Crest on Sooner and Covell

[Silvershoes]

last i heard they were waiting on steel

Pandemic slowed this process by 12-18 months. Crest is going before planning commission in May last I heard. If things move along as hoped probably looking at a Late Spring/Early Summer 23' opening.........

[BoulderSooner]

Pandemic slowed this process by 12-18 months. Crest is going before planning commission in May last I heard. If things move along as hoped probably looking at a Late Spring/Early Summer 23' opening.........

good deal thank you for the info ..

[onthestrip]

Has any work started at all yet, any site work?

[BoulderSooner]

Has any work started at all yet, any site work?

they spent a ton of time and money a few years ago prepping the site ..

[Silvershoes]

they spent a ton of time and money a few years ago prepping the site ..

If all goes well with City of Edmond I would expect activity starting no later than June given all I have been told. Crest # 9 in Yukon was built start to finish in 10 months which is very fast for a structure that large. If things can go that quickly on this location with no unforeseen supply chain issues hopefully Store # 10 is open by April 23'.........

[BoulderSooner]

If all goes well with City of Edmond I would expect activity starting no later than June given all I have been told. Crest # 9 in Yukon was built start to finish in 10 months which is very fast for a structure that large. If things can go that quickly on this location with no unforeseen supply chain issues hopefully Store # 10 is open by April 23'.........

great news thank you

[Plutonic Panda]

This project will soon be moving forward with incentives apparently:

https://www.facebook.com/10000013612...N9wdqCgvl/?d=n

The plans are posted in that link

[jerrywall]

Finally. I just need the second Crest so everyone will quit shopping at mine!

[Plutonic Panda]

Finally. I just need the second Crest so everyone will quit shopping at mine!

Hah my grandma will be one of those. She always shops at the one on Santa Fe.

[scottk]

I know that Crest has had this land forever and they are finally moving on it.....BUT, in an effort for efficient city planning, it would make sense for them to build in the already established Legacy at Covell (Showbiz Cinema Center). Stoplights, turn lanes, and right of way already exists. Plus, building it 500 yards east with I-35 curb appeal, would be conveneint for those who travel from Guthrie and further north to get groceries.

Instead, throw up another building on a corner, fight the NIMBYs, and create more unnecessary congestion at Sooner and Covell, there should have been an effort to group this together in already existing zoned commercial.

[BoulderSooner]

I know that Crest has had this land forever and they are finally moving on it.....BUT, in an effort for efficient city planning, it would make sense for them to build in the already established Legacy at Covell (Showbiz Cinema Center). Stoplights, turn lanes, and right of way already exists. Plus, building it 500 yards east with I-35 curb appeal, would be conveneint for those who travel from Guthrie and further north to get groceries.

Instead, throw up another building on a corner, fight the NIMBYs, and create more unnecessary congestion at Sooner and Covell, there should have been an effort to group this together in already existing zoned commercial.

Crest has already spent millions of dollars on this land to ready it for this build .. this is also NOT on the hard corner

[Plutonic Panda]

I don’t think they’re fighting any NIMBYs either on this which is a shocker given it being Edmond and all.

[onthestrip]

I know that Crest has had this land forever and they are finally moving on it.....BUT, in an effort for efficient city planning, it would make sense for them to build in the already established Legacy at Covell (Showbiz Cinema Center). Stoplights, turn lanes, and right of way already exists. Plus, building it 500 yards east with I-35 curb appeal, would be conveneint for those who travel from Guthrie and further north to get groceries.

Instead, throw up another building on a corner, fight the NIMBYs, and create more unnecessary congestion at Sooner and Covell, there should have been an effort to group this together in already existing zoned commercial.

But the real world free market doesnt work like your version of Sim City. Besides, all of the things you mention are hardly concerns. Sooner and Covell is an intersection of section line roads, why would something like this not be good for this intersection? Congestion is going to come to this intersection in the near future regardless of Crest, get used to it. And acting like it inconveniences shoppers becuase its 500 yards from the interstate is funny.

[April in the Plaza]

I don’t think they’re fighting any NIMBYs either on this which is a shocker given it being Edmond and all.

true, but a Crest is not an apartment complex or a similarly dense multi-family use.

[Elrenogolf]

true, but a Crest is not an apartment complex or a similarly dense multi-family use.

Yep, and people have to eat and right now the only convenient grocery store in this area is Walmart.

[scottk]

true, but a Crest is not an apartment complex or a similarly dense multi-family use.

Reasor's Grocery Store tried expanding to Edmond years ago at 15th and Bryant as an extension to Spring Creek. Resident's near by were up in arms about a 24 hour grocery store. Crest will be 24 hours, but I think will be welcomed given their history.

[jerrywall]

Reasor's Grocery Store tried expanding to Edmond years ago at 15th and Bryant as an extension to Spring Creek. Resident's near by were up in arms about a 24 hour grocery store. Crest will be 24 hours, but I think will be welcomed given their history.

Part of the reason there was such a fight against the Reasor's is that when Spring Creek was developed (against a fair amount of community opposition) a commitment was made that there would not be 24 hour businesses located there. And said promise lasted until developers saw an opportunity to break it, as normal. Which is why I don't ever take promises from developers with any level of faith.

[Plutonic Panda]

Part of the reason there was such a fight against the Reasor's is that when Spring Creek was developed (against a fair amount of community opposition) a commitment was made that there would not be 24 hour businesses located there. And said promise lasted until developers saw an opportunity to break it, as normal. Which is why I don't ever take promises from developers with any level of faith.

There shouldn’t have even been that ridiculous promise to begin with. Edmond is so anti development when it comes to anything other than cookie cutter tract housing or strip malls. Yes there are a few exceptions and it’s getting better around downtown with more stuff being built but historically when developments like this are turned down here it isn’t because of any “significant” opposition it’s the people using low voter turnout tactics in hopes other people around the city will vote in favor of the typical anti development, increased crime, and more traffic trope.

[Pete]

Downtown Edmond projects have been easier to get done because there are no major housing additions immediately adjacent.

All that land is already commercial, so much clearer path.

[jerrywall]

There shouldn’t have even been that ridiculous promise to begin with. Edmond is so anti development when it comes to anything other than cookie cutter tract housing or strip malls. Yes there are a few exceptions and it’s getting better around downtown with more stuff being built but historically when developments like this are turned down here it isn’t because of any “significant” opposition it’s the people using low voter turnout tactics in hopes other people around the city will vote in favor of the typical anti development, increased crime, and more traffic trope.

Go figure... people like to keep their residential areas... residential. There used to be houses where Spring Creek Village was (my uncle lived in one of those houses). There were still houses between the Aquatic Center and what became Spring Creek Plaza. That whole spring creek corner was largely rezoned to make it commercial. It wasn't originally that way, and it is an area right next to what was the most significant park in Edmond at the time. It was entirely reasonable to have restrictions on hours and such as part of the approval process. Light pollution is a valid concern for homeowners and as such it's perfectly fine to address it (just like traffic and such) during the process.

[Plutonic Panda]

Go figure... people like to keep their residential areas... residential. There used to be houses where Spring Creek Village was (my uncle lived in one of those houses). There were still houses between the Aquatic Center and what became Spring Creek Plaza. That whole spring creek corner was largely rezoned to make it commercial. It wasn't originally that way, and it is an area right next to what was the most significant park in Edmond at the time. It was entirely reasonable to have restrictions on hours and such as part of the approval process. Light pollution is a valid concern for homeowners and as such it's perfectly fine to address it (just like traffic and such) during the process.

“People like to keep residential areas residential”

Except that this wasn’t residential and was zoned for commercial. You’re acting like they proposed this in the middle of a neighborhood. It’s literally proposed on a prominent corner of two major arterials.

[jerrywall]

“People like to keep residential areas residential”

Except that this wasn’t residential and was zoned for commercial. You’re acting like they proposed this in the middle of a neighborhood. It’s literally proposed on a prominent corner of two major arterials.

But again, as I explained in my post, it wasn't when they originally made that agreement. That agreement came about because they were literally tearing down houses in that area and converting lots to commercial.

Now, at this point, that area is now longer residential, and it hasn't been for about 25 years, which is why I was fine with the proposed expansion (and even supported it), so I think it's an uphill battle for folks to fight new development there still, but I'm not gonna begrudge anyone for protecting their own interests.

[Plutonic Panda]

But again, as I explained in my post, it wasn't when they originally made that agreement. That agreement came about because they were literally tearing down houses in that area and converting lots to commercial.

Now, at this point, that area is now longer residential, and it hasn't been for about 25 years, which is why I was fine with the proposed expansion (and even supported it), so I think it's an uphill battle for folks to fight new development there still, but I'm not gonna begrudge anyone for protecting their own interests.

I mean I’m sure there were farmers and people that owned large acreage lots who weren’t happy with the current residential that exists today. Did you see the comments for the east side plan? Lots of people out there aren’t happy with the current development happening and that’s just single family residential. But I don’t see outrage on the news against that.

I still think most people support these kinds of developments and it’s a small but unfortunately vocal group who get them stopped. To me there’s a line between protecting your own interests and being selfish. The increase in traffic and noise is coming regardless of the proposed development or not.

[onthestrip]

Go figure... people like to keep their residential areas... residential. There used to be houses where Spring Creek Village was (my uncle lived in one of those houses). There were still houses between the Aquatic Center and what became Spring Creek Plaza. That whole spring creek corner was largely rezoned to make it commercial. It wasn't originally that way, and it is an area right next to what was the most significant park in Edmond at the time. It was entirely reasonable to have restrictions on hours and such as part of the approval process. Light pollution is a valid concern for homeowners and as such it's perfectly fine to address it (just like traffic and such) during the process.

Sure, unless smaller lots and denser housing is proposed next to bigger lots with bigger homes. Then even residential next to residential is bad. NIMBY comes from people of all walks of life, but theres no denying that parts of Edmond take it next level.

I also dont remember the several houses at 15th and bryant. Once corner used to be a home with a goat farm, the other had one house on 20+ acres. Like I mentioned above, these are section line road intersections, of course commercial should be expected at some point. ScottK arguing against Crest being at one of these major intersections because it should be 500ft to the east is just an unreasonable take no matter how you look at it.

[jerrywall]

I also dont remember the several houses at 15th and bryant.

On the west side of the road (N of 15th) there were multiple, including one my uncle lived in until the mid/late 90's. The East side wasn't as heavily developed (although my childhood best friend's family lived on a large lot just south of the Aquatic Center there). But regardless, at one point that was all mostly zoned residential, and when folks want to convert residential to commercial, they make agreements like not having giant parking lots lit 24 hours a day and such. It doesn't mean that developments can't and shouldn't happen. We're just talking about agreements that lead to the developers being good neighbors Of course, those agreements tend to have no enforcement mechanisms so they're essentially worthless in the long run. But if you can remember what that intersection was like just 20+ years ago, then it shouldn't be unreasonable that they made some promises to the neighbors right there that they wouldn't have a 24 hour business/drive at that intersection. Whether that agreement still makes sense today is another discussion, but it was perfectly reasonable at the time.