East Edmond 2050 Plan

[bucktalk]

I would go a step further and claim it could host over 300k people easily. Norman has a lot of land as well.

While I agree this is possible...with the current inner city traffic being as bad as is it -I can imagine how much worse it can become. Yikes!

[Hollywood]

Could but Edmond has got to get over the mindset it is a small, Suburban town. It’s a good sized city with a small town attitude. That and if they are going to do anything, they need to get the ball rolling while you see many relocating to the middle of the country in search of a more peaceful life. Wait to long and everyone that is relocating will be in Texas spending their tax dollars there.

[mugofbeer]

Edmond has the usual busy section line streets but it is getting large enough it needs to have through-ways - that is, at least two east-west streets with limited commercial development and preferred-priority, timed traffic lights (since limited access parkways are too late on the west side) and 2 more north-south streets. It's not too late on the east side. Plan ahead, Edmond!

[oklip955]

Douglas blvd with 90 ft from center line right of way Covell to Waterloo is the plan.

[shawnw]

I defy you to find a clear lake anywhere in Oklahoma. Your best chance is Lake Tenkiller which has scuba diving certification and is still a muddy junk pile.

Broken Bow Lake is clear.

Yes, the bottom of Broken Bow is slate instead of clay and it's a beautiful lake/area.

[5alive]

I believe Lake Murray has a rock bottom and clear water.

[BoulderSooner]

I believe Lake Murray has a rock bottom and clear water.

lake of the arbuckles is very clear ..

[Plutonic Panda]

New survey up:

https://www.edmondok.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=830

https://www.eastedmond2050plan.com/

[WheelerD Guy]

New survey up:

https://www.edmondok.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=830

https://www.eastedmond2050plan.com/

Pretty disappointing survey results, but to be expected I guess.

Edmond really needs a Frisco style dev to anchor its east side.

[Plutonic Panda]

Pretty disappointing survey results, but to be expected I guess.

Edmond really needs a Frisco style dev to anchor its east side.

Completely agreed. I even said that in the additional suggestions along with ensuring all roads can be widened to six lanes and accommodate dense developments not rural.

[jerrywall]

Pretty disappointing survey results, but to be expected I guess.

Edmond really needs a Frisco style dev to anchor its east side.

What results?

[Plutonic Panda]

What results?

The scenarios drafted by the city based on some of the results and input from the last poll. To be fair, I really have my doubts Edmond is going to implement some grand master plan or truly follow it if it does do so in any fashion.

They do have a scenario what they call “community of villages” which they sorta kinda hint at those being mixed use type scattered around.

[jerrywall]

The scenarios drafted by the city based on some of the results and input from the last poll. To be fair, I really have my doubts Edmond is going to implement some grand master plan or truly follow it if it does do so in any fashion.

They do have a scenario what they call “community of villages” which they sorta kinda hint at those being mixed use type scattered around.

So it's not really a problem with any survey results - it's more based on a bunch of assumptions with no basis? The limited survey results I could find - https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...ey+Summary.pdf - don't really have anything that seems to upsetting to me. Besides the fact that 35% of the respondents were over 75 and probably won't even be alive in 2050. That and how few folks actually did the survey.

As for Edmond following their master plan, do you have any evidence that they won't implement or follow it? Because Edmond has pretty consistently been developing these plans and following them for a while and I've seen no evidence they won't follow them. From the trails master plan, to the downtown master, to the overall Edmond plan (which is our main long term plan document).

[chssooner]

The scenarios drafted by the city based on some of the results and input from the last poll. To be fair, I really have my doubts Edmond is going to implement some grand master plan or truly follow it if it does do so in any fashion.

They do have a scenario what they call “community of villages” which they sorta kinda hint at those being mixed use type scattered around.

I picture these as the mega neighborhoods along 380 in Texas, near Prosper.

[jerrywall]

Here's a breakdown of the 5 scenarios - https://files.halff.com/wl/?id=CGZij...GZq2rgip9GuHZF

When I did the survey option E (The community of villages) jumped out to me as a top contender, as it protects the rural feel while still allowing good urban concepts in limited clusters. Otherwise I prefer D. I don't think we can continue C without some additional planning, and A and B would be too limiting for our expected growth.

[Plutonic Panda]

So it's not really a problem with any survey results - it's more based on a bunch of assumptions with no basis? The limited survey results I could find - https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...ey+Summary.pdf - don't really have anything that seems to upsetting to me. Besides the fact that 35% of the respondents were over 75 and probably won't even be alive in 2050. That and how few folks actually did the survey.

As for Edmond following their master plan, do you have any evidence that they won't implement or follow it? Because Edmond has pretty consistently been developing these plans and following them for a while and I've seen no evidence they won't follow them. From the trails master plan, to the downtown master, to the overall Edmond plan (which is our main long term plan document).

Do I have any evidence they will or won’t do something that haven’t done yet? Is that a serious question?

As for them following their master plan, they often amend the zoning and deviate from it and it’s happened dozens of times since I’ve been waiting city planning and council meetings. I should rephrase what I said however given that if the scenarios of either continuing development as currently shown or maintaining the rural feel, if either of those scenarios are chosen, then I’m sure Edmond will follow that plan as it’s good at doing that. Anything innovative or transformational, no I don’t see Edmond following that plan.

[jerrywall]

I picture these as the mega neighborhoods along 380 in Texas, near Prosper.

Here's the description from the 2018 Edmond Plan -

Areas that provide a unique opportunity to create a rural village reflective of the nearby character and history. Small-scale commercial activity surrounded by a pedestrian-friendly neighborhood creates the feeling of a traditional small-town or village. An important civic resource (library, public safety building, fire station) might anchor a key corner in the area. The intensity of this Category helps protect the nearby Agricultural and Rural Neighborhoods by absorbing development demand.

[Plutonic Panda]

I picture these as the mega neighborhoods along 380 in Texas, near Prosper.

It would be nice but we need a new freeway loop through east Edmond. Had this been Texas we’d already have a freeway loop north of Edmond with wife arterials in east Edmond with second street by Arcadia being looked at for a freeway conversion and Broadway being a half freeway by now. Those are things that should happen and would have 3 hours south but noooooo that’s too ambitious and scary for Edmond. Whatever is chosen the infrastructure needs to be seriously looked at and the council seems to be doing just that so we’ll see what they propose as the finer details start to come out on this.

[jerrywall]

Do I have any evidence they will or won’t do something that haven’t done yet? Is that a serious question?

As I thought.

[chssooner]

It would be nice but we need a new freeway loop through east Edmond. Had this been Texas we’d already have a freeway loop north of Edmond with wife arterials in east Edmond with second street by Arcadia being looked at for a freeway conversion and Broadway being a half freeway by now. Those are things that should happen and would have 3 hours south but noooooo that’s too ambitious and scary for Edmond. Whatever is chosen the infrastructure needs to be seriously looked at and the council seems to be doing just that so we’ll see what they propose as the finer details start to come out on this.

It does help that they can piss money, but state and federal, whenever they want. Oklahoma gets jack squat, especially federally, and that inhibits those types of things. They have to be more selective in what they propose.

[jerrywall]

And cities don't typically build freeways. That's more a state thing. Additionally, there are clear traffic/population criteria and the idea that there needs to be a freeway or tons of 6 lane roads east of I-35 is completely absurd and not based in any sort of reality.

[Plutonic Panda]

And cities don't typically build freeways. That's more a state thing. Additionally, there are clear traffic/population criteria and the idea that there needs to be a freeway or tons of 6 lane roads east of I-35 is completely absurd and not based in any sort of reality.

You must have missed my part of the proposal where I suggested adequate ROW as opposed to embarking on a massive construction spree right now or perhaps way to spin my words.

[jerrywall]

It would be nice but we need a new freeway loop through east Edmond. Had this been Texas we’d already have a freeway loop north of Edmond with wife arterials in east Edmond with second street by Arcadia being looked at for a freeway conversion and Broadway being a half freeway by now. Those are things that should happen and would have 3 hours south but noooooo that’s too ambitious and scary for Edmond. Whatever is chosen the infrastructure needs to be seriously looked at and the council seems to be doing just that so we’ll see what they propose as the finer details start to come out on this.

Your own words. Nothing is being spun.

[Plutonic Panda]

And cities don't typically build freeways. That's more a state thing. Additionally, there are clear traffic/population criteria and the idea that there needs to be a freeway or tons of 6 lane roads east of I-35 is completely absurd and not based in any sort of reality.

The point of post wasn’t to say Edmond should bear the responsibility but rather they would oppose any proposal either way.

[Plutonic Panda]

Your own words. Nothing is being spun.

You are spinning my words.

You conveniently skipped over my post responding directly to the survey and proposal for east Edmond

Completely agreed. I even said that in the additional suggestions along with ensuring all roads can be widened to six lanes and accommodate dense developments not rural.

Read that.

My other post was responding to another poster who brought up Texas and their planning. That’s more in line with what Texas would do or have done by this point. Edmond isn’t notorious for its traffic for no reason.

You are saying I’m proposing Edmond embarks on a road and freeway building spree right now in east Edmond which is bloody ridiculous. Stop spinning my words.