City Planning Question

[leprechaun]

Hello everybody, in the past couple years I have become very interested in city planning, so much so that I would like to get a master's degree in this field. I would like to see OKC become a REAL urban city, and even though this city is making progress, I am wary of the so-called "good ole boy" system currently place that allows suburban development to continue. I realize that sprawl continues to be an inevitability in most cities, but developments like the approved Sandridge plaza are inexcusable in the only remotely urban area in OKC's 600+ square miles. For an urban minded person to be a planner in OKC, do you think the "good ole boy" system is still too established for somebody to make a difference? I would like to be a planner for this city, but I don't want to waste my time if I will be forced to make decisions that go against my urban minded vision. Any information would be appreciated, thanks.

[Kerry]

If you want to get something done, stay out of the public sector side of urban planning. Work for a private sector development company, or start your own development company (start small and work your way up).

Here is an example of private sector company that you could work for.
http://www.urscorp.com/

[BG918]

Hello everybody, in the past couple years I have become very interested in city planning, so much so that I would like to get a master's degree in this field. I would like to see OKC become a REAL urban city, and even though this city is making progress, I am wary of the so-called "good ole boy" system currently place that allows suburban development to continue. I realize that sprawl continues to be an inevitability in most cities, but developments like the approved Sandridge plaza are inexcusable in the only remotely urban area in OKC's 600+ square miles. For an urban minded person to be a planner in OKC, do you think the "good ole boy" system is still too established for somebody to make a difference? I would like to be a planner for this city, but I don't want to waste my time if I will be forced to make decisions that go against my urban minded vision. Any information would be appreciated, thanks.

You might try working for the city to gain experience and if that doesn't work out go into the private sector. Are you getting your master's at OU?

[okclee]

Do what everyone else does, be an Okctalk.com City Planner.

It doesn't pay that much, the hours are good and flexible, plus the benefit of anonymity.

[Popsy]

I have been under the impression that a lot of the most active posters in the forum were either failed city planners or future failed city planners. I feel certain that the reality of city planning and the perception of those seeking a degree in the field can be a huge wake up call.

[leprechaun]

Yeah there seem to be a lot of city planner types on this site. Honestly, for the most part the posters on okctalk have a much better vision for this city than those in charge, but unfortunately we are in the minority.

Kerry- Thanks for the link, I will look into that. I think the private sector might be the only option in terms of accomplishing anything lol.

BG918- Yes I'm planning on getting my master's at OU, and I'm currently a junior undergrad.

[Kerry]

Here is another one for you leprechaun

http://www.pbsj.com/Pages/default.aspx

[dwellsokc]

Leprechaun,
It is not the "good old boy" system that allows suburban development to continue... it's logic, reason, and economics. The development of Sandridge plaza is not inexcusable... it’s another viewpoint, and politics (there are many more components to urban design than street-wall). A person that wants to make a difference via the Planning Department will have to be ridiculously patient, and be able to manipulate economics and politics. After you get your masters, count on working in the planning department for at least ten years before anyone begins to acknowledge your credibility.

Believe it or not, there are already many, good, "urban minded" planners working in OKC. If you really want to change things, become a journalist!

[flintysooner]

Hello everybody, in the past couple years I have become very interested in city planning, so much so that I would like to get a master's degree in this field. I would like to see OKC become a REAL urban city, and even though this city is making progress, I am wary of the so-called "good ole boy" system currently place that allows suburban development to continue. I realize that sprawl continues to be an inevitability in most cities, but developments like the approved Sandridge plaza are inexcusable in the only remotely urban area in OKC's 600+ square miles. For an urban minded person to be a planner in OKC, do you think the "good ole boy" system is still too established for somebody to make a difference? I would like to be a planner for this city, but I don't want to waste my time if I will be forced to make decisions that go against my urban minded vision. Any information would be appreciated, thanks.

I've had several interactions with planners and I've become very interested in planning itself.

My interest is along the lines of how development and architecture in a place can contribute to a sense of community and enjoyable, practical use by those who live there.

At the same time I came rather abruptly to the realization that there were several other areas of consideration that demanded my full attention. Those include finance, government, politics, engineering, architecture, and construction to only name a few. Any one of these is sufficiently complex to require more time than any of us have.

I've learned that planners cannot provide a vision although they sometimes try. I've learned that planners who do not understand the local culture are handicapped. And I've learned that there is a lot of enthusiasm for ignoring local culture.

On the government side the planning function is also multidisciplinary. There is the application of codes and regulations which is not nearly as straight forward as first appears. There is a lot of engineering and economics and finance. And there are also definite political aspects which may well be the most difficult for most people.

Those who have been of greatest service in my opinion are those who have had the broadest and longest experience. Where others talk about theory it is very helpful to have someone who actually has been involved in something that either worked or failed.

It is amazingly easy to look at a project through a narrow filter and it is wonderfully helpful for someone to bring an entirely different perspective to the problem.

These are my personal observations from my own experiences with planners and may nor may not be useful to you.

Either way best of wishes in your future endeavors.

[Spartan]

Hello everybody, in the past couple years I have become very interested in city planning, so much so that I would like to get a master's degree in this field. I would like to see OKC become a REAL urban city, and even though this city is making progress, I am wary of the so-called "good ole boy" system currently place that allows suburban development to continue. I realize that sprawl continues to be an inevitability in most cities, but developments like the approved Sandridge plaza are inexcusable in the only remotely urban area in OKC's 600+ square miles. For an urban minded person to be a planner in OKC, do you think the "good ole boy" system is still too established for somebody to make a difference? I would like to be a planner for this city, but I don't want to waste my time if I will be forced to make decisions that go against my urban minded vision. Any information would be appreciated, thanks.

Well keep in mind that SandRidge Commons received a negative recommendation from the planning department. The recommendation didn't say "Fail this, it's a bad project," it just said "This project is not in compliance with the letter nor the intent of the new downtown ordinances" in so many words. The DDRC ignored the city staff recommendation, and it was arguably them and not city staff that was pressured by anything/anyone.

City planning doesn't pay, unless perhaps you work for a private planning firm. Arguably you'd be making more of an impact on real cities there than with a city planning department, because anyone can determine if a project adheres to city code, whereas private planning firms actually affect stuff that will be built. I've often thought in a perfect utopia the city could provide architectural services to developers, therefor giving the community a greater opportunity to influence development, but alas I don't see that happening.

Just ignore the negative posters on here. Much the case with Popsy, when those people start talking about reality they're mostly trying to avoid facing reality. The irony is that they own that arguing point for whatever reason, because nobody in OKC gives a flying $#@# about sustainability, problems with sprawl, and any of those crappy realities. We have a saying in this city that Steve Lackmeyer is bringing back with the devoted help of city staff and lame developers: "Better than crappy makes us happy."

[bluedogok]

Here is another one for you leprechaun

http://www.pbsj.com/Pages/default.aspx

A friend of mine works in the office down here here, after reading the story about Atkins buying PBSJ I told him "sorry, been there, have the coffee mug" after their failed ownership stint with Benham.

[leprechaun]

Hey everybody thanks for the responses. I just want to let you know that I don't mean to sound preachy. I realize that there are probably plenty of urban minded planners in this city, and that there are tons of factors that go into decisions among planners and city leaders that I don't realize. Lots of positive things are happening. I was very pleased with the recent announcements of the Aloft hotel and the condos across the street in Deep Deuce, which is the kind of development that I had hoped for in that area. There are some great neighborhoods that have continued to develop, like the Plaza District and The Paseo. I am very impressed with the modern houses in the "SOSA" area, and Midtown in general has tons of potential.

I can't help but feel frustrated though with developments like the The Hill and the SandRidge plaza. They would have been great in any other area of the city. I have rather had SandRidge lie to us than have their reasoning for tearing down historic buildings to improve their sightlines. Are you kidding me? SandRidge acted shocked and threw a fit when the city attempted to enforce current guidelines, and they still got their way because of all the money they are bringing to the community. This city shouldn't have to whore itself out, especially when we already have great corporate citizens like Devon. If we are willing to bend over backwards like this for SandRidge, Devon probably could have torn down half of downtown if they wanted to (exaggeration).

I realize that I my vision may be too idealistic and naive for the real world, considering that I lack any first hand knowledge when it comes to city planning. It just seems like the average citizen is incredibly apathetic, and due to lack of standards developers get away with whatever they want. OKC has the potential to be a unique city if people want it to be, or we could continue to not give a %&*$ and look like Dallas does now in 50 years. When I hear people say "we will never be a New York City or Chicago", they're right. It is people with this attitude that will stop OKC from reaching its potential, and I'm sick of it. I guess its an inferiority complex.

Seriously, if people like the suburban lifestyle that's fine. There's nothing wrong with wanting your own yard. Considering that people get married and have kids at a younger age than most states, it is no surprise that the suburban lifestyle is dominant here. In my opinion, people don't even consider other options of living when the majority of the population has grown up in suburbia. People have been programmed to think that they should have SUVs and a McMansion as part of the American Dream. A mixed-use environment isn't for everybody, but if OKC at least had this option, I'm sure there would be plenty of people willing to give it a try. Young people should not have to move out of state to have this option available. My 20 year old sister just moved to Minneapolis for this reason. James Howard Kunstler says it best about suburban sprawl: "the greatest misallocation of resources the world has ever known." Sorry for the rant, just my perspective.

Spartan- Quote is spot-on

[Spartan]

Well don't feel like you need to be involved from the inside. I mean, you'll never gain Popsy and Del Camino's respect as an outsider, but who cares about that. You can make a difference from the outside. We all pick our fights carefully and I like to think we were definitely heard and considered a force to be reckoned with over the summer when we kept throwing monkey wrenches in SandRidge's carte blanche application.

If you're looking to maintain your vision and outlook on the world, I'd recommend being on your own. It's not just city planners that get to have a say about urbanism. Actually I'd argue that they're entitled to the smallest say out of anyone. They're not even the department that effects urbanism the most in OKC--the city engineers in the public works department actually design roads, including streetscapes and pedestrian accommodations. I'd say something negative about the city engineers but I feel like I've already exceeded my maximum allowance for negativity today..

[Kerry]

Open comment to leprechaun and all the other urbanist in OKC. If you want OKC to become more urban it is time to start walking the walk. If you live in Norman, Moore, Edmond, or rural/suburban OKC you need to move downtown, Mesta Park, Heritage Hills, or some other urban core area. We need more pioneers. Things will be harder at first but you will lay the ground work for future development. It is time for less "build it and they will come" and more "come and they will build it". I let slip in another thread that we were looking to return to Norman (after being gone 16 years) and that I prefered to live in Heritage Hills/Mesta Park. We fight about that constantly but in the long run I think it will worth it (assuming I win the argument). This is a call to arms. Urban OKC doens't need more people that back them in spirit, they need people that back them in person. Step up.

On a side note, I was checking out realtor.com for houses in the areas I mentioned - there are some serious deals out there. I wish we were in a position to move right now.

[Spartan]

Woah, ouch. What about Urban Norman?... the state's only truly functional and healthy urban inner city.

[Kerry]

Woah, ouch. What about Urban Norman?... the state's only truly functional and healthy urban inner city.

Some people like living in something already established, others like doing the establishing. Some people stand on the shoulders of giants, others are the giants. OKC needs more of both.

[BG918]

Woah, ouch. What about Urban Norman?... the state's only truly functional and healthy urban inner city.

Agree, there is a big difference between Norman and the other OKC suburbs. I would say Norman and OKC both need more young people and families in their inner neighborhoods. And it should not just be limited to downtown but all inner city areas.

[leprechaun]

I live in Norman and agree that it has the most functional urban district in the state. As good as it is, I would like to live in the inner north side of OKC once I graduate it, especially while I can still afford it as i suspect that prices will go up dramatically in that area. It's too bad there aren't more urban pioneers out there, especially OKC. I applaud the people that were willing to invest in areas like The Paseo and The Plaza District. Urban pioneers are the one's who create organic and desirable communities such as these. We are lucky to have Wayne Coyne living in the same area where he grew up, and not out in Deer Creek. It is people like him that care about the community as a WHOLE. I have heard that he attends functions and meetings in the Plaza area. It seems that one problem with people here is that they take tremendous pride in their particular subdivisions to make sure that they are safe and aesthetically pleasing, but don't really care about the rest of the city outside of their subdivision, which they leave up to the city, who also doesn't seem to care. This is just a generalization, as i know there are exceptions. Midtown might have the most potential, considering that it already has great character, but there remains many undeveloped lots. This is a district that I would also like to see grow organically. We still need to have guidelines and enforce them, but we should not encourage mega developers in that area, which could potentially destroy the identity of that area.

[Spartan]

I would argue that there aren't enough people taking pride in the appearance of their own property. If you compare community aesthetics in OKC to elsewhere like Omaha or Des Moines, or Tulsa, you see a disparity. It's a vague thing but extremely noticeable.

Also I can't wait for prices in OKC to rise. Higher property values = better development. Lower property values = more shoddy development that people have been getting away with. I'm no longer denying those economics. YES, cheaper property values and cost of living SHOULD make doing cool projects cheaper and easier, but someone explain why it has never worked that way.

The answer: downtown has to be able to compete economically, not just socially or culturally. It can't when the city is still in sprawl-mode.

[leprechaun]

I haven't seen enough of Tulsa to compare Spartan, but your probably right. One factor that is working against is the enormous square footage of our city. It's too bad that the city will probably never consider reducing our boundaries to the urban areas. I guess the original reasoning was about the water supply, but I have no idea if this is still relevant or how complicated the process would be. The reality of vertical development making more economic sense for the developer than sprawl might not happen even in my lifetime.

I am afraid the city will forever be in sprawl mode until it doesn't make any economic sense. The environmental and overall economic impact of sprawl is devastating. If the government had everybody's best interests in mind and we were living in my perfect world, suburban development would be taxed in proportion to its REAL costs. A developer willing to go vertical and build vertically should be given a huge tax break. I don't know if this system is in place, but maybe give tax breaks to developers that are willing to build with better quality. It's only going to benefit the city in the long term, not to mention the environment. This is unrealistic because people don't see this as a value to them personally, even though it will benefit the community. When in incorporating police and fire and utilities and other public uses that are stretched out due to sprawl, the cost might even out. This is just speculation, as I'm not familiar enough with economics and policy to know if this would work.

[ljbab728]

IOne factor that is working against is the enormous square footage of our city. It's too bad that the city will probably never consider reducing our boundaries to the urban areas. I guess the original reasoning was about the water supply, but I have no idea if this is still relevant or how complicated the process would be. The reality of vertical development making more economic sense for the developer than sprawl might not happen even in my lifetime.

I have had this discussion many times with others here about the OKC city limits. I remember very well when all of the expansion was taking place and I never heard anything about water supply being relevant. The expansion was to prevent OKC from being hemmed in by the suburbs such as what happened to Dallas and Tulsa. If OKC had not annexed all of their land we would be in the exact same situation. Development in the suburbs would still be happening but OKC would get no tax benefits. And I've heard the arguments about letting the suburbs foot the bills for development but the tax benefits outway that by far.

[Spartan]

Well, let's look at Dallas' population growth. Let's say that suburban sprawl did not begin in Dallas until the 1940s, and did not end until Dallas was built-out in the 1980s. I don't know if that's actually when Dallas was built-out, but for the most part, I don't know of any newer neighborhoods on Dallas' far fringe than neighborhoods that appear to be built in the 80s or 70s before you get to Richardson. Most of Richardson is 60s/70s though so it could be sooner, or it could be later. But let's go with the 80s. So in recap: 1940s --- 1980s = Dallas' sprawl period.

1860 678
—
1870 3,000 342.5%
1880 10,358 245.3%
1890 38,067 267.5%
1900 42,639 12.0%
1910 92,104 116.0%
1920 158,976 72.6%
1930 260,475 63.8%
1940 294,734 13.2%
1950 434,462 47.4%
1960 679,684 56.4%
1970 844,401 24.2%
1980 904,078 7.1%
1990 1,006,877 11.4%
2000 1,188,580 18.0%
Est. 2010 1,300,000 9.4%

So from 1860 to 1940 Dallas averaged growth from 100+% to 60% yearly. And this was very urban growth. Then during the sprawl period Dallas averaged growth from 7% to 56% depending on the economic indicators. When Dallas lost "room to grow" in the 80s that growth did take a hit, even though it went from 7% to 11% it did not keep up with the Metroplex average growth which rebounded big-time in the 90s. Then shot up to 18% which is absolutely remarkable for a U.S. inner city, and around 10% for the last decade, which still beats OKC this decade. The level of construction of new condos and lofts all over Dallas proper has been absolutely amazing and there have been more urban units built than new residential units built in the entire OKC metro. And as leprechaun said, the required public infrastructure is so much more efficient--Dallas spends an incredible amount of money trying to build $1 trillion/mile freeways like the new LBJ and the DART which also has an amazing per mile cost (though nowhere near the freeways) and all this other Metroplex infrastructure that is just mind boggling. The urban development in Dallas requires a tiny fraction of the transit infrastructure that comes with suburban development.

[Kerry]

I am afraid the city will forever be in sprawl mode until it doesn't make any economic sense.

Sprawl doesn't make economic sense now. It only happens because the developer and home buyer only have to pay a portion of the cost of the new development and the taxpayers at large have to pick up the rest of the bill.

Here is a demonstration. Below is the area of land based on the radius of growth from the center and the amount of new land encompassed by the growth. All measurement are in miles and sq miles where appropriate.

Radius Area Change
1 3.14
2 12.57 9.42
3 28.27 15.71
4 50.27 21.99
5 78.54 28.27
6 113.10 34.56
7 153.94 40.84
8 201.06 47.12
9 254.47 53.41
10 314.16 59.69
11 380.13 65.97
12 452.39 72.26
13 530.93 78.54
14 615.75 84.82
15 706.86 91.11
16 804.25 97.39
17 907.92 103.67
18 1017.88 109.96
19 1134.11 116.24
20 1256.64 122.52
21 1385.44 128.81
22 1520.53 135.09
23 1661.90 141.37
24 1809.56 147.65
25 1963.50 153.94


When the city goes from a 10 mile radius to an 11 mile because of sprawl it is the equivalent of rebuilding the inner 4.5 miles of the City. Then we get more sprawl and 10 years later we go from 11 miles to 12 miles out (no big deal - just another mile right). Well, that is the equivalent of rebuilding the inner 5 miles - but there aren't more people in the inner five miles to help pay for that becaus all the new people are moving to the fringe and at lower densities so a 1 mile road serves fewer people than the same 1 mile road in the urban core and we need more 1 mile roads as the circle gets bigger. So in essence, the benefit goes down while at the same time we are needing more (i.e. diminishing returns - or 'pay more get less'). I don't like paying more and getting less.

Alas, 10 years later there is more sprawl and we go from 11 miles to 12 miles - which adds another 75 sq miles to the mix. That is the equivalent of rebuilding the inner 5 mile circle again with even more dimishing returns. It can't go on forever, because each 1 mile increase in sprawl cost more to build and support than the previous mile. The whole concept of sprawl is based on dimishing returns and that is a sure looser for everyone involved.

[LakeEffect]

Soapbox time.

OKC Talk is constantly filled with talk of being urbanist and wanting to be involved in Planning efforts and making Oklahoma City better. The Planning Department is in the process of writing a completely new comprehensive plan for OKC, (planokc), and yet attendance at our events is a paltry 8 to 16 people per plan element. This is despite haveing up to 170 people signed up to participate in each element. I urge people to take the time to participate. The comprehensive plan is what guides the growth of OKC; it will shape the look of OKC for the next 30 years.

Leprechaun, I urge you to look out of state for planning education. OU is good, but, in my honest opinion, it's small faculty size and limited experience don't provide the educational opportunity that other schools might have.

[Kerry]

Soapbox time.

OKC Talk is constantly filled with talk of being urbanist and wanting to be involved in Planning efforts and making Oklahoma City better. The Planning Department is in the process of writing a completely new comprehensive plan for OKC, (planokc), and yet attendance at our events is a paltry 8 to 16 people per plan element. This is despite haveing up to 170 people signed up to participate in each element. I urge people to take the time to participate. The comprehensive plan is what guides the growth of OKC; it will shape the look of OKC for the next 30 years.

Leprechaun, I urge you to look out of state for planning education. OU is good, but, in my honest opinion, it's small faculty size and limited experience don't provide the educational opportunity that other schools might have.

Two points - The Comprehensive Plan doesn't do anything for 30 years. I don't know about in Oklahoma, but here in Florida cities are required to re-write their 30 year plans every 5 years. As for faculty and school rankings - I have learned one thing in this world - the school you go to is far over-rated, as your education doesn't begin until you start working at your first job. I see just as many people from Big 10 schools working for people that graduated from SE Georgia State University at Brunswick as I do working for people from Ivy League schools. I would rather hire a grad from Valdosta State than from Yale. Most of the people I work with got their degrees from India and Pakistan while PAC-10 grads are getting laid off by the truck load.

I suggest reading up on the coming education bubble.