MAPS for suburbia?

[zookeeper]

Mums the word then. When the next person makes a comment about the burbs, betts, zoo, sid, JTF, treyingram90, spartan and all the rest will all be right there to tell them we have agreed to disagree right?

I can't speak for the rest of the posters you mentioned, but I admit to being conflicted about certain things regarding funds directed downtown. I support MAPS and am proud of what it has done, but I also can understand living in the suburbs and not liking to be treated as if there's something inherently wrong with that, because there's not. It's about freedom and choices. To take it a step further, I also understand being told that while suburbia does pay for a big chunk of the freight. I'm conflicted and am not afraid to say I don't feel certain enough, about a lot of things, to say X is absolutely right and Y is absolutely wrong. I think there's a middle ground here.

[Dubya61]

... Most OKC residents do not live, work or shop downtown, they do most all of it somewhere in the burbs.

But that presents an interesting chicken-or-egg question that I failed to touch on in my egregiously long post above: Would those guys even be around to live and work in the 'burbs if we didn't have a viable downtown? Again, I wish I could find that post that Steve Lackmeyer made that says he wouldn't want to live in an OKC without MAPS in its history. Surely it's all speculation, but Mayor Cornett isn't be Belle of the Ball whenever he travels because we have such great suburbs!

[betts]

I'm the only one who made that statement so I can't speak for anyone else. All I'm saying is that, for Oklahoma City, we've got enough land. If people want to live further out, they can be the next Edmond. And, I don't like wasting water for massive manicured lawns and I hate people putting fertilizer and pesticides on those massive lawns, to keep them artificially green and weed free, at the expense of our water supply, beneficial insects and children. If people want to live way out, but within the existing city limits, that's their choice. I think the city was dumb to get this large, land mass wise, but that's a done deal unless they want to start deannexing.

[betts]

Maybe we should change gears for awhile. What if there was a MAPS for Suburbs, what would be on the list?

Parks and sidewalks. Maybe if there were great parks, people would be satisfied with less land. I like Chicago size lots: 25 feet wide with an alley and a small front and back yard.

[Just the facts]

Parks and sidewalks. Maybe if there were great parks, people would be satisfied with less land. I like Chicago size lots: 25 feet wide with an alley and a small front and back yard.

Stay with me on this...

How many parks, where would you put them, and how big would they be?

How many miles of sidewalks, where would you put them, and who would use them?

-------------------------

What would you think about funding a 'transfer of development rights' program using a MAPS style tax?

http://www.farmlandinfo.org/document...S_TDR_1-01.pdf

[Just the facts]

LOL - no, but it won't take long to realize that when you spread projects across 650 sq miles you are going to need a lot more money to make any kind of impact and a lot of places aren't going to get anything.

[hoya]

In OKC, suburbia pays for most things because our downtown used to look like this:



A downtown with zero people, zero shopping, zero tax base is not going to do the heavy lifting, economically. We let our downtown die. MAPS is about bringing it back to life. So yes, it's going to focus disproportionately on downtown. But we've seen billions of dollars of investment come out of that initial $100M or so that we put in. You don't get that same sort of economic growth if you're investing that money out in the suburbs.

In general. this:



is going to generate more revenue, more tax dollars, and more economic growth, than this:



The issue in OKC is that we basically have about 10 blocks of the first picture and 600 square miles of the second. So as a total, yes, the majority of OKC's tax revenue and economic development will come from the suburbs. That's what happens when your city is basically all suburb.

But let's look at the larger question. Why are we seeing such growth downtown? The answer is because it's easier to create a concentration of activity in a more dense area. I can walk around Bricktown and eat at 20 different restaurants. I can do the same in Midwest City on Air Depot, if I'm willing to get in my car and drive a mile and a half. But that doesn't generate the same type of development or economic growth.

[warreng88]

Maybe we should change gears for awhile. What if there was a MAPS for Suburbs, what would be on the list?

I would think the same thing we are doing in Maps 3 plus a little more. More sidewalks, more trails, more community centers, then add to that renovation of parks and and upgrading mass transit in general whether it be the bus system, commuter rail, express bus lines, extension of the street car line, etc. Roads and traffic in general can be handled by bonds. The problem that you run into when you try to a Suburb Maps is who gets what. When MAPS 3 came up and there was talk of a new convention center, there were only a handful of places it could go to serve downtown the best. The Union Commons was a no-brainer. I guess we will probably end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring consultants to find out where the most rooftops are and where the most people without cars are to determine where the bus lines should run. Then which parks are in need of upgrades and which one has the most homes around it.

[Geographer]

I believe it was Jeff Speck who said "you start with downtown because it's everyone's space" (paraphrasing).

[Plutonic Panda]

Maybe we should change gears for awhile. What if there was a MAPS for Suburbs, what would be on the list?

*Street cars for the core areas
*redesigning the service roads to make them either a 2 or 3 lane, each way, one way and add "Texas" turnarounds with dual left turns, dedicated right turn lanes at all intersections
*install "smart" traffic lights making them synchronized
*do traffic studies and determine what roads need to be widened to 6 lanes(for example, I believe Second St. in Edmond needs to be widened)
*Add bike lanes in various locations and build an expansive bike trail network
*BURY THE UTILITY LINES!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALL OF THEM lol
*add sidewalks to every road
*give incentives to neighborhoods to build stone or brick walls along neighborhoods that front streets
*work with OKC to build a light-rail through out the entire metro
*expand bus services
*add a bike sharing program in the cores and through-out college areas

Those are just a few to name

Also, it would be nice if the city would lessen the parking requirements

Oh, and to add to that list: Add more parks and integrate them with the trail network I listed

[Just the facts]

I would think the same thing we are doing in Maps 3 plus a little more. More sidewalks, more trails, more community centers, then add to that renovation of parks and and upgrading mass transit in general whether it be the bus system, commuter rail, express bus lines, extension of the street car line, etc. Roads and traffic in general can be handled by bonds. The problem that you run into when you try to a Suburb Maps is who gets what. When MAPS 3 came up and there was talk of a new convention center, there were only a handful of places it could go to serve downtown the best. The Union Commons was a no-brainer. I guess we will probably end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring consultants to find out where the most rooftops are and where the most people without cars are to determine where the bus lines should run. Then which parks are in need of upgrades and which one has the most homes around it.

I excluded mass transit since those by definition don't work in suburbia, and would just bring people downtown anyhow. How many miles of sidewalks do you think should be included in MAPS for Suburbia and who is going to use them?

[Geographer]

*give incentives to neighborhoods to build stone or brick walls along neighborhoods that front streets

why this?

[Just the facts]

*Street cars for the core areas
*redesigning the service roads to make them either a 2 or 3 lane, each way, one way and add "Texas" turnarounds with dual left turns, dedicated right turn lanes at all intersections
*install "smart" traffic lights making them synchronized
*do traffic studies and determine what roads need to be widened to 6 lanes(for example, I believe Second St. in Edmond needs to be widened)
*Add bike lanes in various locations and build an expansive bike trail network
*BURY THE UTILITY LINES!!!!!!!!!!!!! ALL OF THEM lol
*add sidewalks to every road
*give incentives to neighborhoods to build stone or brick walls along neighborhoods that front streets
*work with OKC to build a light-rail through out the entire metro
*expand bus services
*add a bike sharing program in the cores and through-out college areas

Those are just a few to name

Also, it would be nice if the city would lessen the parking requirements

Oh, and to add to that list: Add more parks and integrate them with the trail network I listed

So you are thinking a $5 billion MAPS tax?

[Plutonic Panda]

why this?

I just think it looks better than the crappy wood fences that line a bunch of Edmond streets. Obviously, it wouldn't be a priority and if there was a (M)SAPs, it wouldn't make it. Just a thought though.

[Plutonic Panda]

So you are thinking a $5 billion MAPS tax?

Probably, sound good?

On edit, it might even be a little more than 5 billion if EVERYTHING on my list were to happen. Those are just a few ideas. I wouldn't expect everything on that list to happen.

The three main things I would want is

*Street car
*Light-rail
*Redesigning of the service roads, well the ones in Edmond anyways.

Also, another cool thing that I would add to the "general" list would be landscaping our highways. Esp. the circles in the cloverleafs and the medians.

[warreng88]

I excluded mass transit since those by definition don't work in suburbia, and would just bring people downtown anyhow. How many miles of sidewalks do you think should be included in MAPS for Suburbia and who is going to use them?

The other thing to create would be several bus terminals around the metro so people don't have to take the bus five miles out of their way downtown to go 10 miles in the same direction they came from. I would think one strategically placed in every quadrant (NE, NW, SE, SW) would be sufficient for now.

Not really sure of the mileage, but I would put at least a five foot sidewalk around every major square mile (i.e. 10, 23, 36, etc and Penn, May, MacArthur, etc) extending south, north, west and east to the city limits. Then, ideally, a sidewalk on at least one side of the street every other block. So, between 10 and 23 there would be one on 10, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23. I skipped 17 and 18 because 16 and 19 are more traveled. I live on NW 21st street and from May to Penn there is maybe a quarter mile of sidewalk. This is not great for someone who likes to run in the morning like me.

[warreng88]

The other thing I would add is technology to make mass transit easier to understand. I live at 21st and May and work at Britton and May. I cannot for the life of me figure out how I could take the bus to work. So, create a database where you enter your current location, where you want to go and what time you need to leave or what time you need to be at your destination. The database will spit out multiple options you can take and how much it will cost. It would also tell you what time you will be stopping at what location and when to switch over to another line number.

[mkjeeves]

Good thoughts. I would like to see a city push with vision, planning, education, funding (full, matching or seed), to facilitate local ownership and centralized neighborhood redevelopment of areas like the Plaza District, only scattered across the metro where we have similar issues they did and that downtown did before we started. That done in concert with what you just mentioned. We don't need an arena, a canal, ballpark etc at every node.

[betts]

The other thing I would add is technology to make mass transit easier to understand. I live at 21st and May and work at Britton and May. I cannot for the life of me figure out how I could take the bus to work. So, create a database where you enter your current location, where you want to go and what time you need to leave or what time you need to be at your destination. The database will spit out multiple options you can take and how much it will cost. It would also tell you what time you will be stopping at what location and when to switch over to another line number.

You just need us to go to a grid and have bus GPS so you can see where the bus is. We've made riding the bus unnecessarily difficult with our crazy routes.

[Just the facts]

So in summary we want to turn urban sprawl into T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5.

[mkjeeves]

So in summary we want to turn urban sprawl into T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5.

You could deannex me and we'll use the money locally instead of sending it downtown. Actually, Bethany would like to have us. I'm urban Bethany more than suburban OKC. Most people in the metro can say the same, closer to some town that's been around since the beginning than OKC downtown.

[mkjeeves]

I drove down there and wrote them out a check the other day for a tornado shelter permit!

[hoya]

I think there are a few things that should happen if the suburbs want to duplicate the success of MAPS. The most important part of MAPS was that it was a showing of faith by the people of this city that they weren't going to let downtown rot. They believed in the city enough to invest in it. That gave investors confidence to build.

Steps to revitalize the suburbs in the same way we revitalized downtown:

1) Urban Growth Boundary
This is simple. Values of your current home in the suburb are going to go down if people can move 5 miles out and build your neighborhood, but newer, in a farmer's field for less money. That's just the way it will be. People won't move into a neighborhood of 10 year old homes, they'll move into the 1 year old homes and will drive the extra two minutes. Unfortunately this dramatically increases our infrastructure costs. We have to put in more water pipes, put in more roads, extend where our school buses run, extend police and fire protection, etc. It also decreases your existing home values, which hurts your resale value and hurts our schools. So let's not do that anymore. We put in an Urban Growth Boundary (i.e., "no new housing developments past X street") and new development won't stop, it will just turn inward. When the guy who would be buying a $200K house up on NW 180th instead buys one in an existing neighborhood in the city, it makes that neighborhood better.

2) Zoning Changes
Now let's focus that new development. Right now we have mile after mile of houses, with gas stations and fast food places on the major mile streets. It's like it was put there by a guy with a big stamp. In large part that's because of our zoning laws and because we use the automobile as our sole source of transportation. We should encourage mixed use developments within neighborhoods, and not just on the major mile streets. We drastically reduce required parking spaces in commercial developments, even eliminating them entirely in our neighborhood arera. Now, this in and of itself won't change anything. But like the Urban Growth Boundary, it allows the kinds of changes we want and sets the stage for the sort of development we want to see.

3) Commuter Rail
We need a way to get around without taking the car everywhere. The creation of a commuter rail system that lets you get to most places in the city will tremendously increase the value of land near those rail stops. It will spur development in the area, and with our new, better zoning requirements, people will be able to take advantage of the proximity of mass transit to build to a higher density.

4) More Parks and Sidewalks
I won't mind a smaller yard if I have a nice park across the street from my house. It doesn't have to be a huge city park, but a few acres that are maintained and well managed can really increase the value of homes nearby. More sidewalks increase walkability, allow more more foot traffic, etc.


--

At the end of the day, in our suburbs we want to encourage 1) fun things to do, 2) that are easy to get to, 3) that encourage people to have pride in their community and stay there. Commuter rail can encourage development of little "town square" style areas. I should be able to get off the train at pretty much any given location and have three or four places to eat, a small grocery store, a drug store, maybe a small movie theater, things like that.



Now, no one is going to come through and bulldoze 600 square miles of suburb and rebuild into these nice little urban neighborhoods with cafes and bistros and hipsters walking their little dogs in the dog park. That's not gonna happen. If you live in a neighborhood that was built 5 years ago, with no sidewalks and no parks, 3000 sq ft houses sitting on two acres apiece, then your life is gonna remain basically unchanged. The problem is that that's exactly what people are complaining about. "There's nothing cool in my neighborhood. I don't have any neat restaurants or a cool river walk." You need density to have that stuff. What we would see is gradual development and change. Our neighborhoods would be better because they would follow for a more economically successful model.

Midwest City just invested a butt-ton of money to try and make a development like this on 29th street. The only problem is they had to put in huge parking lots because the only way to get there is by car. You have a rail line that runs right beside the area and you get a bunch of potential customers who can suddenly walk to it.

I am not saying that you can't still live in your suburb that has nothing but houses and has no sidewalks. That's what some people really want. They want to come home, park in their garage, and shut out the concerns of the world. That's fine. Just understand, that's exactly what keeps the cool stuff from being in your area.

[Snowman]

If you live in a neighborhood that was built 5 years ago, with no sidewalks and no parks, ...

Kind of a moot point but as of at least fifteen to twenty years ago new houses have to have sidewalks and there has to be a certain area of amenity space and items based on the developments size.

[krisb]

The talk about Shadid and possibly wanting to take the city down a path where less is invested in downtown and more is invested in more suburban areas got me thinking. If there was to be a MAPS for suburbia what would you like to see? I am calling suburbia anything north and west of I-44, east of I-35, or south of I-40.

Where do you get the idea that Shadid wants to invest more in suburban areas? He is the only councilman challenging the city's long policy of subsidizing suburban sprawl and street widening in the outlying areas. He may not be in favor of big business controlling downtown development, but he is the strongest advocate for urban issues on the horseshoe. He attends ULI and CNU meetings, invites national urban planners to public symposiums, and represents OKC's most diverse, historic, urban neighborhoods. He is one of few civic leaders in Oklahoma City who speaks the language of "walkability" and "placemaking." Just thought I would make that clear.