Choctaw Town Square

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Some of you people are high.

Drive out here and look around. Traffic will never be a problem...Unless of course, you move WalMart to a tiny plot and put roundabouts in front of it.

This isn't urban. This isn't suburban. This is extra-urban. People don't walk here. At all. When they do, they get hit by cars.

Why doesn't WalMart make pretty stores for your edification? So they don't have to charge $5 for a can beans like Macy's would, if they sold them. Or $9, like Disney would.

facepalm.jpg

You know how people say "Don't Edmond my Norman" and things of the like? Well...Here's mine..."Your urban/suburban planning doesn't work here, nobody gives a crap. WalMart could have dirt floors, people simply.do.not.care". And since we live here and you don't? Piffle.

In short? Choctaw has 99 problems, and WalMart aint one of them.

Shorter? PIFFLE

[Just the facts]

^Remember this post in 10 years

[bombermwc]

Some of you people are high.

Drive out here and look around. Traffic will never be a problem...Unless of course, you move WalMart to a tiny plot and put roundabouts in front of it.

This isn't urban. This isn't suburban. This is extra-urban. People don't walk here. At all. When they do, they get hit by cars.

Why doesn't WalMart make pretty stores for your edification? So they don't have to charge $5 for a can beans like Macy's would, if they sold them. Or $9, like Disney would.

facepalm.jpg

You know how people say "Don't Edmond my Norman" and things of the like? Well...Here's mine..."Your urban/suburban planning doesn't work here, nobody gives a crap. WalMart could have dirt floors, people simply.do.not.care". And since we live here and you don't? Piffle.

In short? Choctaw has 99 problems, and WalMart aint one of them.

Shorter? PIFFLE

I totally agree. And i feel like people are trying to label Choctaw with something that it will never be....urban. and JustTheFacts, i can quote that 50 years from now as well.

I should point out that even in MWC, which is a much larger population center, more developed economic engine, and about as opposite of Choctaw as you can get....developments are still not created as pedestrian friendly. Town Center being the newest and largest, isn't very pedestrian friendly. The long line of big box stores isn't very friendly for that. I've walked from Lowes to Kohls before....but most people don't. And that's the point....Most people drive from one store to the next...even from Target to Kohls....and that's not gonna change.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

^Remember this post in 10 years

OK. I'll eat my shoe if a new WalMart creates an insurmountable traffic conundrum in the thriving central suburban core of Choctaw, OK.

And you can just eat yours now, because you suggesting that it should have been planned with roundabouts in front of it makes me think that you're either 1) less logical than Taser branded underpants or 2) trolling.

[Just the facts]

Regardless of what we discuss on here, the pro-sprawl crowd is going to win because this is already being built. In 10 years when you hate what your community has become atleast you will know what happened to make you not like it.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Regardless of what we discuss on here, the pro-sprawl crowd is going to win because this is already being built. In 10 years when you hate what your community has become atleast you will know what happened to make you not like it.

Tell you what, I'll keep my happy ass out of the urban sprawl threads and you keep yours out of CHOCTAW threads? M'kay? Deal?

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Oh, and "pro-sprawl" crowd? WTF does that even mean. If I'm not against it I'm for it?

That's called a false equivalence, a logical fallacy.

So again. You suck at logic, or you're a troll.

[Just the facts]

This is an urban sprawl thread. Once again, no one is saying don't grow. Just grow in an efficient and economically affordable way that limits the future tax exposure of the people of Choctaw.

Wouldn't it be better to have this:







instead of this:

[MikeLucky]

This is an urban sprawl thread. Once again, no one is saying don't grow. Just grow in an efficient and economically affordable way that limits the future tax exposure of the people of Choctaw.

Wouldn't it be better to have this:







instead of this:

Do you live in the real world?

Oh yeah, it would be SO MUCH better to spend 30 minutes and circle the buildings 10 times to find a parking spot somewhere on the street everytime I need to go buy a cart full of groceries. And, then once I've purchased the groceries I get to carry 20 bags worth to my car that's parked "who knows where" to load them in my car...

To answer your question... I would take option 2 EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK over option 1... WHICH IS WHY I LIVE IN THE SUBURBS. The LAST thing I want to do is try to live my current lifestyle in an urban setting, just because YOU think it's more aesthetically pleasing or more like the lifestyle you seem to think everyone MUST live.

When I go to bricktown for entertainment, I understand it's an urban setting and that's how it works there. I have no problem with that. But, despite how you feel about it, urbanization isn't what everybody wants. I LIVE in a suburb because I like the way things are in the suburbs. PERIOD. People that live in Choctaw don't sit around and wish their community was more urban. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

[Just the facts]

I guess I am just old enough to remember when small town America actually meant 'small' 'town' 'America'.

[Plutonic Panda]

Some of you people are high.

Drive out here and look around. Traffic will never be a problem...Unless of course, you move WalMart to a tiny plot and put roundabouts in front of it.

This isn't urban. This isn't suburban. This is extra-urban. People don't walk here. At all. When they do, they get hit by cars.

Why doesn't WalMart make pretty stores for your edification? So they don't have to charge $5 for a can beans like Macy's would, if they sold them. Or $9, like Disney would.

facepalm.jpg

You know how people say "Don't Edmond my Norman" and things of the like? Well...Here's mine..."Your urban/suburban planning doesn't work here, nobody gives a crap. WalMart could have dirt floors, people simply.do.not.care". And since we live here and you don't? Piffle.

In short? Choctaw has 99 problems, and WalMart aint one of them.

Shorter? PIFFLE

Epic post man

[Plutonic Panda]

Tell you what, I'll keep my happy ass out of the urban sprawl threads and you keep yours out of CHOCTAW threads? M'kay? Deal?

Dude your post keep getting better and better. I totally agree with you

[mmonroe]

Everybody could use more Form based design in their concepts and plans.

[bombermwc]

JTF - if you're talking about small town america, why are you discussing urban design? Small town American was not urban....hello. Small Town America had a main street where all retail was in some small area. Urban design negates that possibility because reatil is spread all over the city.

And I would agree with the other posters. The next time you have your kids with you and need to buy groceries, you'll be headed to a big box...be it homeland, crest, or walmart. I 100% guarantee you don't shop at a place like in your pictures. You can want all you want, but the practical reality is people don't go to places like that. So if you want to make any money, you build the way people want it....and they don't want big boxes squeeze into small spaces.

Now, those small spaces have their place for smaller businesses. Automobile Alley is an example of that...even these weird little "Town Whatevers" what are springing up all over america have them on a limited scale. They just happen to also include big box as well as an anchor. From the leasing company's perspective, it's much easier to survive if you have a large tenant in there too. And a lot less work because each one of the smaller tenants feel like they are as important...and on some level they are. But it's much easier to manage fewer large clients than a million smaller ones....and more stable to your checkbook.

[mcca7596]

JTF - if you're talking about small town america, why are you discussing urban design? Small town American was not urban....hello. Small Town America had a main street where all retail was in some small area.

Because that is urban design; what else do you think it's referred to as? There is no such thing as small town design, just urban design on a smaller scale (nothing to do with the population or geographic size).

Towns were built along a general principal of concentration of goods and people from the beginning of civilization until the late 40's. I think you'd be surprised how many small towns emulated the layout of larger cities because they recognized what made them "civilized" and that's what they were trying to create here on the frontier: a new civilized region.

[mcca7596]

JTF, I think it would be appropriate if we started posting example of small towns in Oklahoma with nice urban design. Ones that first come to mind for me are Guthrie, Pawhuska, Bartlesville, and here are some dark horses: Wynnewood and Marlow. Look at their downtowns on google maps streetview, and even their neighborhoods with sidewalks and large mature trees.

[Just the facts]

I think the problem is a misunderstanding of the term "urban" so maybe we can clear that up. When a building is constructed it's place on the surface of the Earth dictates its relationship to other items already on the surface of the Earth. When the structure is placed adjacent to an existing structure that is urban design. When the structure is placed at some distance from other structures that is suburban design. So the only question that needs to be answered is, what is that distance? That is answered by the open space (if any) between the structures.

If the open space created is defined by the buildings around it (kind of like walls) then the area leans 'urban'. If the open space completely surrounds a structure so it is a monolith on the landscape then that area leans 'suburban'. It has nothing to do with population, building height, land use, ethnic make-up, etc. It is simply the relationship between buildings and open space.

It is safe to say that currently Choctaw has no established downtown, despite having something called Main St. However, Choctaw used to have a downtown on Main St. This project would have been the prime opportunity to re-establish that downtown. The fact that this project is call Choctaw Town Center, which is used to envoke the mental image of a downtown, means that people crave that, even if they don't know they do. As shown below, with a simple reconfiguration of the site plan they could have actually accomplish what the name implies they are trying to accomplish.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

This is an urban sprawl thread. Once again, no one is saying don't grow. Just grow in an efficient and economically affordable way that limits the future tax exposure of the people of Choctaw.

Wouldn't it be better to have this:

instead of this:

No.

I was not going to reply and just walk away (and I might regret actually replying still) but the lack of factual opinions being tossed around are astounding.

The notion that if you don't have a Wal-Mart that you are somehow forced to carry 20 bags around the block is false. Hyperbole much?

The notion that small towns are not urban is false. The grid, as nearly every town was laid out, is urban design. The reason blocks and streets are laid out that way is because they support and promote an efficient use of land that can be recycled and improved upon over time. From a more sub-urban to urban. When cities were planned, the drawings were oftentimes done WITH buildings drawn in to illustrate a vision for the city. So yeah, Choctaw planners had a vision or borrowed a template that is very urban.

Sub-urban isn't land that isn't urban. It just isn't urban completely. It is a "sub" form of it, but it should follow basic rules that allow the evolution to urban. Failed "sub-urban" isn't urban in any context because it lacks the ability to mature into more urban(see productive) use-cases over time. Whether that be the way the roads are laid out or the utilities that support it. Or more likely, zoning laws. Sub-urban does not equal un-urban.

I just moved out a neighborhood in Seattle where there were thousands of kids, no huge parking lots, and guess what, we had Safeway, Bartell Drug Store, Trader Joes... need I continue? Those businesses were more than happy to be there and in fact, are expanding in some cases by adding height to make two story stores and housing above. Use case, meet better use case.

Please, I don't care if you simply don't want to ever live in place that promotes efficient land use. But if you moved into a city that has a grid, my position is simply that by design, that city was supposed to promote and encourage productive uses of the land. New developments on the outskirts of a city/town don't do that. In fact, they degrade the potential that exists. As a former councilman, I simply see the role of local officials to at least not subsidize inefficient land uses but to instead relax contemporary zoning laws that restrict better, mixed uses, and to promote healthy economic development activity. Businesses will follow if there is demand.

We lived without a car, with 3 kids, among hundreds, if not thousands, of families doing exactly the same. Please stop claiming to know what life would be like without Wal-Marts if you actually don't know. It makes you sound incredibly uneducated.

Billions of people around the world don't have access to Wal-Marts and live in fairly urban "towns" and yet don't starve because they lack parking or have to carry too many grocery bags.

The funniest part about the some of these positions taken is that there is an subtle opinion that without "sprawl" (which is what JTF, myself, and others are trying to prevent) people actually have fewer choices. Like their life is subpar. I can't tell you how happy we were to be able to walk to work, walk to the grocery store, walk to 5 parks, and never once wish we owned a car. Automobile Alley could be a place you could live, work, recreate, and shop all in one place. The notion that that isn't possible is simply, flat-out, wrong. Ever since I got here, people have not stopped asking me if I am going to buy a car. In Seattle, I got asked that this many times: 0. The difference is mostly cultural and based on a lack of exposure to successful neighborhoods.

But you're not preventing it. You're preaching to the wrong choir. We don't want to live urban. We don't even want to live suburban. You may want to live where you can walk places, but we don't. For a variety of reasons.

It also seems like you might be projecting a bit on lack of exposure to other ways of life. Just saying.


The second notion that is flat-out wrong is that people don't want to live in such a place. Not going to elaborate here. It simply isn't true. Ask any real estate agent (perhaps outside of Choctaw)

Nobody is debating that. We know people want to live there (as evidenced by the tens of millions of people that do). But not the people that live in Choctaw. We like our space, we like places we go to have space. THAT'S WHY WE LIVE HERE.

So I ask, what type of place do you want to live in? If the pictures that JTF appeal to you, I beg you to imagine (pretend if you have to) being able to live in places like that, eat well, have a vibrant social life... because you can.

If not, I'm very cool with that. But then don't come out and say the way that I live is either not possible or is somehow miserable. I certainly don't think your way of life is miserable. Just not for me.

See above...We have no desire to live like you desire to live...I want a vibrant social life like I want an extra toe, and the only thing I need to eat well is a grocery store.

I don't see anybody bagging on the way you want to live, only you and JTF picking apart something that the people it directly impacts don't give two shakes about. Nor is anybody saying it's not possible. It's just a decidedly bad idea HERE.

On that note though, I do firmly believe that we have a problem with sprawl and I am going to fight to keep it from becoming the only or primary option. I'll do this because I am sincerely worried about our kids and our elderly. I loved seeing very old people still being able to walk to the grocery store, and have a great, active social life. Having grown up in a very small town here in Oklahoma, I know that isn't possible -- at least not to the scale. I volunteered and delivered "meals-on-wheels" and it is a sad sight. Our grandparents and great-grandparents are paying the price dearly. They survive through by getting hot meals delivered to them because they can't actually go shopping anywhere nearby. They can't stand it when you leave because they haven't had people to talk to. It really breaks my heart. And very few people are connecting the dots. I ask you to at least consider them as you choose how to support your community. Perhaps you get the Wal-Mart but you also fight to attract some smaller grocery store that is in the heart of town that is reachable by a short walk. Of course the challenge will be to attract a store because you don't have the population density to support one probably.

And the cycle continues and the result is places that only some people can live for a period of time, and if you are "stuck"... if you have to live your whole life there... you either live out the end in a nursing home or hope to God your meal makes it.

If you think any of that is false, I will gladly stop what I am doing and run a meals-on-wheels route with you to show you it isn't. Or take you to a few nursing homes where very smart, capable people are forced to live because they simple "can't take care of themselves" anymore. Many times because they can't reach what they need to survive. You can claim it isn't, but that simply wouldn't be the truth.

Apologize in advance. I recognize that my reply might come off as a little pretentious. I am fighting what I took as fairly offensive claims with a passionate response and am not perfect. I'll do my best to stay civil if the conversation continues. I'd actually like to continue the conversation mostly because there is a lot that wasn't said on both sides that could be fruitful ground to cover. But I'd like to give folks a chance to reply to what has already been said first.

Don't apologize, it's the internetz.

Just keep in mind you're arguing with the people that live, work, and shop in the very place you're presuming to know so much about. We don't think the same way you do about "urban" things. We consider a trip to Midwest City "going into town". You want urban planning in Choctaw? Good luck. People that live here don't care for it.

Here's something neat just for Just the Facts:

0800 traffic looking in the direction of the WalMart that's going up...If you think traffic will be bad in 10 years on a 5 lane (I'm including the turn lane) road due to a WalMart...Tell me why EVERY OTHER WALMART IN TOWN doesn't have a 6 lane highway of it's own? It will be juuuust fine.




See the metal building amongst the trees? That's City Hall.

[Just the facts]

If the 5 lanes aren't needed, then why did they spend the money making it 5 lanes?

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

I think the problem is a misunderstanding of the term "urban" so maybe we can clear that up. When a building is constructed it's place on the surface of the Earth dictates its relationship to other items already on the surface of the Earth. When the structure is placed adjacent to an existing structure that is urban design. When the structure is placed at some distance from other structures that is suburban design. So the only question that needs to be answered is, what is that distance? That is answered by the open space (if any) between the structures.

If the open space created is defined by the buildings around it (kind of like walls) then the area leans 'urban'. If the open space completely surrounds a structure so it is a monolith on the landscape then that area leans 'suburban'. It has nothing to do with population, building height, land use, ethnic make-up, etc. It is simply the relationship between buildings and open space.

It is safe to say that currently Choctaw has no established downtown, despite having something called Main St. However, Choctaw used to have a downtown on Main St. This project would have been the prime opportunity to re-establish that downtown. The fact that this project is call Choctaw Town Center, which is used to envoke the mental image of a downtown, means that people crave that, even if they don't know they do. As shown below, with a simple reconfiguration of the site plan they could have actually accomplish what the name implies they are trying to accomplish.

They called it "Choctaw Town Center" because they had to call it something, it's in Choctaw, and "Sooner *Everything*" was taken. Not because anybody craves it. They could have called it "Frank's Gangrene Toe's Fish, Gun, Steak, and Blowing Things Up Emporium", and the only thing people here would complain about was how long they tried to remember the name before giving up and calling it "Frank's".

Again, you guys are trying to shove a round peg in a square hole. This is the sticks. Not to mention Choctaw isn't going to spend the money to invent a thriving city core...Nor is WalMart.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

If the 5 lanes aren't needed, then why did they spend the money making it 5 lanes?

*shrugs*

Because it's a state highway? Honestly, I have no idea.

How is traffic Sooner in Midwest City...Right at that WalMart/Home Depot/Many other stores area just off a cross-country interstate? Oh, it's just fine with probably 100 times the traffic Choctaw will ever see. Right. That's because Sooner has 8 lanes of traff....Oh no. My bad. It's only 4 lanes.

[mcca7596]

OGTS, you're not addressing the social implication points that Sid brought up though. So are you just saying, "That's the way we like it and damn be the consequences to our elderly or children who cannot be independent"?

You sound like someone who has lived in the area for awhile. I would venture to guess that your grandparents or the first generation of citizens in Choctaw didn't want to have to venture long distances for necessities. Personally, I think when people claim the need to have open space that it is a defense mechanism of not wanting to deal with the problems of the world or social issues. Interaction with other humans on a human scale produces results and solutions instead of isolationism and fear.

[Just the facts]

From the developers website:

http://choctawtownsquarellc.com/Home.html

Choctaw Town Square, LLC has partnered with the City of Choctaw to Design and Develop the "New Town Square", which is located on 39.30 acres of land the City bought on N.E. 23rd Street. The City has a Mayor and City Council that has taken aggressive steps to secure the future of Choctaw and it's constituents. Choctaw Town Square, LLC and their team of Architects, Engineers, Contractors, Marketing, and Real Estate professionals are excited to be involved in the re-creation of the "New Town Square". It is a much needed development for this Bedroom Community. The "New Town Square" will allow a local place for their community to shop, eat, and spend quality time with their families, while enjoying the "Home Town Feeling" of their Community.

Orignal proposal:



Someone cared at some point. Not sure why they don't care now. Maybe they should start caring again.

[mcca7596]

Again, you guys are trying to shove a round peg in a square hole. This is the sticks. Not to mention Choctaw isn't going to spend the money to invent a thriving city core...Nor is WalMart.

It's not about Choctaw specifically so much as just trying to create an awareness of larger issues.

[Oh GAWD the Smell!]

Thanks for the quick reply. And like I said, I completely respect your opinion, and choice.

My original comments on this thread were more of the "bummed out" nature that Choctaw didn't use this development as an opportunity. But like you and others have shown, this doesn't sound like a community that wanted it.

Again, appreciate the replies. Not sure what you mean by the projecting comment but I will re-read my comments and internalize them with yours.

On that note, congratulations on your new Wal-Mart.

This is the paragraph to which I was referring:

The funniest part about the some of these positions taken is that there is an subtle opinion that without "sprawl" (which is what JTF, myself, and others are trying to prevent) people actually have fewer choices. Like their life is subpar. I can't tell you how happy we were to be able to walk to work, walk to the grocery store, walk to 5 parks, and never once wish we owned a car. Automobile Alley could be a place you could live, work, recreate, and shop all in one place. The notion that that isn't possible is simply, flat-out, wrong. Ever since I got here, people have not stopped asking me if I am going to buy a car. In Seattle, I got asked that this many times: 0. The difference is mostly cultural and based on a lack of exposure to successful neighborhoods.

I didn't see anybody saying that life was bad in urban areas, just that it's not how we want to live. Maybe I missed that part though.

The part that I made bold is what I was talking about specifically. In a thread where you're telling people your ideas on how you think they should live, based on your experiences, then throw out there their lack of exposure when they suggest that you need a car...I say that you may have that a bit backwards and that you're the one who might be underexposed a tad. They're the ones that live here and KNOW that it's hard to get by without one. It's getting better, and I hope that it gets to a point where nobody asks you that anymore.