Steelyard

[Pete]

The concern is too many cheap / lower-end apartments in one area.

[mcca7596]

If the Hill gets completely built out, that will be a large counter balance of ownership stability to the area.

[Just the facts]

The concern is too many cheap / lower-end apartments in one area.

This isn't suburbia building out where todays apartments are next years slums because everyone moves further out (aka Rolling Ghetto). Densification works the other way. I am not worried about large areas becoming 'less than desireable', so long as suburban forces don't come around again (and I don't think they will). Suburban expansion on the scale we have seen it will be a one-time event in Human history.

[Rover]

Cheaply built apartments will deteriorate regardless of where they are built or how dense the neighborhood is. As long as the actual construction is of sustaining quality no one cares about how cheap the rent is. Secondly, you still need people with higher levels of discretionary cash to inhabit the area to help lift retail, etc.

Again, it is about BALANCE and a strong economic model that lets it sustain beyond a fad.

[Just the facts]

When land becomes a premium again today's apartments will go condo. The concern will then be if after conversion to condo will the new owners turn around and start renting them out. Things could go down hill for individual buildings if that happens, which is why most condo associations don't allow rentals. If you buy it you live in it.

[Just the facts]

This is a difficult one for me. In the neighborhood I lived in Seattle, it was quite common to see "cheap" apartments just a block away from million dollar homes and condo complexes. In fact, the condo building I lived in was flanked by two apartment buildings that you would call "cheap". The goal is a solid mix, which is what I think Pete is talking about.

If that was Pete's point then I misunderstood. The ultimate goal of urbanism should be to not have pockets of any demographic, which is why projects receiving federal funding have to include a mix of rental rates.

[Pete]

With these latest proposed projects, 2,563 of the 3,053 downtown units (84%) will be apartments and almost all of them at the lower end of spectrum; i.e. very few luxury rentals.

This is not balance.

I understand that the condo market has been tough but the projects being proposed now won't be ready for years and by then the market will likely have shifted again.

Plus, we don't have really any higher end units for rent.

[G.Walker]

Truth is, OKC is a dirty industry, manufacturing, and call center salary dominated city. Therefore, developers are going tailor their development to meet demand, which are apartments.

[G.Walker]

Economics 101: Jobs demand people, people demand housing, housing demands retail, retail demands entertainment.

So the moral of this story is, high paying jobs will bring upscale housing, retail, and entertainment.

[Just the facts]

Truth is, OKC is a dirty industry, manufacturing, and call center salary dominated city. Therefore, developers are going tailor their development to meet demand, which are apartments.

Not downtown.

[ljbab728]

Truth is, OKC is a dirty industry, manufacturing, and call center salary dominated city. Therefore, developers are going tailor their development to meet demand, which are apartments.

Are you considering the oil and gas industry to be "dirty". If not, I don't get your point about that.

[soonerguru]

Economics 101: Jobs demand people, people demand housing, housing demands retail, retail demands entertainment.

So the moral of this story is, high paying jobs will bring upscale housing, retail, and entertainment.

We have plenty of high-paying jobs, but our high-paid residents tend to live in the 'burbs and go to megachurches. Not criticizing, just pointing out this obvious fact.

Our urbanists are either very high-paid individuals or young folks still making their way. What's missing is quality-built for-sale housing for middle to upper-middle class incomes. That is the sweet spot. That is the market that is underserved. Clearly, there's a market demand for this type of housing, but it's not available. I don't know if our developers are greedy, unimaginative, or if building quality housing for this demographic is simply not economically viable, but that is the void that we have all seen and discussed for years on end (I joined OKCTalk in 2005, and we were discussing it then!).

As of this month, the median home price in OKC has reached $160,000, but when you shop around, you quickly realize you can find very nice three-bedroom homes in nice neighborhoods for far less than this. Yet Downtown, you can barely afford a studio loft at that median price.

Is this a matter of economics, or is it not possible to sell a nice, well-built, two-bedroom multifamily unit in the downtown area for the OKC median home price at a reasonable profit? I believe that it IS possible, but that this type of housing is simply not being built for whatever reason.

Remember: the city fathers thought it would be a great idea to offer half million and up housing for sale downtown first. Their argument was that you start upscale first, because if you start with "midscale" or "downscale" housing, you cannot improve values. And they were wrong, as this approach has rarely worked in any real city. "Hot" downtown or urban neighborhoods almost always start out with relatively affordable housing, which quickly escalates in value, leading to further, more upscale development. This has happened everywhere else but our city leaders chose to ignore it, or else they simply do not understand the economic forces involved with urban development and gentrification.

Put another way, why would you invest in half million and up real estate in an unproven market area? If you do, you have enough faith and / or money to blow to lose that bet. Conversely, if you invest in a neighborhood that is already "happening," you're making a wise investment in the future, knowing that values will rise. OKC did this all ass-backwards.

Part of the problem is that our city leadership is not very urban. Witness the recent boulevard ado and other issues. These folks just don't understand what drives urban residents, which has been evident for years. Our Chamber and others know we need to have urban residents, but they don't know how to make it happen. And why would they? Most of our city leaders live in suburban or quasi-suburban enclaves and that's all they know, excepting the theatre junkets they take to NYC or conferences in other big cities. This mentality may explain why so many of them believe that a flipping convention center could play any role in improving our inner-city quality of life.

[dcsooner]

We have plenty of high-paying jobs, but our high-paid residents tend to live in the 'burbs and go to megachurches. Not criticizing, just pointing out this obvious fact.

Our urbanists are either very high-paid individuals or young folks still making their way. What's missing is quality-built for-sale housing for middle to upper-middle class incomes. That is the sweet spot. That is the market that is underserved. Clearly, there's a market demand for this type of housing, but it's not available. I don't know if our developers are greedy, unimaginative, or if building quality housing for this demographic is simply not economically viable, but that is the void that we have all seen and discussed for years on end (I joined OKCTalk in 2005, and we were discussing it then!).

As of this month, the median home price in OKC has reached $160,000, but when you shop around, you quickly realize you can find very nice three-bedroom homes in nice neighborhoods for far less than this. Yet Downtown, you can barely afford a studio loft at that median price.

Is this a matter of economics, or is it not possible to sell a nice, well-built, two-bedroom multifamily unit in the downtown area for the OKC median home price at a reasonable profit? I believe that it IS possible, but that this type of housing is simply not being built for whatever reason.

Remember: the city fathers thought it would be a great idea to offer half million and up housing for sale downtown first. Their argument was that you start upscale first, because if you start with "midscale" or "downscale" housing, you cannot improve values. And they were wrong, as this approach has rarely worked in any real city. "Hot" downtown or urban neighborhoods almost always start out with relatively affordable housing, which quickly escalates in value, leading to further, more upscale development. This has happened everywhere else but our city leaders chose to ignore it, or else they simply do not understand the economic forces involved with urban development and gentrification.

Put another way, why would you invest in half million and up real estate in an unproven market area? If you do, you have enough faith and / or money to blow to lose that bet. Conversely, if you invest in a neighborhood that is already "happening," you're making a wise investment in the future, knowing that values will rise. OKC did this all ass-backwards.

Part of the problem is that our city leadership is not very urban. Witness the recent boulevard ado and other issues. These folks just don't understand what drives urban residents, which has been evident for years. Our Chamber and others know we need to have urban residents, but they don't know how to make it happen. And why would they? Most of our city leaders live in suburban or quasi-suburban enclaves and that's all they know, excepting the theatre junkets they take to NYC or conferences in other big cities. This mentality may explain why so many of them believe that a flipping convention center could play any role in improving our inner-city quality of life.

Could not agree more with this assessment, well stated

[Pete]

Remember that The Hill was supposed to be more middle-of-the-road in terms of pricing but by the time the units came to market the asking prices were quite a bit higher than had been pitched to win the OCURA selection process.

I would hope the next for-sale units built actually hit this middle ground. I think we now have enough track record for developers to know exactly what the numbers are going to be, which should inspire confidence to build in the low profit-margin range.

[dankrutka]

It seems to me that the people most likely to live in this area are 20somethings who are looking to have fun. These rentals cater to them. When older people show more interest in the area, and urban lifestyle, then there will be more of a market for higher rents, etc.

[wschnitt]

We have plenty of high-paying jobs, but our high-paid residents tend to live in the 'burbs and go to megachurches. Not criticizing, just pointing out this obvious fact.

Our urbanists are either very high-paid individuals or young folks still making their way. What's missing is quality-built for-sale housing for middle to upper-middle class incomes. That is the sweet spot. That is the market that is underserved. Clearly, there's a market demand for this type of housing, but it's not available. I don't know if our developers are greedy, unimaginative, or if building quality housing for this demographic is simply not economically viable, but that is the void that we have all seen and discussed for years on end (I joined OKCTalk in 2005, and we were discussing it then!).

As of this month, the median home price in OKC has reached $160,000, but when you shop around, you quickly realize you can find very nice three-bedroom homes in nice neighborhoods for far less than this. Yet Downtown, you can barely afford a studio loft at that median price.

Is this a matter of economics, or is it not possible to sell a nice, well-built, two-bedroom multifamily unit in the downtown area for the OKC median home price at a reasonable profit? I believe that it IS possible, but that this type of housing is simply not being built for whatever reason.

Remember: the city fathers thought it would be a great idea to offer half million and up housing for sale downtown first. Their argument was that you start upscale first, because if you start with "midscale" or "downscale" housing, you cannot improve values. And they were wrong, as this approach has rarely worked in any real city. "Hot" downtown or urban neighborhoods almost always start out with relatively affordable housing, which quickly escalates in value, leading to further, more upscale development. This has happened everywhere else but our city leaders chose to ignore it, or else they simply do not understand the economic forces involved with urban development and gentrification.

Put another way, why would you invest in half million and up real estate in an unproven market area? If you do, you have enough faith and / or money to blow to lose that bet. Conversely, if you invest in a neighborhood that is already "happening," you're making a wise investment in the future, knowing that values will rise. OKC did this all ass-backwards.

Part of the problem is that our city leadership is not very urban. Witness the recent boulevard ado and other issues. These folks just don't understand what drives urban residents, which has been evident for years. Our Chamber and others know we need to have urban residents, but they don't know how to make it happen. And why would they? Most of our city leaders live in suburban or quasi-suburban enclaves and that's all they know, excepting the theatre junkets they take to NYC or conferences in other big cities. This mentality may explain why so many of them believe that a flipping convention center could play any role in improving our inner-city quality of life.

The Brownstones at Maywood Park fit the market segment that you are talking about, but they have stopped construction and are selling off their unbuilt lots. So is there really a huge demand for this?

I really do not see the connection to the city government. If someone wants to seize the opportunity and build homes for families downtown what does it matter what the city council thinks? I think some of the best districts in the city are developing with little to no intervention from the city.

[soonerguru]

The Brownstones at Maywood Park fit the market segment that you are talking about, but they have stopped construction and are selling off their unbuilt lots. So is there really a huge demand for this?

I really do not see the connection to the city government. If someone wants to seize the opportunity and build homes for families downtown what does it matter what the city council thinks? I think some of the best districts in the city are developing with little to no intervention from the city.

Are you high? WTF?

The Brownstones most certainly DO NOT fit the demographic I'm talking about. Middle and upper-middle class folks will not buy these. They start at over a half million and go up. They are the poster child for the wrongheadedness of the city leadership.

I know Betts lives there and loves them but she can afford to buy one, and few people outside Serge Ibaka and local CEOs can.

That is a small market segment.

As for your comment about city government, perhaps you're ignoring the incentives, TIFs, infrastructure enhancements and other key decisions made by government that impact development. But you obviously just skimmed my post and didn't even consider the content, because I talked about CITY LEADERSHIP, not city government. City leadership includes our rich folks, developers, Chamber, Rotary club, etc. They are not evil, they just aren't terribly skilled at leading urban development.


Are you being purposely obtuse?

[soonerguru]

It seems to me that the people most likely to live in this area are 20somethings who are looking to have fun. These rentals cater to them. When older people show more interest in the area, and urban lifestyle, then there will be more of a market for higher rents, etc.

The reason this is relates to my post. No strings apartment rental living appeals to 20 somethings. $750,000 for-sale condos are only attained by older folks. There's nothing in between for people who, say, get married and want to buy something. This isn't that complicated to understand.

[dankrutka]

The reason this is relates to my post. No strings apartment rental living appeals to 20 somethings. $750,000 for-sale condos are only attained by older folks. There's nothing in between for people who, say, get married and want to buy something. This isn't that complicated to understand.

Yeah, I know. What I'm pointing out is, are you sure these people want to live downtown? Is the demand there? It's a chicken or egg argument.

[soonerguru]

Yeah, I know. What I'm pointing out is, are you sure these people want to live downtown? Is the demand there? It's a chicken or egg argument.

There have been several studies that have shown this. Anecdotal, personal conversations with dozens of acquaintances support this. People on this and other forums have talked about it for years, so yes, I'm quite sure the demand is there. You probably know several people who would buy downtown RIGHT NOW if there were a quality alternative close to the median home price in OKC. This isn't a "chicken or egg" argument. There are no chickens.

[Architect2010]

Honestly, Soonerguru has it right. I can attest as a new "20-something" that so many friends and other young adults my age would LOVE THE CHANCE to live downtown. Unfortunately, we are priced out of the market and there is close to nothing that is even remotely acceptable for reasonable rent downtown. The places that do have reasonable rent have already been snatched up. The Millennials want to be a part of the renaissance, but unfortunately I'd already have to have my bachelor's and probably a few years of work behind my back before I could ever consider moving downtown. It's so depressing because I was born an urbanist and I've always seen myself living in a walkable, vibrant, and urban environment, but for right now, that's being reserved for only the wealthy. I'll have to make due with the inner-city for the foreseeable future.

>.<

[dankrutka]

There have been several studies that have shown this. Anecdotal, personal conversations with dozens of acquaintances support this. People on this and other forums have talked about it for years, so yes, I'm quite sure the demand is there. You probably know several people who would buy downtown RIGHT NOW if there were a quality alternative close to the median home price in OKC. This isn't a "chicken or egg" argument. There are no chickens.

I hope you're right. Could you post some of those studies? I'd like to read them.

[wschnitt]

Are you high? WTF?
]

No need for the harsh language. Your response is more or less a personal attack. You are correct however that the Brownstones only fit your criteria of well built and multifamily. They are not with in your price point that you outlined.

1 NE 2nd Street-The lofts at Maywood Park has 2 bed 2 bath unit for sale in the 200's.

When you say "Is this a matter of economics, or is it not possible..." then you go on to talk about leadership. If a project like the one you are describing makes sense, which I do not think it does in Deep Deuce, then it should not need a huge incentive package. If it does need a huge incentive package, then it not economically feasible in the first place.



Those 2 fit the parameters of what you are talking about all but the point that they are not in Downtown or multifamily. Do you honestly think that considering land cost, which would be quite different from what it is in Mustang where one of those is, it could be down(obviously it would look differently and be in a building with a other units)? I do not think so.


On a side note, if someone were able to build "quality multifamily housing" and be able to sell it at a profit for $150k I bet it would sell really fast. So as a salesman myself, if something was selling quickly at $150k I would try for more. And I would bet that if something sold hot at $150k it would also sell at $250, the price of units currently for sale that do fit your parameters.

[wschnitt]

Honestly, Soonerguru has it right. I can attest as a new "20-something" that so many friends and other young adults my age would LOVE THE CHANCE to live downtown. Unfortunately, we are priced out of the market and there is close to nothing that is even remotely acceptable for reasonable rent downtown. The places that do have reasonable rent have already been snatched up. The Millennials want to be a part of the renaissance, but unfortunately I'd already have to have my bachelor's and probably a few years of work behind my back before I could ever consider moving downtown. It's so depressing because I was born an urbanist and I've always seen myself living in a walkable, vibrant, and urban environment, but for right now, that's being reserved for only the wealthy. I'll have to make due with the inner-city for the foreseeable future.

>.<

soonerguru is not talking about rentals but for sale housing.

[soonerguru]

No need for the harsh language. Your response is more or less a personal attack. You are correct however that the Brownstones only fit your criteria of well built and multifamily. They are not with in your price point that you outlined.

1 NE 2nd Street-The lofts at Maywood Park has 2 bed 2 bath unit for sale in the 200's.

When you say "Is this a matter of economics, or is it not possible..." then you go on to talk about leadership. If a project like the one you are describing makes sense, which I do not think it does in Deep Deuce, then it should not need a huge incentive package. If it does need a huge incentive package, then it not economically feasible in the first place.



Those 2 fit the parameters of what you are talking about all but the point that they are not in Downtown or multifamily. Do you honestly think that considering land cost, which would be quite different from what it is in Mustang where one of those is, it could be down(obviously it would look differently and be in a building with a other units)? I do not think so.


On a side note, if someone were able to build "quality multifamily housing" and be able to sell it at a profit for $150k I bet it would sell really fast. So as a salesman myself, if something was selling quickly at $150k I would try for more. And I would bet that if something sold hot at $150k it would also sell at $250, the price of units currently for sale that do fit your parameters.

I think I understand what you're saying, but what is your non-sequitur about incentives? TIFs, block grants, and all of that are often used for properties, whether or not they are what we are looking to build long term. Are you questioning the use of, for example, the historic tax credits used to rehab properties in Midtown? Surely not.

I don't think we're communicating.