Spring Creek Plaza

[onthestrip]

Oh nos... all those University Town Centers and Czech Hall Marketplace type generic shopping centers Edmond might miss out on in the future....

I ask again, what are all these big, unique awesome developments happening in the metro elsewhere that Edmond is somehow missing out on. They don't seem to be having any growth problems, and there's plenty of development in progress all over Edmond. Developers deal with nimbys and zoning issues everywhere, and they go where the money is. Period. It's like arguing folks won't drill for oil if they don't get incentives.

I’m not sure it’s an either or proposition for developers, but some may simply avoid doing deals in Edmond. So you have the demand for goods and services not being met and you’ll see more sales tax leakage to okc. It’s not like Edmond is suffering for it, they’re doing fine. But they could be doing much better and collecting more sales taxes which could go towards more quality of life issues, traffic improvements, etc.

[WheelerD Guy]

People can laugh at this but it is true. Not many people want to spend 6 figures on getting control of a piece of land, plan and engineer a new development only to either have the city throw a wrench in it or citizens kick you out of town. Why waste your time and money?

Sooner Investment, who owned this land had tried a couple times to get something done here. Now that they’ve sold it, I doubt you see them attempt any new projects in Edmond. And they’re one of the biggest developers in okc.

Even Braums fought with the city on signage at 33rd and Kelly behind on cue that got turned down. I think they abandoned the store, nothing has happened at the site.

+1.

I have a good buddy who sited
His new business in Fake Edmond
Instead of Edmond Proper
To avoid pushback from Nimbidiots

Still has great demos over there but way less Karens
And that's sometimes the difference between
Breaking ground or selling the tract to the city for a "park."

[Plutonic Panda]

I thought this was sort of related and interesting.. I mentioned it elsewhere, but in the most recent survey for the east Edmond plan, the top two priorities based on community feedback are:

1.Preservation/protection of forested area
2.Preservation/protection of rural character

Even though this isn't East Edmond, I think it is an insight to the mindset for the majority of the engaged folks in Edmond.

No way Jerry. You’re telling me Edmond is opposed to more development? I don’t think anyone here would’ve guessed that.

[Plutonic Panda]

High end developments are going to happen. Edmond real estate is in extremely high demand. If developers show up with exciting plans that people want in the community, they'll be very successful. A high end developer with a winning plan isn't going to care that the citizens blocked some generic multifamily trash that was built to self-destruct in 20 years.

Not sure how you’d classify the first proposal of spring creek as generic multi family but okay. The irony here being Edmond is a poster child for generic single family and retail which is okay but propose something actually cool and unique and everyone looses their minds.

[Richard at Remax]

If Edmond was so concerned with protecting forested areas and protection of rural character then what they are allowing residential developments to do east of I-35 should keep them all up at night.

[HangryHippo]

If Edmond was so concerned with protecting forested areas and protection of rural character then what they are allowing residential developments to do east of I-35 should keep them all up at night.

Edmond won’t like you pointing out their hypocrisy.

[jerrywall]

If Edmond was so concerned with protecting forested areas and protection of rural character then what they are allowing residential developments to do east of I-35 should keep them all up at night.

Amazingly, they've been doing these surveys and working up the East Edmond master plan to address just that. So it doesn't seem like there's a conflict.

[jerrywall]

No way Jerry. You’re telling me Edmond is opposed to more development? I don’t think anyone here would’ve guessed that.

It's a good insight into the motivations of the majority. It's not anti development... it's about how they want it developed.

And you know, there's nothing wrong with the majority wanting a feel and the growth to be a certain way, even if you don't agree. Edmond isn't EVER going to be Dallas or Austin. And the majority of folks there don't want it to be. If they did, they'd move there.

[jerrywall]

I’m not sure it’s an either or proposition for developers, but some may simply avoid doing deals in Edmond. So you have the demand for goods and services not being met and you’ll see more sales tax leakage to okc. It’s not like Edmond is suffering for it, they’re doing fine. But they could be doing much better and collecting more sales taxes which could go towards more quality of life issues, traffic improvements, etc.

But if they give up the character of the town they want just for more tax revenues (or the hope of them), then what's the gain? What profits a man to gain the world and lose his soul and all that. I'm not sure that chasing after sales taxes at the cost of the character of the city is a worthwhile pursuit.

Also, I'm not convinced that Edmond has any more of a reputation verses any other community around the country when it comes to difficulties in getting things done. In fact, 90% or more of projects sail through with no issues. We only hear about the specific ones here or there, and even then someone would be hard put to come up with a giant list of them. I can name 4 or 5 major intersections where there have been multiple fights about developments at those intersections, and maybe that's a sign that developers should look elsewhere? But it's also telling that developer after developer will fight to get something done in the same intersection after multiple issues. Because the traffic is there. And the demand is there.

[Rover]

Generally, Edmond expects more from its developers in the way of landscaping, signage, etc. Look at comparable stores in OKC and Edmond and usually the Edmond properties just look better. OKC lets developers get by with minimal architecture and landscaping, and allows almost anything from a signage standpoint.

[Plutonic Panda]

It's a good insight into the motivations of the majority. It's not anti development... it's about how they want it developed.

And you know, there's nothing wrong with the majority wanting a feel and the growth to be a certain way, even if you don't agree. Edmond isn't EVER going to be Dallas or Austin. And the majority of folks there don't want it to be. If they did, they'd move there.

You’re really reaching assuming I am suggesting Edmond becomes like Dallas or Austin. But I do wish to see it Edmond grow into a more Frisco or Plano like suburb with nice streets and developments. If Edmond doesn’t want that then fine. When I’m able to buy a home I’ll look elsewhere as soon as a suburb in OKC develops like a Dallas type suburb and it’s only a matter of time.

But saying that east Edmond to preserve rural and forest character is anti development and lots of people moving into the new cookie cutter homes recently or currently being built are likely part of that voice. Hypocrites.

[WheelerD Guy]

You’re really reaching assuming I am suggesting Edmond becomes like Dallas or Austin. But I do wish to see it Edmond grow into a more Frisco or Plano like suburb with nice streets and developments. If Edmond doesn’t want that then fine. When I’m able to buy a home I’ll look elsewhere as soon as a suburb in OKC develops like a Dallas type suburb and it’s only a matter of time.

But saying that east Edmond to preserve rural and forest character is anti development and lots of people moving into the new cookie cutter homes recently or currently being built are likely part of that voice. Hypocrites.

+1.

It's going to be hilarious
When Yukon or Norman
Lands a Trader Joe's before Edmond
When you play stupid games . . .