Suburban retail development

[traxx]

Really, I could've placed this in any suburban forum on here. I chose Edmond because that's where I happen to be at this point in my life.

Driving by the future site of Sam's yesterday, I began thinking about this. On the one hand, I'm looking forward to it out of convenience. I don't have to go to Penn and Memorial anymore. But on the other hand, I dread it because it's gonna look like crap. And it doesn't have to. What I'm talking about is when a large anchor store like Wal-Mart, Target, Lowe's etc. builds a site and they have a very large setback from the road. Within their gargantuan parking area, other businesses spring up. That's why they have the large setback. They plan to have other businesses build there. And it looks illogical, poorly planned and like a hodge podge of businesses that look like crap.

I understand why they do this. Having an anchor with other businesses around gives them all a symbiotic relationship. And as a consumer, it's nice to have them so close together. But it's also ridiculous that I have to get in my car and travel from Wal-Mart to Braum's (to get milk) when it's only about 100 yards away. It would be so much more aesthecially pleasing if they built these shopping areas in a town square type layout. With the parking being to the outter edge and all the shopping area being walkable. As it is now, it just looks as if they are putting buildings on top of each other with no thought or plan.

Some shopping areas get it right. Like Spring Creek at 15th and Bryant. Not all the buildings are lined up parallel or perpindicular to the main roads which adds visual interest and the architecture is better than just a bunch of big box EIFS. I understand that it's a more upscale type of shopping area but I can't see doing something similar to this or they town square style being that much more expensive to develop than what they're doing now.

Unfortunately, I'm a little like Kramer from Seinfeld; I have these ideas but not the funds, resources or wherewithal to actually make a difference.

Thoughts?

[Plutonic Panda]

I think Edmond is suburban and it should stay that way. I think suburbs should be about 90% suburban and 10% urban in their cores. I do agree with you on these massive parking lots that are usually only 30-40% full MAX. I enjoy getting in my car and driving to places to get things, whether it be milk or new bedroom set, just as I enjoy walking and riding bikes for leisure and exercise like I do every day. I'm sure there are a number of people who disagree with me on this and that's fine.

I want to become a developer of residential, commercial and industrial areas(pretty much everything ). I want to build with MUCH MUCH higher standards that what is currently being built. I've said it before, I wonder if they're going to do anything special with this Sam's. I heard somewhere they were going to build pad sites in front of Sam's. I think developments like Bryant Square should have parking in tiers and have about 30-60% of the parking removed.

But, this notion that the suburbs are falling apart and won't last doesn't sit well with me. I think downtown OKC could fall just as easily as Edmond could. It all has to do with city planning and engineering, as well as having a committee that raises the standards wether it be suburban or urban development. Also, making sure that hotels that are designed like Staybridge Suites don't get built in places like Bricktown. The only thing that really bothers me is massive parking lots that are only 30% full. I hate that. I also wish that, esp. with hotels, they would build parking garages.

Again, suburbs need to be suburban and downtown areas need to be strictly urban. Both can be built with quality and built to last. I choose to live in Edmond because I prefer the suburban
environment, like everyone else who lives in the suburbs do. If I didn't, I would live in downtown OKC. Both are very nice cities and I hope they both succeed and continue their momentum. Anyways, that's all just my 2 cents.

Anyways, I do understand where your coming from. The original plans were much better, if I remember them right. Wasn't there originally a lifestyle center to be built there?

[catch22]

The problem with suburbs is sprawl.

People go to the suburbs because of the easy drives to get things, the open space. Then all of that space fills up, and people move further out, leaving the previous areas to decline in value as you move further out to continue to enjoy open space and ease of travel.

[Plutonic Panda]

I agree sprawl need to be controlled. But, would you consider Edmond and Norman a product of bad sprawl? I don't think so. Now, I think examples of bad sprawl would be places like Mustang, Yukon, I want say Guthrie, but Guthrie is historic in its own way and has a really nice urban downtown and isn't really growing like crazy. Would Jones be bad sprawl. I understand that sprawl can be bad, but to what extent? I still have a lot to learn about all of this, obviously, but I just don't see how suburbs like Edmond, Norman, MWC, Nicholas Hills, are sprawl (or "bad" sprawl. There seems to be a fair amount of infill between the close suburbs and Downtown OKC happening. As I recall, Edmond and Norman esp. are the result of white flight.

I understand what you're saying though. You're always going to have people that will move out of suburbs like Edmond when it starts getting, like it is now, heavy traffic, bigger, less open space. But, are the majority of suburbanites (is that a word? lol) like that. I'm not. I do like my open space, there are neighborhoods that give that and won't change no matter how big the city gets unless you're bought out, how likely is that? There are plenty of other areas anyways to look for in Edmond that have open space just like OKC has.

[traxx]

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding me, Panda. I'm not suggesting that Edmond or Norman or other communities should become urban. Their suburban nature is fine and needed. I'm just saying that commercial suburban development can be done a right way or a wrong way. It's the anchor stores with large setbacks with other retail stores sitting in their parking lot and all of them face the street directly that I see as the problem. I think it's ugly.

No, I'm not saying that Edmond needs to be more urban at all. In fact, I'm saying quite the opposite. If retail were developed around a town square type design and it was walkable, then that would make it seem more small town than urban. That's what I'm pushing for. Done right, suburban development could be the pockets of small town life situated around the suburban communities.

[catch22]

The problem with suburban style development is it can only support a limited number of people before it chokes itself and inhibits growth. If you had a 100% zero growth model, (no population increases, as one family dies out, another would replace, but only on a 1:1 basis) suburban development could be effective at giving everyone room to drive and enjoy life. Unfortunately suburban style development forces growth on the edges, which at a point starts to make the service area for that city become so large it cannot keep up.

There are many examples here in OKC. Look how the south side of town is growing in rings. 59th street used to be the new street, before it 44th was. I live near 104th street, when I moved here this was the edge of town, a forrest was across the street. Now, congestion is frustrating and getting worse everyday. New stores and restaurants are popping up nearby my house. The fields "way out in the country" (just a mile or two south) are now starting to see development by suburban housing developments advertising low traffic counts and easy access to stores. Crime is now pretty common on 59th street and 74th street. (Luckily the highway has slowed it down from coming further south, but it is still creeping down). In 10-15 years my neighborhood will begin to be rundown. Meanwhile further out into the country side the growth ring is moving at a steady pace.

The model of suburban land is cheap growth at the expense of today's developments. Instead of reinvesting to maintain a neighborhood, you leave the neighborhood to decay and just build brand new a little further out.

[traxx]

The problem with suburban style development is it can only support a limited number of people before it chokes itself and inhibits growth. If you had a 100% zero growth model, (no population increases, as one family dies out, another would replace, but only on a 1:1 basis) suburban development could be effective at giving everyone room to drive and enjoy life. Unfortunately suburban style development forces growth on the edges, which at a point starts to make the service area for that city become so large it cannot keep up.

There are many examples here in OKC. Look how the south side of town is growing in rings. 59th street used to be the new street, before it 44th was. I live near 104th street, when I moved here this was the edge of town, a forrest was across the street. Now, congestion is frustrating and getting worse everyday. New stores and restaurants are popping up nearby my house. The fields "way out in the country" (just a mile or two south) are now starting to see development by suburban housing developments advertising low traffic counts and easy access to stores. Crime is now pretty common on 59th street and 74th street. (Luckily the highway has slowed it down from coming further south, but it is still creeping down). In 10-15 years my neighborhood will begin to be rundown. Meanwhile further out into the country side the growth ring is moving at a steady pace.

The model of suburban land is cheap growth at the expense of today's developments. Instead of reinvesting to maintain a neighborhood, you leave the neighborhood to decay and just build brand new a little further out.

This

People move further and further out to get away from the city and suburbs. But then they want all of their conveniences near them. So then the congestion that they were trying to get away from follows them to their new, lower population area and then population in that area grows and they have to move further out again. It's a viscious cycle.

Yeah, I realize we live in Oklahoma and are car dependant culture. But if we could try to curb that dependancy in the suburbs by having walkable retail areas here and there, I think it could help. Designate the major thoroughfares and have those to carry traffic. For your city streets, have smaller roads and make the arteries more walker and bicycler friendly rather than hostile. 40 years ago Edmond was a bedroom community. It was never meant to handle this many people or this much traffic. That's quite obvious if you try to drive anywhere in Edmond. And you can't build enough roads, big enough to accomodate it. Traffic will always fill up whatever capacity you give it.

All these things are why suburbs have to be built smarter. What we've been doing for at least the last 40 years isn't working. At least not here. We've got to be smarter about how we build and grow our suburbs.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding me, Panda. I'm not suggesting that Edmond or Norman or other communities should become urban. Their suburban nature is fine and needed. I'm just saying that commercial suburban development can be done a right way or a wrong way. It's the anchor stores with large setbacks with other retail stores sitting in their parking lot and all of them face the street directly that I see as the problem. I think it's ugly.

No, I'm not saying that Edmond needs to be more urban at all. In fact, I'm saying quite the opposite. If retail were developed around a town square type design and it was walkable, then that would make it seem more small town than urban. That's what I'm pushing for. Done right, suburban development could be the pockets of small town life situated around the suburban communities.

Oh, well my bad. lol. . . I agree with everything you said there and I really wish they incorporate more walking friendly features and designs into these developments.

[Plutonic Panda]

The problem with suburban style development is it can only support a limited number of people before it chokes itself and inhibits growth. If you had a 100% zero growth model, (no population increases, as one family dies out, another would replace, but only on a 1:1 basis) suburban development could be effective at giving everyone room to drive and enjoy life. Unfortunately suburban style development forces growth on the edges, which at a point starts to make the service area for that city become so large it cannot keep up.

There are many examples here in OKC. Look how the south side of town is growing in rings. 59th street used to be the new street, before it 44th was. I live near 104th street, when I moved here this was the edge of town, a forrest was across the street. Now, congestion is frustrating and getting worse everyday. New stores and restaurants are popping up nearby my house. The fields "way out in the country" (just a mile or two south) are now starting to see development by suburban housing developments advertising low traffic counts and easy access to stores. Crime is now pretty common on 59th street and 74th street. (Luckily the highway has slowed it down from coming further south, but it is still creeping down). In 10-15 years my neighborhood will begin to be rundown. Meanwhile further out into the country side the growth ring is moving at a steady pace.

The model of suburban land is cheap growth at the expense of today's developments. Instead of reinvesting to maintain a neighborhood, you leave the neighborhood to decay and just build brand new a little further out.

There has to be a way to do it right. What if urban development was built in rings, like you say? Would it suffer the same fate? All I'm saying is, I think you can do it in a way that would work out for both the "parent" city and the suburb itself. Dallas is good example, Richardson, where I used to live in Dallas, was packed. Almost no bare land, very nice (there were some "slummy" parts no doubt, but for the most part very nice place to live, like the majority of Dallas (in my opinion) if you have the money. Dallas is showoff city for people to rent or lease **** and say they own it and it is only fun if you have the money to live there. Last time I was in Dallas, every single time I went to a gas station, I had someone come up to me and ask for money. So, things are really ruff there. But, I think for the most part, the suburbs in Dallas are great. Richardson has over 250,000 people living there! I'm sure Norman will get there eventually and probably even exceed 250,000. I don't know if Edmond could unless they annexed some land from OKC and Deer Creek and/or Arcadia (which I think they should).

What I'm trying to say though (lol) is that I believe suburbs can be done right. Just fyi, I believe in any case they city should support it's core first and the core should always be it's primary goal. I think OKC is doing this and that is why the outer city it kind of going downhill and the streets are bad, as people have noticed. Now you obviously know more about this than I do, as I'm only 19 and haven't gone into any kind of city planning or urban classes of any kind, yet. But, I'm sure there has to be a way to do it right and have a sustainable future for suburbs/cities like Edmond, Norman, MWC ect.

Sprawl I don't like is mainly in places like Houston, Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Mexico City is reeeeeaaaaallllllyyy bad. Go look up pics of Mexico city sprawl if you haven't lol... Also, Dallas has bad sprawl too when you venture out past Frisco it starts to get rural. Anyways, I've already gotten really far off topic, so sorry about that.

[catch22]

Suburban land use does not allow for efficiency. Suburban land use uses vasts amounts of land for a relatively small number of people. The only way for suburban land uses to allow for growth is to go outward. When you go outward you must build more streets, sewers, water lines, etc. and increase coverage of police, fire, etc. For a city to grow by 1,000 people under urban land use, you could put that 1,000 in a small empty infill lot by building multi story apartments, or a slightly larger area by building smaller lots (your backyard is the park, streets, etc.) and allowing pedestrian access. Or under suburban land use, you could put those 1,000 people in a square mile by building 4 acre lots for everyone and making distances so great you must use a car.

[Plutonic Panda]

The model of suburban land is cheap growth at the expense of today's developments. Instead of reinvesting to maintain a neighborhood, you leave the neighborhood to decay and just build brand new a little further out.

BTW, for some reason I overlooked this last piece, and yes, I completely understand this happens so much and I'm all for stopping this from happening. But, I think again, if the city would maintain itself better and be smarter about how it builds it's future, it could attract better and higher quality developments and venues and maybe there would be more city pride and you would see less of this. One thing I would love to do, is buy some rundown houses and remodel them and resell. That always seemed like it would be fun, well as you made a little money too. ;P

[Snowman]

I agree sprawl need to be controlled. But, would you consider Edmond and Norman a product of bad sprawl? I don't think so. Now, I think examples of bad sprawl would be places like Mustang, Yukon, ...

Really, please explain why Yukon and Mustang are bad sprawl and Edmond and Norman are better sprawl?

[Plutonic Panda]

Again, I understand that urban designs are more efficient and cost less to maintain for a larger group of people in the long run. But, for others like me, who want their own private backyard where I can do what I want, build a pond, have my dog run around, plant what plants and flowers I like, run around naked idk. lol. . . I just like pulling out of my driveway into a layed out suburban neighborhood and have the feeling of openness and not towering buildings. Don't get me wrong, I love downtown and there is nothing wrong having a public park as you back or front yard, it's just all personal preference to me. Where I'm at, I think suburban communities can be designed and planned smarter, which I'm sure they can. There's always a cost for everything.

For me to live in Edmond, OKC has to pay and build highways to allow me to drive from OCCC to Edmond, and I'm glad they do. Unfortunately, people like you (or I'm assuming you live in the urban core) who live downtown or in the core of the city, who don't require a multi-billion dollar highway system to move you from point a to point b, have to pay the taxes to allow me to drive on that highway. But, that's the way it goes though. I will most likely never use the street car, but I've paid for part of it, in a way when I shop in OKC. I'm just fine with that. I would also, be glad to have my taxes raised to support a light-rail and/or HSR. So, I do understand that 10,000 people living in Deep Deuce require less infrastructure than 10,000 people living in Edmond. It's all just personal preference and I would be fine paying a little extra taxes living out in Edmond, a sprawl tax or something, that would go to OKC. As you have pointed out, suburban cities aren't usually designed well and I think that can be fixed.

[Plutonic Panda]

Really, please explain why Yukon and Mustang are bad sprawl and Edmond and Norman are better sprawl?

Those were probably bad examples. I think over time infill might fix it, idk. Edmond, Norman, Nichols Hills, MWC are fairly developed and still have a lot of land up for grabs, I think all the houses built in Yukon and Mustang could've been built in the other listed suburbs. The sprawl I consider to be really really bad is when people start building way out in Jones where you have all these 50-75 unit developments along two lane roads and all these "rural" sprawl communities have to be connected by massive highways that cost billions. Edmond as well as the other cities I mentioned are pretty dense for the most part and have good opportunities going for them and they're there and that's that. Yukon, Mustang, Jones, El Reno, New Castle, and a whole lot of other cities pretty far out, are just more suburbs we don't need and imho, nothing needs to be built out there until OKC, Edmond, Norman, Nichols Hills, MWC, Moore ect. are really filled in. That's all I mean't by it. Not saying they're bad cities or places to live.

[Plutonic Panda]

BTW, don't get too worked up over my views. They're not very experienced (just based over my brainstorming what I think could work), as I've said I'm 19 and in college. I haven't took any kind of city planning or urban design class and hopefully when I transfer to OU this fall they will have some good programs for those kinds of fields. These are nothing more than my opinions and will probably change over time.

[Snowman]

I think all the houses built in Yukon and Mustang could've been built in the other listed suburbs.

For the negatives of sprawl this is not an improvement

Edmond as well as the other cities I mentioned are pretty dense for the most part and have good opportunities going for them and they're there and that's that

Edmond and Norman are not building denser than Yukon or Mustang, Edmond is probably the worst of the four on how much they allow in subdivisions on houses per square acre.

The sprawl I consider to be really really bad is when people start building way out in Jones where you have all these 50-75 unit developments along two lane roads and all these "rural" sprawl communities have to be connected by massive highways that cost billions

It is laughable an Edmond resident complains about the cost to tax payers of highway access for any other community in the metro.

Yukon, Mustang, Jones, El Reno, New Castle, and a whole lot of other cities pretty far out, are just more suburbs we don't need and imho, nothing needs to be built out there until OKC, Edmond, Norman, Nichols Hills, MWC, Moore ect. are really filled in.

Yukon and Mustang are closer to OKC downtown than either Edmond or Norman, and none of them are just going to roll over and die over so the communities you want to grow get the near term tax base.

[Plutonic Panda]

You have no clue what I'm getting at and obviously I'm not any good at explaining my thoughts on the internet, so there's no point in continuing this argument. No matter who's right or wrong, bottom line is, I think OKC's main suburbs are Norman, Edmond, MWC, Nichols Hills and Moore. I also think that suburbs can be run better and last. That's my opinion, don't like it, tough.

[Mississippi Blues]

I think OKC's main suburbs are Norman, Edmond, MWC, Nichols Hills and Moore. I also think that suburbs can be run better and last.

I concur.

[Mississippi Blues]

BTW, don't get too worked up over my views. They're not very experienced (just based over my brainstorming what I think could work), as I've said I'm 19 and in college. I haven't took any kind of city planning or urban design class and hopefully when I transfer to OU this fall they will have some good programs for those kinds of fields. These are nothing more than my opinions and will probably change over time.

This too. There's no need to get worked up & try & pick someone's viewpoint apart just because you don't agree with their opinion.

[Plutonic Panda]

Thank you. I always try to keep an open mind for everything. .

[Mississippi Blues]

Thank you. I always try to keep an open mind for everything. .

Anytime. You're a great poster & I try to keep an open mind as well.

[Celebrator]

I have e-mailed members of the Edmond City council about issue such as the looks and design of new retail in the city and have gotten really nice and prompt responses. I think it is smart to write them and speak your mind, give them your opinions, it can't hurt. Let them know about your ideas and you never know how planting those seeds might work their way into consideration when plans are developed and approved.

[Mr. Cotter]

Sprawl in Edmond is worse than most OKC suburbs. New strip centers are being built in far north and far west Edmond, while large commercial developments in existing parts of town are left empty. Look at the the vacancy rates at 33rd and Boulavard, and 2nd and Kelly. Consider every vacant field you drive past on your way to Coffee Creek.

Even if the density rates are kept at the relatively low point on a neighborhood basis, the proximity of the neighborhoods should be closer (fill in the gaps). Developers only look at the price per lot when they know the city will build out the infrastructure to wherever they put a home.

[traxx]

Oy vey. This is one of the reasons I left this forum years ago. People get infatuated with their own ideas and views and can't see past them and feel like they have to belittle other people's ideas. Maybe I'm putting too much hope in the internet but I didn't want to start an arguement here. What I had hoped for was for others to build on what I stated in the OP or to present their own ideas. Basicaly; How can we improve suburban development? What ideas to all of you have to improve it? How can we make it more aesthectically pleasing? Do you like my idea of little pockets of small town life and town squre type development around the suburbs? If so, how would you go forward with it? Do you have a different idea of how to make it better? What is it?

I had hoped to nurture a discussion here instead of a urban > suburban, my suburb is better than your suburb pissing match. I was looking for a sharing of ideas.

Sprawl sucks. But I don't believe that we should all just abandon suburbia in favor of downtown because of it. I don't believe suburban development is hopeless. I think there must be a way to do it better.

@Panda, you're right. Urban isn't for everyone and suburban isn't for everyone. Some people like having their own house on their own land to do with as they please (reasonably speaking). Some people love the excitement of living in a downtown urban area with lots going on and people bustling about. Some people think the flat, wide open spaces of western Oklahoma is beautiful. Some feel the rolling hills and plethora of trees in eastern Oklahoma is wonderful. One isn't inherently better than the other. It's just different.

I have e-mailed members of the Edmond City council about issue such as the looks and design of new retail in the city and have gotten really nice and prompt responses. I think it is smart to write them and speak your mind, give them your opinions, it can't hurt. Let them know about your ideas and you never know how planting those seeds might work their way into consideration when plans are developed and approved.

This is good, useful information. Thanks, Celebrator.

[flintysooner]

How can we improve suburban development? What ideas to all of you have to improve it? How can we make it more aesthetically pleasing?

I think the greatest problem I've observed with development in general is the relatively low quality. Often this is caused, it seems to me, by designing to low lease rate expectations in the case of retail and commercial property. In this model the idea is that if the lease rates are at market or below then someone will come along and lease the available space. Therefore financing is available because the risk appears to be minimized.

Opposed to this is the idea of developing to a high standard of quality and then using the subsequent cost to determine the necessary lease rates to allow for that level of quality. One immediate obstacle is financing because being higher than market or at top of market for lease rates is considered higher risk. A partial way around this obstacle is to only begin work when (or if) the project is mostly or fully leased. Even this is sometimes insufficient to secure anything but very conservative financing, meaning that the developer has to contribute much more cash equity.

But the first method tends to result in faster development but perpetuates both the low market rates and low quality. Moreover I do not personally think it helps the lessees' businesses.

The second method, on the other hand, is much slower since projects have to be leased to some extent before construction; but, gradually increases both rates and quality.

Another thing is that when one quality development opens then that does seem to make others around it want to achieve slightly more quality.

Do you like my idea of little pockets of small town life and town square type development around the suburbs? If so, how would you go forward with it? Do you have a different idea of how to make it better? What is it?

I do like some of the "town square" developments I've seen but certainly not all. The ones I do like are the ones that seem to have developed more naturally and not the ones that seem more contrived.

However, I do think it is very useful to consider some of the aspects of the old town square and try to adapt those to modern life where possible. For instance I like the idea of smaller buildings owned by more resident landlords than I do the very large buildings with absentee owners. And I think it is important to try to find a development concept that fits into an existing place and community as opposed to destroying and building something entirely different.

Anything that builds and fosters long term community is a good development in my mind.

The concept of multi-use is not very well received in suburban communities. For instance if you want to provide street parking or if you want to combine residential with retail or office then you will find zoning obstacles and financing obstacles. It isn't impossible but it certainly isn't easy.

I think I might have read that you wanted to work in the industry. While that is an admirable objective it is really important to keep in mind that whatever is developed has to be able to generate financial return on investment so that makes it a rather difficult business.