the pipeline, and when the streetcar goes in we'll probably see even more stuff announced. Not every project will work out, of course. There are still fortunes to be made, and fortunes to be lost. But absent $10/barrel oil, or Tinker closing down, I think we're set for a sustained period of growth for a while. At some point, there'll be a crash and we'll have to deal with it. But that in itself is part of healthy, long-term growth. Every city goes through it.

I don't think I'm exaggerating. Nearly every new structure downtown is 4-stories and wood framed. These buildings are built to last 20ish years. Fraternity and sorority houses being built in Norman have more stringent building requirements. I do think we're riding a bubble. As I observed, developers in downtown OKC are marketing properties for downtown Dallas prices.

I was in Kansas City this weekend and it was a truly eye opening experience. It made me think of what OKC could have been had the Pei Plan either not have happened or had been less disastrous. A lot of people on this board use Dallas as the model city but I think Kansas City is a better target to shoot for. Of course OKC is much smaller than Kansas City, but I think given the circumstances of how far behind downtown fell during the 1980s and early 90s, even at the current growth rate, it can be sustained a while. This city, even with all of its progress, still has a lot of ground to cover. To put it in perspective, in 2010 the urban core of OKC had 77,471 residents. Compare that to Louisville which had 106,000 residents. In terms of economic numbers, Louisville and OKC are very, very similar.

I really hope some higher quality infill downtown developments start happening, such as the Times Square development at 4th and EKG. I think the real wildcards are areas like the Wheeler District and Strawberry Fields. In those instances, the city is basically starting and trying to build an urban core from absolute scratch.

Now that Nashville has been awarded an MLS franchise and is a 3 pro sport town, I realize just how far behind OKC is in terms of growth, development , economic vitality etc. I really feel that the leadership in the State and City and the CULTURE of mediocrity is so pervasive that OKC will never become a place people WANT to live in and Stay in. People are flocking to Raleigh, NC, Nashville, Austin, other high growth places, but OKC although growing ever so slightly just does not seem able to catch fire and move into a high growth, expansion posture, at least for any sustained period of time. Why not? I ask myself that allot.

nm