MAPS for suburbia?

[bchris02]

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.

[Spartan]

No offense, but occasionally you make posts that show how recently you just moved here and just how much of the OKC story you've missed out on. Every single day is a MAPS for Suburbia kind of day.

The MAPS program is downtown and vice versa. It's about trying to strengthen downtown so that it can compete for investment. If some city councilors want to do something about the tide of urban blight, we need to keep rallying around downtown, and not turning against it. This is a political ploy where some politicians are trying to grab the attention of the have-nots and point to the haves downtown because they're very visible, while forgetting for a rhetorical moment that the overwhelming majority of haves live in far north or south OKC.

We seriously need to look at a growth boundary. That will do more than anything else to retain the value of existing housing. Nothing else will help keep nondescript, bland residential tract housing afloat.

[MWCGuy]

I think many people are frustrated that many of the suburban streets are falling apart not to mention 911 response time can be anywhere from 7-20 minutes then to top it off code enforcement is not being done (SE OKC). It's a hard pill to swallow when you live next to a suburban town that enjoys 3-7 minute response times, clean streets and lots of places to shop.

The reality of it all is OKC does a pretty good job at balancing the city's priorities list. No area goes neglected for too long. Project 180 was long over due. Many downtown streets had not seen improvements since the Murrah Bombing or prior to that. Not to mention the few attractions we have down there were starting to show major wear. Not a good thing when you have a major city employer invest millions to build a new skyscraper.

[bombermwc]

The other side of that is that it does feel like other parts of town get forgotten. The SW side really needs an economic injection. Outside of Westgate Marketplace, what's re-devloped to replace all the jobs lost at Lucent and Dayton? The whole area of Western Heights needs to get something going there to help revitalize the area instead of just sucking it all to Mustang and Yukon.

The same can be said for 240, but at least there's a push to get that done.

And the NE side....come on. It's been forgotten for 50 years.

So i can see why someone would feel like the focus is all on downtown. Yes the projects in downtown are a HUGE part of the rebirth of the city. However, the rest of the city shouldn't be sacrificed for it. Now, i'm not saying we need to build some major Maps program around these areas, HOWEVER, a lot could be done with things like community centers, police/fire facilities, roads, etc. in these areas. Bonds are a great way to start, but they take a long time to produce. Economic incentives or incubators in these once thriving areas could help a lot to spur others to move in. Why not encourage someone to move their HQ to the west instead of Memorial? If it's not going downtown, maybe we can keep it from continuing the sprawl on Memorial and RE-develop an existing area.

This is actually a perfect example of what i mean. It is a bit south to count for me, but at least the city is trying.

[Geographer]

welcome to the real cost of suburbia...harder and more expensive to maintain roads and essential civic services for such low and spread out density.

[Pete]

There are several components of MAPS 3 that are not focused on downtown:

• Fairgrounds improvements
• Senior Health and Wellness Centers
• Trails
• Sidewalks

And of course, MAPS for Kids not only helped OKC Public Schools but provided money for all the districts that operate within city limits (Putnam City, etc.).


If there is a MAPS 4 I would like to see an initiative that not only furthered the sidewalks and trails, but also focused on some of our out-lying parks and perhaps the bus system.

[bchris02]

^^^ I agree Pete. I would like to see improvements in city parks. Another thing that would be great is a greenway connecting suburbia to downtown. Charlotte has one and it works great. It gives people the option, if they so choose, to live in the suburban areas and still bike to many areas of the city. It's also great for recreation. Wasn't something like this planned for MAPS3 and then scrapped?

[CaptDave]

There are several miles of trails being built as part of MAPS3. They will connect the river trails to Overholser.

[Larry OKC]

The original poster is correct... it IS called MAPS (Metropolitan Area Projects), not DAPS (Downtown Area Projects). And Pete is correct too. The perception is that MAPS is mostly downtown centric, with some projects thrown in that are more inclusive of the City as a whole. But judging from the responses in another thread, the River, Fairgrounds and other projects may be considered "downtown" as well. ALthough the pitch on the Senior Aquatic Centers presumed the 4 to 5 centers to be built would be equally scattered in the 4 quadrants (maybe with a 5th being centrally located downtown), with the suggested downsizing in number of the facilities are going to be less geographically positioned. And of course, MAPS 4 Kids was truly all-inclusive, even giving surrounding school districts 30% of the funds. From a time standpoint, it really doesn't matter if it thru a bond issue or sales tax. From start to finish there are going to be projects that take about 10 years to get finished (some earlier, some later). IMHO, they need to get back to the more inclusive "truth in acronym" that they did with MAPS 4 Kids.

[Just the facts]

Every day is MAPS for suburbia. I like that Spartan. First let me say that I think the MAPS brand is dead after this time. However. If there was another one I would like to see it focused on neighborhood urban cluster and rebuilding urban creeks and greenbelts. OKC covered over far too many creeks and privatized what was not covered over.

[mkjeeves]

welcome to the real cost of suburbia...harder and more expensive to maintain roads and essential civic services for such low and spread out density.

Total BS.

Suburbia cost so much we were able to come up with the funding to fix downtown. No suburbia, no Maps. End of story.

[mkjeeves]

There are several components of MAPS 3 that are not focused on downtown:

• Fairgrounds improvements
• Senior Health and Wellness Centers
• Trails
• Sidewalks

And of course, MAPS for Kids not only helped OKC Public Schools but provided money for all the districts that operate within city limits (Putnam City, etc.).


If there is a MAPS 4 I would like to see an initiative that not only furthered the sidewalks and trails, but also focused on some of our out-lying parks and perhaps the bus system.

Indeed and there is much to be done. Streets, sidewalks and mass-trans that serve the masses, not just the core.

[mkjeeves]

No offense, but occasionally you make posts that show how recently you just moved here and just how much of the OKC story you've missed out on. Every single day is a MAPS for Suburbia kind of day.

The MAPS program is downtown and vice versa. It's about trying to strengthen downtown so that it can compete for investment. If some city councilors want to do something about the tide of urban blight, we need to keep rallying around downtown, and not turning against it. This is a political ploy where some politicians are trying to grab the attention of the have-nots and point to the haves downtown because they're very visible, while forgetting for a rhetorical moment that the overwhelming majority of haves live in far north or south OKC.

We seriously need to look at a growth boundary. That will do more than anything else to retain the value of existing housing. Nothing else will help keep nondescript, bland residential tract housing afloat.

That was true and is true to a point and was one of the main reasons we went down this path. It's not true as a rule, thus the reason we are now and will continue to have this discussion about balancing public spending.

Every single day is a MAPS for Suburbia kind of day.

You skirted right into Music Man territory with that one.

[Dubya61]

Total BS.

Suburbia cost so much we were able to come up with the funding to fix downtown. No suburbia, no Maps. End of story.

It seems to me that you think some on here are your opponent in an all or nothing battle, but I don't think that's necessarily so, unless you ARE involved in an all or nothing battle. If you think you are, I bet it would surprise you to find out that none of our fellow posters here oppose suburbia. If you want to reassure yourself how horrible dense vertical cities are (at their worst) and how wonderful suburbia is in comparison, take a look at this thread http://www.okctalk.com/other-urban-d...not-ocura.html. It's loaded with photos that UnFrSaKn posts (why? I don't know, but it satisfies one of his communication needs and I enjoy seeing 'em). Here's one that should put us all in apoplectic shock:

I don't think anybody wants THAT, but ... put on your evil emperor hat for a moment and imagine all the tax payers you could shove in those slums. Mmmm-mmmassive municipal income! BWAH-HA-HA-HA. Okay, now, take off the hat and come back to reality.
One of your frequent "opponents" posted this graphic recently. I believe that Just the Facts would say that a good city has ALL of these transect types within its geographical boundaries.

For those wishing to know more about the rural to urban transect or to find your T# look here:

Center for Applied Transect Studies

Certainly, some of us want to live in the "D" district, some of us want to live in the T6 Urban Core, some of us ... well, you get the point, I'm sure. Oklahoma City and every municipality should host all of these transects in order to provide a desirable living and working environment for all of its citizens.
As JTF has pointed out many times, OKC is a bit lopsidedly heavy on the T3 (suburban) transect, and that's OK, but it's not the balanced offering that we need to have to appeal to the full spectrum of our citizenry. Further, it costs more per capita to provide the roads and other municipal services (police protection, fire protection, utilities, etc.) expected by the occupants of the T3 (suburban) than it costs per capita to the occupants of the T6 (urban core) and "D" (District) transects. Not only does the city have greater expenses per capita in the T3 (suburban) transect than the more dense transects, it also reaps less income per acre in the T3 (suburban) transects than in the more dense transects.
Using that logic that I'm sure we can all say is based in reality, it's easy to say that there IS a huge cost to suburbia -- at least a bigger net cost in comparison to the net cost of dense "D" District urbia.

Again, it's not an all or nothing battle. Sure, sometimes JTF and others can sound like they despise suburbia when what I think they're saying is that they wish there were a more balanced approach that would allow us to see the values of a denser development and allow us to see the costs (even if only opportunity costs) of suburbia. You're right to say that MAPS is succeeding in part because of the suburbanites who pay taxes (just like the urbanites and visiting out-of-towners do), but you're wrong to say that all of MAPS is benefiting only downtown OKC. Even if that were true (and it's not), it's short-sighted to say that the non-CBD parts of OKC don't benefit from the rising tide that lifts both the CBD and the rest of OKC (and it's surrounding municipalities). I wish I could find the post that references how different OKC would be without MAPS (and, therefore, Devon, OKC Thunder, etc.). It's also a good read.

In short, I'm sorry that you and PluPan seem to think that the suburbs are under attack and need to be defended, because that's not at all how I read JTF's, Trey's, and other's posts.

[CaptDave]

^ Very nicely stated Dubya.

No one wants to bulldoze all the suburbs - I live in one. I believe we should consider the ramifications of OKC development being so heavily skewed toward suburbia. I would favor a development boundary and incentivize brownfield redevelopment until infill has taken root in the T4-T6; and as our population (and therefore tax base) increases, begin extending development in the T3 and other outer zones.

[Just the facts]

Thank Dubya61 - but one thing. T3 is not the same suburbia OKC has. T3 is still based on a grid and walkability. There is a lot of information on how to convert urban sprawl suburbia into T3 suburbia but it meets a lot of resistance by people living in urban sprawl suburbia. Let me give you an example. I proposed the following items to our homeowners association.

1) Place sidewalks on both sides of the street.
2) Marked crosswalks at all intersections
3) Decorative intersection surface treatment
4) Stop signs at all intersections
5) Allow picket fences in front yards
6) Encourage water features, wind chimes, etc.. in front yards
7) Convert unused space at the park area to include a restaurant, exercise facility, and corner store
8) Connect cul-de-sacs with bike trails
9) Add docks to some of the neighborhood ponds
10) Create additional access controlled entrances to the subdivision
11) Allow people with side-load garages to create outbuildings with 1/2 addresses
12) Install a dog walk at the community recreation area (I even offered to do the labor if they bought the material)
13) Provide free internet Wi-Fi at the playground and pool

Do you know which of those ideas they liked? Answer - none of them. Number one reason given - it would slow down traffic in the neighborhood. Number two reason - it would destroy the peace and quite. Number three reason - people who don't live in the subdivision might start coming in.

It might help to note the association contracts with the Jacksonville Sheriffs Office to run speed traps in our subdivision because speeding is a real problem. My next door neighbor got a ticket for doing 45 mph. The guy across the street from us has gotten 4 speeding tickets IN OUR SUBDIVISION.

[Larry OKC]

duplicate post somehow...

[Larry OKC]

Interesting that the 1st opposition was it would slow down traffic when speeding is one of their biggest complaints...it amazes me that people don't listen to themselves most of the time

[Just the facts]

I know Larry - it gets very frustrating trying to explain things to people. I thought about running for the board so I wouldn't have to explain things - I could just propose it, vote, and then do it. I never looked at our subdivision in terms of walkability until I started working from home. Everyday there is a man is in a wheelchair who takes his dogs for a walk and he has to do it the street because the sidewalks don't even connect to each other and he has to go over a 'California curb' without a ramp to get on them. My wife found him one day laying in the middle of the street because his wheelchair tipped over while trying to get out of the street. Thank goodness this didn't occur when the asphalt was over 100 degrees.

[mkjeeves]

It seems to me that you think

No, that's not what I think. The bare hard facts of OKC is the suburbs of OKC did and are continuing to subsidise downtown. We have sent freight-car loads of money collected on activity in the burbs to downtown to fix it.

End of story.

Every time someone says it's the other way around, outright claiming or inferring downtown is subsidizing the burbs I'm calling them on it.

Give me an overlay showing where taxes are collected in OKC versus cost to serve those same areas. Adjust that for the billions we sent downtown already and then we can talk about what cost more, where we should spend money etc.
Put up or shut up.

Things in OKC could change to fit your model at some point in time in the future, but it didn't fit that model before we started working on it with the burbs subsidized downtown, and it won't be for many decades to come after downtown has generated lots of offsetting benefits that the tide can be considered reversed and fully paid for. That will be decades from now, if ever.

[mkjeeves]

If we drew a heatmap from day one of the city and funded every project proportionately based on location of people and work units (the location people work), you'd have dirt roads in much of suburbia and some of the best municipal services on the face of the planet in the inner core.

Pretty basic math really.

Not really. Considering the only economic activity that paid for anything OKC during most of the time period up to present day was in the suburbs or due to the suburbs.

[mkjeeves]

How can you say that? Do you realize how many people work in such a small area in downtown? You'd put up a square mile of downtown against anywhere else in the community?

I'm really struggling to understand your claims. Can you maybe provide some data to show me where you are coming up with that?

I already did that in another thread and I've got to go generate some economic activity here in the burbs. It's pretty simple though. Here's a start. Look up the major employers in the metro and click off how many jobs are downtown. It's a pittance.

The initial claim was made otherwise, I asked for support for that argument. The burden of proof is on those making that claim.

[HangryHippo]

I already did that in another thread and I've got to go generate some economic activity here in the burbs. It's pretty simple though. Here's a start. Look up the major employers in the metro and click off how many jobs are downtown. It's a pittance.

The initial claim was made otherwise, I asked for support for that argument. The burden of proof is on those making that claim.

Then back up your claim that the suburbs aren't subsidized by downtown.

[mkjeeves]

Again, those employers are spread out over tons and tons of square miles. Do you know how much it costs to spread out services that far? If there was vast nothingness between every suburban major employer and downtown (meaning no roads, utilities, public saftey) then I'd say you might be able to get closer to competing on a work unit/rooftop basis. But that's not the case. Instead we've approved building permit after building permit to allow developers to build and sell of property in a much less efficient way. Again, I think there needs to be tremendous diversity of land use. But we've kind of hit an extreme amount of suburban patterns. Not interested in seeing any more approved until we being to get back to legitimately offering alternatives for those who also pay taxes and work in the city. Oh, and have a higher return on investment per square foot in tax revenue.

How many water treatment plants, city lakes and dumps do we have in Downtown OKC? None. They are in or closer to the burbs. We pipe and haul everything we need downtown.

OKC's budget broke the $1 Billion dollar mark this year. How much of that do you think is going for the downtown vs the suburbs? I'm very familiar with municipal budgets and have read OKC's many times. But you should read it. The answer is incredibly clear if you do.

How much of the revenue was generated in the burbs? There is almost no sales tax generated downtown, relatively speaking and the real estate values of the property in the burbs far exceeds downtown values. Facts Sid. Give me some real data, of what costs what and where the tax dollars are collected in OKC, not guesswork, supposition, or models that don't resemble OKC.

[HangryHippo]

How many water treatment plants, city lakes and dumps do we have in Downtown OKC? None. They are in or closer to the burbs. We pipe and haul everything we need downtown.



How much of that was generated in the burbs? There is almost no sales tax generated downtown, relatively speaking and the real estate values of the property in the burbs far exceeds downtown values. Facts Sid. Give me some real data, of what costs what and where the tax dollars are collected in OKC, not guesswork, supposition, or models that don't resemble OKC.

Do people not pay sales tax in Bricktown or at the Chesapeake Arena?