# OKCpedia > General Real Estate Topics >  Core to Shore

## warreng88

Not sure where to put this, so I thought I would start a new thread. Mods, merge it with an old thread if needed.

City faces a tough task in Core to Shore
By Will Kooi 
The Journal Record	
Posted: 09:46 PM Wednesday, July 28, 2010

OKLAHOMA CITY  Al Cusacks meatpacking plant sits among the neglected streets and neighborhoods due south of the downtown business district, an area known for its history but not its aesthetics. The good news: The city plans to build a large public park in his neighborhood.

The bad news: It will be right across the street, overtaking his parking lot.

Cusack Meats has been in the midst of Hubcap Alley since 1951, supplying meat to major corporations, hotels and hospitals  all from the nondescript former Baptist church building on SW 12th Street. Half of his property will become public property and the other half will be moved to make way for urban renewal.

But Cusack said he supports the change, the park and the entire Core to Shore project.

I dont think its something that Im ever going to enjoy in my lifetime, but maybe my kid or her kids will be able to enjoy this, he said.

Because of Core to Shore urban renewal and a public park paid for by the MAPS 3 tax, a wide area between Interstate 40 and the Oklahoma River will be totally revamped. 

The city and the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority are beginning the processes of acquiring large swaths of land for the park or possessing properties for future private development that will meet Core to Shore design standards.
That means the city is preparing for one of its most dangerous games.

Theres always a handful of people who end up going to court, said Alex Souder, senior vice president of Oklahoma City-based Pinnacle Consulting Management Group Inc. Pinnacle is working with the Urban Renewal Authority, buying properties and assisting property owners with relocation. Pinnacle sends letters to residents and business owners, letting them know the process and what they can expect to happen. 

The owners are then contacted by appraisers, surveyors and environmental inspectors who all do their best to come up with the most recent, fair market price. Pinnacle makes the owners an offer and works with them to find a suitable relocation placement or facility.

They usually go pretty well, Souder said. Our goal is to treat people fairly, to provide fair and just compensation, sound and solid relocation.  But you normally cant make everyone happy.

Most of the businesses in the area feel they will be treated fairly.

(Urban Renewal Authoritys) comment to me has been, We will make you whole again, Cusack said.

But some are getting ready to hold out, before the process has even started. Mike Bailey, owner of The Car Doctor auto repair on SW Sixth Street  a block west of the future park  said he has been approached by several local businesses wanting to know if he would join with them in hiring an attorney.

The answer is no. Absolutely not, he said, claiming relocation is in the best interests for himself, his business and the city.

Souder said if an owner is simply against a project or doesnt feel like the market value is fair, theres the eminent domain channel.

We explain to them, its not a threat, its not an arm-twisting tactic  in fact its their right under the Fifth Amendment to appeal their price, he said. It is a legal process that is here for both sides.

Once an eminent domain case has been filed, a judge appoints three commissioners: landowners in the district, businessmen, or people with real estate backgrounds  anyone who deals with property and can fairly appraise. The commissioners determine a value for the property through viewings and meetings with the owner. 

The value is rendered to the judge, and once the governing authority pays that value, it possesses the property.

From that point, both sides have the ability to appeal the report, leading to a jury trial, Souder said. Those can take years.

Regardless of a subsequent appeal, once the authority pays the price determined by the commissioners, it possesses the property and can continue with the project. The owner has 30 days to vacate the property.

Souder said between 10 to 30 percent of property acquisition results in eminent domain. However, Pinnacle and the Urban Renewal Authority want to make sure the process is smooth and would rather settle with an owner than waste time and money resorting to the tactic.

Usually, once they understand the appraised value, see the relocation financial assistance we have available, and see were on their side, theyre OK, Souder said. 

We want to make sure taxpayers money is spent reasonably.

In fact, although the Urban Renewal Authoritys acquisition procedures are modeled on federal procedures, theirs have been tweaked to provide more compensation than normal.

We dont want to be branded with people saying, I didnt get enough money, said Urban Renewal Authority Director JoeVan Bullard.

Cusack Meats hosted a Core to Shore meeting for surrounding businesses where Bullard and Director of City Planning Russell Claus answered questions. While some are still not happy and will demand more money, Cusack said he thinks the city will be fair.

A lot of people have the mind-set that the city is just taking their property away from them and isnt going to give them anything, he said. I dont see that happening.

Relocation will actually benefit his business with the possibility of a new and bigger facility, Bailey said.

If they need my property to do a designed urban program, thats fine; just move me to a place where I can continue my 10-year plan, he said.

----------


## Steve

What happens if the state decides not to fund the boulevard? Despite every assurance from the mayor, the state has repeatedly declined to even add the boulevard to its eight year funding plan. I know, I know, I'm gonna upset someone again...

----------


## Reggie Jet

Everyone on this board needs to contact their legislators and tell them about the situation with the boulevard. Their calls to good old ODOT would have a lot more sway.

----------


## betts

I'd be thrilled if the boulevard didn't get funded.  Sounds good to me.  It would allow more land for development, potentially a site for a streetcar line or even a longitudinal park that intersects wtih the Central Park.

----------


## Larry OKC

> *What happens if the state decides not to fund the boulevard?* Despite every assurance from the mayor, the state has repeatedly declined to even add the boulevard to its eight year funding plan. I know, I know, I'm gonna upset someone again...


*If state funding falls through, the City may already have most of the cost funded from funds in the 2007 General Obligation Bond Issue* But first one has to remember how important the Mayor thinks the Boulevard is (although never giving any reasons or support for his repeated statements, he just presents it as fact).

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/20...o-shore-plans/

*Before You Make Those 2012 Core to Shore Plans*  (4/17/09)



> Cornett admits Core to Shore, the development of mostly blighted area between the river and downtown, cant be launched without the boulevard. *The city grinds to a halt if that boulevard isnt constructed* when I-40 is relocated.


He has repeatedly intertwined the MAPS 3 Park & the Boulevard.

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/20...core-to-shore/
*Mayor Mick Cornett Looks Ahead  Downtown, Core to Shore* (1/15/09)



> "The large central park in the Core to Shore project is also *critical* to our citys future,  ... Also *central to the project* is the at-grade boulevard that will replace the current I-40. ... *The park and the boulevard are the lynchpins, and they serve as the catalyst* for future retail, housing, and a potential Convention Center..."



That brings us to the cost of the Boulevard

*Boulevard planned to replace Crosstown bridge, but its design, funding are uncertain* (Gazette, 10/28/09)

This article put the estimated cost of the replacement Boulevard at *$75M*.




> Oklahoma City Planning Director Russell Claus "pointed to $15 million from the 2007 general obligation bond designated for the boulevard that can help planners make the boulevard functional and truly grand."


The only item I could find in the 2007 bond issue for $15M was:

Prop 1 (Streets - Reconstruction)



> #57 "Within an area bounded by Sheridan Avenue, Oklahoma River, Western and Lincoln" ... $15M


Unclear if the City's portion ($15M) is part of the $75M or not but then there is the nearly $52M slush fund for "Unlisted"

Prop 1 (Streets - Unlisted)



> "The balance of said funds shall be used as follows: Engineering, right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation and construction of urban and rural street improvements, including, but not limited to, construction and reconstruction and/or resurfacing of streets, curbs, drainage, traffic control improvements, related street appurtenances and pavement management system improvements, along with street maintenance and construction equipment and materials; and, expenses of the bond issue." ... $51.998M


Those 2 items add up to $67M. that only leaves $8M to dig up from some other fund or Bond item. As we have seen with the City's purchase of the $42M Sardis Water deal (overpaying what is owed by $15M) when the City is experiencing employee layoffs and service cuts. Not to mention another particular $777M slush fund. The City appears to have available funds tucked away for use when they deem appropriate.

----------


## Kerry

If they aren't planning to put the blvd in why are they building an on-ramp to it along the new I-40?  You can see the new on-ramp in Google Earth just south of Bass Pro Shop.

----------


## benman

> I'd be thrilled if the boulevard didn't get funded.  Sounds good to me.  It would allow more land for development, potentially a site for a streetcar line or even a longitudinal park that intersects wtih the Central Park.


Or if it did get funded it would allow for land development along the boulevard, which would be pretty cool if done correctly.
I dont think another park is necessary...

----------


## BDK

I'd say, if funding fell through, they'd take funding from the MAPS tax and squeeze out the senior centers. I'm pretty sure the vague language of the initiative would let them get away with it, and I've always been suspicious of their intentions with the senior centers...

----------


## Larry OKC

> If they aren't planning to put the blvd in why are they building an on-ramp to it along the new I-40?  You can see the new on-ramp in Google Earth just south of Bass Pro Shop.


Absolutely and that has been funded. As Steve has pointed out before (am doing this from memory, so if any of the details are in error, please correct), the Boulevard was part of the deal reached when the ODOTs preferred relocation route was chosen several years ago. The State/ODOT committed to paying for the replacement Boulevard. Originally its cost was included in the relocation, but as costs kept escalating, different elements were broken out as separate projects. the teardown and the ramps were eventually funded. The last remaining piece is the funding for the Boulevard itself. Steve also had posts over in his blog that had ODOT stating IF the Boulevard gets built and a spokeswoman saying that they are still working with the City on the design etc (number of lanes and the like) which will have a direct impact on its costs. Implying that it as soon as they know they design, they can come up with the cost and then the funding.... (unlike the various MAPS where we come up with the funding first, then the design etc is worked out)

----------


## jbrown84

Like betts, I would be happy if the boulevard was scrapped or scaled back.  The ramps could still be used to direct traffic into downtown, but then divert onto Reno perhaps.

----------


## okclee

Not sure if this has been posted before. 
http://www.okcchamber.com/coretoshore/index.html



Much more info under the economical development title too. 
http://www.okcchamber.com/gateway.asp?id=1
http://www.greateroklahomacity.com/index.php?src=

----------


## Patrick

I still think the convention center needs to be moved to the east, just south of Lower Bricktown.

----------


## Dustin

They kept the old design for the convention center in that front page picture.  The Rose Rock.   I love it.. Hope they keep it. *fingers crossed*

----------


## Dustin

Wow this is soo cool!  Thanks for sharing.

----------


## Kerry

Cool stuff, but could we at least get some more density between the new I-40 and the River.  That area should be OKC version of the Back Bay Area.  Three story townhomes built out to the street throughout the entire area is how it should look.

----------


## Spartan

The Chamber dabbles in city planning..and fails. I see them touting EVERY bit of fail that we have criticized C2S for. This site is just for marketing purposes to market the downtown OKC of the future, and it's an awesome idea, but I hope they're ready to change the graphics when the convention center is moved to be a part of Bricktown and the park is surrounded by more scale-appropriate urban infill.

I am intrigued by the idea of "Festival Park." The renderings for that convention center are awesome, and it would be a really cool addition across the street from Lower Bricktown.

----------


## Kerry

I really do get disgusted by the desire to recreate suburbia in the urban core by the very people who have the wealth and ability to make change happen.  Are there no urban minded people with more than $100,000 living in OKC?

----------


## semisimple

> Cool stuff, but could we at least get some more density between the new I-40 and the River.  That area should be OKC version of the Back Bay Area.  Three story townhomes built out to the street throughout the entire area is how it should look.


I agree that would be ideal, but if history is any indicator, OKC will likely see nothing but single-family homes between downtown and the river...

----------


## Kerry

> I agree that would be ideal, but if history is any indicator, OKC will likely see nothing but single-family homes between downtown and the river...


Wrong, if *recent* history (post 1960) is any indicator we won't see any residential development period.  If we looked at early OKC history this area would become filled with midrises.  The early developers of OKC were much more visionary and urban.  Go figure.

----------


## J. Pitman

> I really do get disgusted by the desire to recreate suburbia in the urban core by the very people who have the wealth and ability to make change happen.  Are there no urban minded people with more than $100,000 living in OKC?


Obviously there aren't many people with $400,000 that want to live downtown.  Why is it that $100,000 units at Maywood sell better than $400,000 units?

----------


## Kerry

> Obviously there aren't many people with $400,000 that want to live downtown.  Why is it that $100,000 units at Maywood sell better than $400,000 units?


I didn't mean the people buying condos, I meant the people building them.  The deisre for downtown apartments has been well established but that is missing the point anyhow.  I was specifically directing my question at the vision presented in the Core to Shore plan linked to in this thread.  The person, or people, that cam up with the vision of what the area should be developed in to suck.  The best the can do is bunch of single family homes?  Do they have no concept of urban ar all.  Are they so devoid of imagination that all they can ever think of are single family homes?  Are we really spending all this time and effort to create a giant subdivision downtown?  If so, what a waste of time, effort, and resources.  The new motto of OKC should be 'Paradise lost'.

----------


## J. Pitman

> I didn't mean the people buying condos, I meant the people building them.  The deisre for downtown apartments has been well established but that is missing the point anyhow.  I was specifically directing my question at the vision presented in the Core to Shore plan linked to in this thread.  The person, or people, that cam up with the vision of what the area should be developed in to suck.  The best the can do is bunch of single family homes?  Do they have no concept of urban ar all.  Are they so devoid of imagination that all they can ever think of are single family homes?  Are we really spending all this time and effort to create a giant subdivision downtown?  If so, what a waste of time, effort, and resources.  The new motto of OKC should be 'Paradise lost'.


I'm not sure I understand you.  You want someone to come in and develop a bunch of product that nobody seems to want?  It's obvious that most people in OKC like single family homes with a garage and a yard.

As the ULI report indicated, it could take 50 yrs. to develop the C2S.  I'd say it's a little early to start moaning about this.

----------


## Kerry

This is what I am saying AbcGum.  The material presented is a vision.  It is a vision of what the area could/should become.  I just find it sad the that the 'dream' is a bunch of single family homes.  What kind of dream is that?  OKC has tons of single family homes now.  We don't need Core to Shore for that.  Is Core to Shore all about providing housing for 500 people?  It was supposed to be about re-inventing the city and re-producing what was lost.  If built as shown in that slide show then it does none of that.  There is so much empty space between the buildings it is hard to tell where the park begins and ends.

The only thing worse then setting your goals too high and not achieving them, is setting them too low and exceeding them every time.

I was reading through a guide to urbansim at the book store the other night and there was a good saying on one of the pages and I'll paraphrase if I can.  In suburbia, buildings are defined by the open space around them.  In urban areas the open space is defined by the building around them.  You can't create 'urban' with green space (a lesson Sandridge would do well to learn).  You have to create urban with, well..., urban.

BTW - for rent residential space in downtown OKC is in high demand.

----------


## J. Pitman

Well, it sounds to me that you have your "urban" blinders on.  Take a step back and think objectively for a second.  Those are conceptual drawings, made to show the boundaries of the different proposed neighborhoods.  As far as I know, it will be up to the city to set design guidelines, which has not been done yet.  Why shouldn't there be a mix of single family and multiple family housing in C2S?  The market has already shown that it is not interested in high priced multiple family housing, why do you assume C2S would be any different.

There will certainly be a need for "for rent multiple family housing," but it needs to be supplemented with purchased housing.

----------


## Kerry

Now you bring up an intersting point.  Are there going to be design standards setup by the City or are the local property owners and developers going to be the driving force?

----------


## J. Pitman

> Now you bring up an intersting point.  Are there going to be design standards setup by the City or are the local property owners and developers going to be the driving force?


My understanding, and the reccomendation of the ULI study, is that the city "should" set design standards, and have a design review committee in place for the different neighborhoods.  This would assure that the design standards would be followed.  
Also, the city is going to need to provide incentives for development, as construction cost and financing make it difficult to actually develop the properties in question at an affordable price to the consumer.

----------


## king183

> Obviously there aren't many people with $400,000 that want to live downtown.  Why is it that $100,000 units at Maywood sell better than $400,000 units?


There are no $100,000 units at Maywood.  And they aren't selling because they cost so much for so little space.  (And interior construction is kind of shoddy).

----------


## Patrick

> Cool stuff, but could we at least get some more density between the new I-40 and the River.  That area should be OKC version of the Back Bay Area.  Three story townhomes built out to the street throughout the entire area is how it should look.


 The old picture had that.  But, I think they're facing reality, and this picture looks more realistic, at least over the next 10-20 years.

----------


## Kerry

> The old picture had that.  But, I think they're facing reality, and this picture looks more realistic, at least over the next 10-20 years.


If true, then Core to Shore has failed before it ever really got going.

----------


## Patrick

It's kind of like comparing the pictures Moshe Tal had for Lower Bricktown to those Randy Hogan had.  Moshe was a dreamer, but I question if any of that ever would've come to fruition. Look at all of the slick development proposals we've seen for proposed Bricktown developments.  I'd rather be realistic than make promises one can't keep.

----------


## J. Pitman

> There are no $100,000 units at Maywood.  And they aren't selling because they cost so much for so little space.  (And interior construction is kind of shoddy).


Sorry $180,000 at Maywood Park lofts.  They are selling much better than the Brownstones.

----------


## MustangGT

It will NEVER look like the plan.  Evrything is in flux until the concrete gets pooured.  I agree with Patrick the plan needs a big dose of reality and not grandisoe dreams.  Let plan something that actully has a chance to get built.

----------


## Kerry

Fine - if single family homes are the goal then why spend the money on Core to Shore at all?

----------


## MustangGT

> Fine - if single family homes are the goal then why spend the money on Core to Shore at all?


Excellent question.  Real Estate Speculation by those in the know???

----------


## J. Pitman

> Fine - if single family homes are the goal then why spend the money on Core to Shore at all?


What?  So if C2S isn't dense townhomes, multiple family or highrise apartments, it shouldn't be developed?  Is that what you are saying?

----------


## Kerry

> Excellent question.  Real Estate Speculation by those in the know???


Core to Shore is far more than real estate specualtion.  The City is spending million and millions of dollars.  Wouldn't it just be cheaper to build 500 single family homes out near Piedmont?  If single family homes are not the goal, then WHAT IS the goal (let's call that X).  What is X?

----------


## MustangGT

Wrong track Kerry.  I was speaking about certain in the know individuals buying up the Core to Shore land years ago because they had insider info it could be coming and wanted to profit from their position situation.  Like what happened in Bricktown years ago.

----------


## J. Pitman

> Core to Shore is far more than real estate specualtion.  The City is spending million and millions of dollars.  Wouldn't it just be cheaper to build 500 single family homes out near Piedmont?  If single family homes are not the goal, then WHAT IS the goal (let's call that X).  What is X?


X is having more people living downtown, developing the park, and developing the river.

If a mix of single family homes and multiple family units accomplish this, then great.

You seem to assume that single family housing was never tabled in the first place.

----------


## Kerry

We seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of goals, objectives, and strategies.

To me, things like having more people living downtown is an objective, while developing the park, and developing the river are strategies to get people to live downtown.  A goal would be WHY we want people to live downtown.  I am interested in learning what people think the ‘goal’ is.  Now granted, one person's goal might be another person's objective, but I don't think anyone's goal is to have people live downtown for no other reason than to have people living downtown.

This is not a trivial matter either.  A plan has to have a reason to exist.  Here in Jax I often hear about well OKC is doing and why Jacksonville can't duplicate it.  But let's look at Jacksonville.  We have an NFL team, a river front park, a downtown fixed guideway system, The Landing, downtown retail, downtown high-rise residential buildings (5 of them to be exact), a downtown grocery store, a downtown arena, a downtown football stadium, a downtown baseball stadium, etc.  They have accomplished far more than OKC has, but it still doesn't all work together.  The reason is there was no goal, just a bunch of objectives but they weren't all working towards the same thing.  So every objective was met and the people of Jax scratch their heads and say, "Why didn't it work."  To which I ask, "Why didn't what work?"  What did they think the City was trying to accomplish?  What is OKC trying to accomplish?

----------


## J. Pitman

> We seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of goals, objectives, and strategies.


Not really, you just keep trying to steer the conversation until it reaches an outcome that you desire.

C2s is in it's infancy.

Keep saying this over and over, 50 yrs. 50 yrs. 50 yrs.

----------


## betts

I think there are many reasons why we want to have people living downtown.  Me, I just want neighbors :Smile: .  Well, and shopping and a grocery store I can walk to, which won't happen without more people living downtown.

 I think the goal of Core to Shore is to to take a blighted, underutilized area and make it a place people can live, work and play.  The one thing I do like about the boulevard is that is has the potential to create a park-like walkway through downtown that could be very inviting.  I really think walkability is a key goal, as it implies so many things that are desirable....good streetscaping, good sidewalks, lots of small businesses and restaurants to walk to, etc.

----------


## Kerry

> Not really, you just keep trying to steer the conversation until it reaches an outcome that you desire.
> 
> C2s is in it's infancy.
> 
> Keep saying this over and over, 50 yrs. 50 yrs. 50 yrs.


I won't care in 50 years.  So you think the goal is to have people living downtown and that is it?

----------


## J. Pitman

> I won't care in 50 years.  So you think the goal is to have people living downtown and that is it?


Well that's kind of short sighted.  I'll probably be dead by then myself, but that doesn't mean I want to see C2S developed quickly just to satisfy my urge to see it done.

I think have a larger residential population downtown is certainly one of the goals or objectives.

----------


## betts

> Wrong track Kerry.  I was speaking about certain in the know individuals buying up the Core to Shore land years ago because they had insider info it could be coming and wanted to profit from their position situation.  Like what happened in Bricktown years ago.


You mean like the United States (Post Office), Goodwill and the Salvation Army?  I thought we looked and no one of any significance bought land before Core to Shore was first being talked about 8 to 10 years ago.

----------


## Kerry

> Well that's kind of short sited.  I'll probably be dead by then myself, but that doesn't mean I want to see C2S developed quickly just to satisfy my urge to see it done.
> 
> I think have a larger residential population downtown is certainly one of the goals or objectives.


This is just an example

Goal – Produce an urban setting that promotes an environment of Human interaction that provides the greatest benefit to the most people at the lowest cost. (or something to that effect)

  Objective 1 – Efficient transportation
    Strategy 1A- Street car

  Objective 2 – Efficient housing
    Strategy 2A – High rise residential
    Strategy 2B – Mid ride residential
    Strategy 2C – Town Homes

And so on…

6 lanes boulevards and single family homes are not good strategies, to accomplish my objectives, to achieve my goal.  My fear is that people making all this happen have no more of an idea of a goal than you do.  If you don't know where you are going any road will get you there.  I like to know where I am going so I know when I get there.

----------


## J. Pitman

> This is just an example
> 
> Goal – Produce an urban setting that promotes an environment of Human interaction that provides the greatest benefit to the most people at the lowest cost. (or something to that effect)
> 
>   Objective 1 – Efficient transportation
>     Strategy 1A- Street car
> 
>   Objective 2 – Efficient housing
>     Strategy 2A – High rise residential
> ...


The boulevard is being re-designed to be more pedestrian friendly, so you can mark that off your list.
We're obviously not going to see eye to eye on single family, that's fine, but it will be one of many components of the C2S plan, as it should be.  
High rise residential just isn't a viable option because it is cost prohibitive to build and you simply can't get the rates necessary to service the debt.

Why do you assume that C2S is going to be strictly single family housing?

----------


## Kerry

> Why do you assume that C2S is going to be strictly single family housing?


I don't.  I do see that there are other areas where mid-rise and town homes are envisioned.  I just question why the City would propose the lowest of all residential density options in an urban environment.  At least they didn't show 5 acre urban estates in their proposal.

----------


## J. Pitman

> I don't.  I do see that there are other areas where mid-rise and town homes are envisioned.  I just question why the City would propose the lowest of all residential density options in an urban environment.  At least they didn't show 5 acre urban estates in their proposal.


Because it's the farthest from the core.  You're taking that graphical representation too seriously.  That's all it is is a graphical representation.

Review the ULI study.  Some really smart folks made the recommendation that there be some single family housing the further you get from the core.  There is going to be plenty of dense housing.

----------


## MustangGT

> You mean like the United States (Post Office), Goodwill and the Salvation Army?  I thought we looked and no one of any significance bought land before Core to Shore was first being talked about 8 to 10 years ago.


Maybe yes and maybe no.  An observant individual would know that the locations you mentioned are a miniscule minority of the land that was in play.  Political movers and shakers always act behind the scenes 10-15 years ahead of the general public.  Insider info baby.

----------


## Architect2010

I'm not really sure where to put this. But here is a map showing parcels of land in the future Central Park boundaries that need to be acquired, have been acquired, are under contract, and etc. The graphic is current as of 11/10/2010.

OKC.GOV - Maps3 Subcommittee

----------


## Kerry

> Because it's the farthest from the core.  You're taking that graphical representation too seriously.  That's all it is is a graphical representation.
> 
> Review the ULI study.  Some really smart folks made the recommendation that there be some single family housing the further you get from the core.  There is going to be plenty of dense housing.


But there are already single family homes around downtown OKC.  They are all over the place.

----------


## Kerry

> I'm not really sure where to put this. But here is a map showing parcels of land in the future Central Park boundaries that need to be acquired, have been acquired, are under contract, and etc. The graphic is current as of 11/10/2010.
> 
> OKC.GOV - Maps3 Subcommittee


Can you try that link again?  It doesn't seem to work.

----------


## Architect2010

Fixed.

----------


## Spartan

Maybe some of us instead need to come up with a fancy graphic map showing everything in its rightful place. It would be a shame if people gravitate toward these bad C2S ideas just because they have glitzy renderings behind them.

----------


## Kerry

> Fixed.


Thank you.

I hate the fact they used 4 shades of blue to represent the stages of acqusitions.  15 million colors to pick from and they choose 4 that are right next to each other on the color spectrum.  Brilliant.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Core to Shore is far more than real estate specualtion.  The City is spending million and millions of dollars.  Wouldn't it just be cheaper to build 500 single family homes out near Piedmont?  If single family homes are not the goal, then WHAT IS the goal (let's call that X).  What is X?


the goal is to redevelop a very blighted area close to our core.  that will increase tax revenue and the downtown retail and business climate

----------


## Pete

> here is a map showing parcels of land in the future Central Park boundaries that need to be acquired, have been acquired, are under contract, and etc.


Thanks for that...  Very interesting.

Also interesting is that the City has acquired adjacent property that is not within the park's boundaries, such as Goodwill.

----------


## betts

That link doesn't work for me.  But, I'm also fine with whomever owns land in Core to Shore, as long as they develop it.  I certainly cannot afford to, and thus I'm not going to throw stones at those who do.  I'd rather local people own and develop land in Oklahoma City than national companies who take their earnings out of state.

----------


## bombermwc

Come on folks....I think most of us realize that any masterplan is just that...a plan. And we all know how often masterplans work out when the private sector is involved. Anything that's not a public project in C2S, you can just assume won't happen the way it's seen in the designs. We've seen that time and time again in downtown already. Think of how many failed projects didn't come to fruition in Bricktown in the last few years...and they are a much smaller scale.

So basically, we'll get the park and the convention center and everything else will be left for development by the private sector. Even the mayor expects that process to span decades. I believe he said something about it being done when his grandkids are his age.  25 years would be a fast track on the whole process. So we really just have to sit back and wait and see what develops. 

The one thing I hope that doesn't happen, is that they just start dozing everything and leave us with a multi-square-mile swath of empty land. How depressing would that be...especially since we won't even know what we want to put in there. By all means build infrastructure for the general layout as much as you can, but at least grass it over if you tear something out.

----------


## J. Pitman

> But there are already single family homes around downtown OKC.  They are all over the place.


And?

You'd be missing a large part of the market if there are no single family homes.  This isn't LA, NYC, Philly, Denver, or Chicago.  People here like their space, they like their yard and their dogs.

Take a look at the "dense" housing market downtown, what a huge success that has proven to be.

----------


## Kerry

> Even the mayor expects that process to span decades. I believe he said something about it being done when his grandkids are his age.  25 years would be a fast track on the whole process. So we really just have to sit back and wait and see what develops.


I think some of you are going to be surprised how fast this fills in.  Once urban living in OKC catches on with a large park right next door people are going to want to live there in droves.  It might not be high density for-sale unit right away but mid-rise apartment building are going to be in high demand.  Especially if there is retail on the ground floor.  But the Mayor is correct, if half the land is single family homes it will take awhile.

----------


## Spartan

> Come on folks....I think most of us realize that any masterplan is just that...a plan. And we all know how often masterplans work out when the private sector is involved.
> 
> So basically, we'll get *the park and the convention center* and everything else will be left for development by the private sector.


Yes, exactly.

----------


## SkyWestOKC

Let it grow naturally. Synthetic growth is unsustainable.

If single family homes all the way to the river front is the way the market pushes, then so be it. Over time demand will increase for these homes. Someone with deep pockets will buy up the land, demo the houses, and build larger. We are in the conception stage right now....we aren't even at the infancy level....let the market do it's job naturally.

----------


## Snowman

I am not sure to be happy or sad about randomly noticing that it looks like shields could have on/off ramps to SW 15th (with almost no grading work done), it is nice in that it could be used to improve traffic to the river area where their will be new developments in the city but sad that a city street is so interstate like.

----------


## Larry OKC

> Thanks for that...  Very interesting.
> 
> Also interesting is that the City has acquired adjacent property that is not within the park's boundaries, such as Goodwill.


If by that you mean it is Park adjacent, then that is correct. It is my understanding by various articles in the _Oklahoman_ and _Gazette_, the City is buying the land surrounding the Park as well as the Park itself. The purchase of some properties were made even before MAPS 3 was put to a vote (much less passed). IIRC, they spent $6M of an authorized $26M from the 2007 GO bond issue. If numbers are off, hope Steve will correct.

----------


## betts

_Here's a new article by Steve about timing issues:_
Core to Shore faces questions about timing, viability of park 


Read more: http://newsok.com/core-to-shore-face...#ixzz1NkDbg64B

----------


## Pete

I really do think it's too early for this massive park.  In the Central Park thread I proposed acquiring the remaining properties, cleaning up the area, burying the utilities and making the park area open with playfields.  That should only cost about $25 million and the remaining $105 million for the park could be saved until a later date when that sort of investment would make sense.  It's just way too early right now IMO.

If we could at least get the park setup in basic form, then private development should begin to happen in the immediate area.

Even with the old I-40 gone that area is still a mess of crappy structures and vacant lots.  We don't even have any funding to build the boulevard so it's not like all the sudden that section is going to be a lot nicer.  Pull down I-40 and you still don't have much to make that area appealing, even with a park.  In every direction, it's more like a battlezone than a district ripe for development.


I'm all for the idea in general but there are about another dozen urban districts that are still quite a ways from full realization.  How about letting a few of those mature before we going running off and spending hundreds of millions -- not to mention tying up resources of city agencies like OCURA -- on the most desolate of all these urban frontiers?

----------


## kevinpate

But they did not pitch, as the voter enticement to go to the polls, a bare field of grass with a few lines marked off here and there.  Though I agree they can do that, to cancel any meaningful resemblance to the pitch is something of a PR (and potentially a fiscal) nightmare.  

So there's presently nothing there.  Not unlike the pitch.  The pitch was, we want a grand exciting park and around it will spring up all sorts of wonderful, thus making the city better for you and your children and their children.  

I don't see if working well if today's politicos subsequently come along and say "oh, we really meant for your children's children, maybe your children, but we'll be so much better off today if we focus on this other thing, you know, the sort of thing that would never have gotten you out to the polls, but which was what we really, really wanted all along.

I can't think of many faster ways to trash out the future of the necessary citizen buy-in for more MAPs opportunities than to just say nah, we don't wanna go there after all, but hey, thanks for the moolah.

See, if I lose faith I can pretty much never drop another penny north of 89th and with very limited exception, never even cross into the city at all.  It's not like I canna enjoy very nice opportunities in Norman, or elsewhere nearby.  OKC for some of us is just a nice additional aspect to our lives.

But if the powers what be break their faith with the general OKC populace, well, I can see where trying to get another MAPs through would be hard, perhaps even if bond issues get tougher, or and that county jail, that could become a problem too.

Past MAPs votes make it fairly clearly that 40% plus of people who will bother to vote don't have any problem with saying no to begin with on just about anything that resembles a tax.  That being the case, the city doesn't have to tick off too many people to have some serious issues arise down the line.

I'm sure they are aware of that.  I'm not sure they are not in the mood to gamble, but I still hope they aren't.

----------


## Pete

> But they did not pitch, as the voter enticement to go to the polls, a bare field of grass with a few lines marked off here and there. Though I agree they can do that, to cancel any meaningful resemblance to the pitch is something of a PR (and potentially a fiscal) nightmare.


I'm not saying don't do it -- just take this first step then do the final design and construction later.

A lot of the projects in MAPS 3 are still 10 years out.  Why not just do the final build-out of Central Park at the end of this time frame?

----------


## Spartan

I think I would agree that the park would be a good thing to push to the very back of the list, if something must be pushed back. If we are looking for a compromise between quality of life and economic development, that might be a good one, actually. As long as the streetcar and convention center both get pushed forward. Do the streetcar at once first-up or whenever is best for a federal match, and then the convention center can be pushed forward 21-36 months, whatever can be freed up by moving the park. I would be okay with that, actually.

----------


## Rover

I also think that public opinion will shift a little too, and maybe already has.  Good scientific surveying to study the acceptance by the public of the ideas may actually make the citizenry feel engaged and wind up making it EASIER to pass the next one.

----------


## betts

> I really do think it's too early for this massive park.  In the Central Park thread I proposed acquiring the remaining properties, cleaning up the area, burying the utilities and making the park area open with playfields.  That should only cost about $25 million and the remaining $105 million for the park could be saved until a later date when that sort of investment would make sense.  It's just way too early right now IMO.
> 
> If we could at least get the park setup in basic form, then private development should begin to happen in the immediate area.


That's exactly what I think.  I think it would be a mistake the push the entire park back, but we could make the space parkland without spending a huge amount of money. Younger trees could be planted, which actually have a better chance of surviving, and they would have time to mature.   Then, as MAPS gets into the second half of collections, the park could be improved as projected.

----------


## Spartan

> That's exactly what I think.  I think it would be a mistake the push the entire park back, but we could make the space parkland without spending a huge amount of money. Younger trees could be planted, which actually have a better chance of surviving, and they would have time to mature.   Then, as MAPS gets into the second half of collections, the park could be improved as projected.



It might be a good idea to draw up some park plans and determine some things about tree placement patterns, and go ahead and start forestation now. That could give us a 5-10 year head start on tree maturation for the grand opening of the park off in the future.

----------


## Rover

And I assume we will focus on the park from the new I40 to downtown first and worry less about the lower park to the river.

----------


## betts

> And I assume we will focus on the park from the new I40 to downtown first and worry less about the lower park to the river.


I believe that's the plan.

----------


## Pete

A good chunk of the required property has already been obtained and they are in process with the remainder, so it would make sense to keep moving forward.  Also, they are already demolishing the old postal facility and the Salvation Army is set to leave soon.  Besides those two large facilities, the remaining properties are vacant lots and a handful of small structures.

----------


## Questor

I have mixed feelings on the Core 2 Shore aspect of MAPS 3.  I understand the concept and can see the nice amenities it could bring, but really I have to wonder why we would be looking at expanding the useable sphere of the downtown area when we have SO MUCH that is just going to waste right now.  Bricktown has a long way to go before the place is filled in, and that is just the buildings that exist there... completely ignoring the empty space along the canal and along the surrounding city streets.  Deep Duce is completely under-developed... yes more housing has been built in recent years but there is very little in the way of restaurants or just common livability retailers in the area.  Midtown is up and coming but still there are so many vacant buildings.  To me it would seem that the two major problems with our downtown are density and housing, and I don't see how Core 2 Shore helps either of those... if anything it just increases the problem as it expands outward the downtown land mass and creates yet another area for housing... which does nothing for improving density.  Meanwhile the one aspect of MAPS 3 that I was really behind, and most of my friends are looking forward to, the downtown rail lines, seems to have taken a back-burner to everything else.  I guess I just don't understand the thought process there.

Who is in charge of this version of MAPS?  Is there a steering committee like there was in the previous MAPS?  I have not heard much about it this time.

----------


## Questor

Also, one final follow-up thought... this isn't NYC where our downtown is surrounded by cement and a central park would be a novelty.  If you want parks and trees you can go to literally any other part of town.  Even downtown we have the botanical gardens, which are so awesome I don't know why anyone would want to try and compete with that.  So I don't see how there is market demand there for C2S?  I guess I just don't get what our city planners are thinking.

----------


## Spartan

I agree with you that we need to focus on filling in our current downtown districts. I also agree that it is frustrating that the downtown streetcar transit has taken the backburner.

However, as for the park, I also agree with your assessment--but keep in mind that this park was planned before Myriad Gardens improvements were ever even considered. We've been really wanting a super-nice park for a long time, and the Myriad Gardens were really lacking. Then the city suddenly had a new funding source and decided to do a Myriad Gardens overhaul, and that has COMPLETELY changed the park situation. The overhaul really did an awesome job.

I think the park can still be put to good use. I wonder though if the location is right. Maybe that's what we need to change more than anything, and perhaps the land we've acquired for the park can be used for the convention center instead. It makes more sense to either use the M3 park funds to expand the Myriad Gardens to the south and west into more of a super-park, or to pursue a park opportunity somewhere further than 2 blocks away from the MG. But the goal with this M3/C2S park is to have a residential living room. The idea is a park surrounded by townhomes and apartments on all sides. It's a living amenity, and something that would draw people in from all over the region to experience a different kind of environment.

But I think some serious changes to the park proposal need to be considered.

----------


## Questor

Thanks for the well-reasoned reply Spartan.  One thing that scares me to death about C2S is the sort of mentality of just hitting the "reboot" button and starting from scratch somewhere new.  Isn't that what we did with Urban Renewall that we said we would never do again?  Isn't that what ultimately failed with the IM Pei plan when certain realities changed?  Maybe I am being too narrow-minded here, I don't know, but I just really fear the wisdom of basically abandoning downtown and the Myriad Gardens and going off and creating something new.  I don't understand why our starting point wouldn't be with the gardens we already have which have won numerous awards.  I think maybe you are alluding to the same sort of concerns when you wonder about the location of C2S's park being right.

So how locked into this plan is the city right now?  I have seen comments from... I think it was Humphreys... that would seem to say that maybe some influential business leaders are starting to ask the council to reconsider the plan.

----------


## Spartan

There are definitely a lot of people suddenly thinking about the TIMELINE of the park, and there is a strong consensus for pushing the park back at this moment, with the exception of the mayor's office who wants this park as his legacy which is understandable. However, I don't know how locked in we are to this site. I have some really interesting ideas I'm working on, some maps and graphic illustrations that I'll finish tomorrow and unveil that might have a good alternative. But as for how locked in we are, well we now own what, 80% of the land for the park?

Definitely don't think you're being narrow-minded though. Welcome to the forum, by the way.

----------


## Rover

The core to shore area was the elephant in the room that was ignored for a very long time.  While we were considering how to make the core livable again we were surrounding it with unsightly, unkempt and neglected areas...first deep deuce then the area south to the river.  We addressed deep deuce and still ignored south of downtown.  With I-40 being moved we can no longer ignore it.  I doubt we want people exiting a great new highway on their way to a great downtown and pass through weed infested junkyards and shabby hubcap shops. Something had to be done. A park is probably the cheapest way we could deal with it. To change a blighted area of this size into something usable by a great number of citizens, $150 million is pretty good.

----------


## Larry OKC

Rover & Spartan have it right. This all came about because of the relocation of the I-40 crosstown a few blocks south. An area that has long been blighted and an eyesore no one gave any thought because it was "out of sight, out of mind". With people driving though it to get downtown, the need was there to improve it and be more of a Welcome mat rather than a Danger-Keep Out sign. Mayor Cornett was correct with the idea that few cities get the opportunity to completely redefine, without the destruction of a Urban Renewalesque. I agree there are areas (like the Canal) that are still vacant a decade later and more needs to be done to build up what is existing. To those that have the money and the burning desire to do so, hats off to you and keep up the great work. Just as Core to Shore is a 30 to 50 year vision, it may take that long for the rest to fully mature too. I hope it happens much more quickly.

----------


## HOT ROD

i agree with the points noted, but - the key is, we're moving I-40 down which will render the C2S area as necessary to develop. The aformentioned points are true as long as downtown remains north of I-40. But with I-40 moving, we will have the C2S section still blighted, to greet visitors as they exit the freeway. This can not stand and it is in the city's best interest to do something proactively - and a Central Park is arguably the best and easiest solution.

The problems I have are 1) the price - seems like $130M is too much for blighted land and a rather low programmed park (considering MGB was $30M with a LOT more squeezed in). I think maybe half of that is probably sufficient and the city should use a portion of the C2S Central Park funds to remove the substation, with OG&E splitting the costs (dreaming, but that would be ethical of them). ... 2) purposefully not using the land adjacent for the cc. This remains to be seen, but if the city goes with anything other than the mayor's original idea of the cc E of the Park, then it is a - well, what the hell are we doing/planning moment for OKC, imo. To me, the park and the cc go together - two direct public injections to set the C2S area on its way quickly.

One more point, C2S likely would have different character and feel than the other downtown districts, so I don't really see them competing. We should build the park and cc, and let the surroundings redevelop organically. I believe there is increasing interest in the other downtown districts, with most of them starting to gain synergy (CBD - retail and office looks to be on the increase, B-Town - i hope/look for infill, AAlley - seems to be filling in nicely, Film Row - again, nice organic infill, Midtown - same, Arts District - MGB and the new elementary school will likely spur additiona residential, DD - holding its own as downtown's urban bedroom community, Triangle - look for it to take off). Just because we are building the park (which will take years), it will take even longer for C2S to ever be considered competition for ANY of the other downtown districts, which have had a tremendous head start and even more nourishment with the streetcar. I dont see the streetcar going into c2s for Maps III.

Anyways, those are my points/ideas, and why I think the city should go ahead and move forward. We can't let the land sit empty and we don't really want to open all of it up for private development/squatting either. So having the park (and cc to the east/northeast) to 'regulate' c2s development is a wonderful idea and at the same time will create a nice downtown gateway from I-40 - which is the primary civic reason for doing c2s in the first place imo.

----------


## Spartan

Here is my proposal now:
http://downtownontherange.blogspot.c...f-changes.html

Will post more on it later, but for now I have to run out the door and start my day!

----------


## ljbab728

> Here is my proposal now:
> http://downtownontherange.blogspot.c...f-changes.html
> 
> Will post more on it later, but for now I have to run out the door and start my day!


Spartan, I sort of understand what you're saying but to start thinking about parks as a revenue stream opportunity is really not very realistic or practical when doing planning.  I'm not saying it shouldn't be considered, just that it isn't a majory priority.  What other parks in OKC or in any city for that matter make profits for the city?

----------


## Spartan

Well you know I would absolutely assert that good public parks are a public necessity, of course a park shouldn't be required to earn money. But it was still a good point brought up already by Dr. Shadid--it is one of many areas in which this park and the MG would be competing and it could still be dysfunctional it seems. We are also planning on funding continued maintenance of this M3 park with a conservatory group similar to the MG. That would be another dysfunctional scenario in my opinion. It is by far the best to combine these efforts here.

----------


## kevinpate

In light of not needing the blight as the new front door of the city, and in light of the amount of time the tax has now been collected, and in light of the collection running ahead of schedule, seems getting the park done, or done more than pretty grass and a rock trail, with a big arse more to come sign, would be a good idea for the city.

Just an outsider looking in perspective.

----------


## Rover

Blight will absolutely scare off developers in the area of influence.  A basic park will not, unless it is unsafe and not patrolled.  If we can achieve a threshold for developers then the city can afford to do more.

----------


## Spartan

The point though is how BEST to use our resources. We're all in agreement that resources should be used and improvements made. There's just a better strategic way forward than with Core2Shore as originally planned, I believe. And I also believe that is a growing consensus out there. 

The thing I want to stress is that Core2Shore was the ONLY masterplan that we had that could even potential tie different projects together. It was the only way we could determine how the park and convention center and shopping mall would interact. Now the park is the only thing that's stayed there. We still have ZERO downtown masterplans that show all of the changes. IF anything, we need to go back to the drawing board and redo Core2Shore, expanding it to include all of downtown. There needs to be ONE planning document that shows the park, streetcar, convention center, new boulevard, anticipated infill areas (who would have predicted Deep Deuce taking off like it has??), the Devon Tower, Project 180, and all the countless other big improvements. We need to see how these things interact. The point is that we are now at this point of questioning the park because we never considered how to separate projects would interact, the Project 180 improvements to the Myriad Gardens, and the new C2S/M3 park.

Now we need to go back and do that proper due diligence before we just get stuck in a pattern of having to perpetually change things.

----------


## Rover

In business, some time ago long range strategic planning gave way to strategic management.  In other words, long range objectives are outlined, but the actual tactics used are determined closer to the time in which the actions are needed.  It is a process of constantly being aware of options and of choosing actions based on more current conditions.  It is saying, if such and such is the case we will do this, but if this other such and such is the case, we will do this other thing.  No one has a crystal ball for 5-10 years out, let alone 20-30.  To lock into a fixed plan without the possibilities of adaptation is folly.  I also contend that the best cities developed based on unique conditions and their citizens' actions along with business opportunities.  OKC will ultimately be influenced by these decisions we are making, but the true character of the city will develop in ways we don't even imagine.  Who know 5 years ago what Devon would do and how it would impact downtown.  There will be more game changers.  It just makes sense the use of the land from downtown to the river should be reviewed and possibly changed.  This would be a success of our leaders and not a failure to faithfully complete Maps3.

----------


## Spartan

I am saying to have a plan. We don't have one anymore, C2S was a joke plan to begin with, and now we're seeing that the key pieces won't even be there. The planners of one project don't talk to the planners of another project. There is no way to rationalize that as a positive.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

_Questor- "Meanwhile the one aspect of MAPS 3 that I was really behind, and most of my friends are looking forward to, the downtown rail lines, seems to have taken a back-burner to everything else."

Spartan- "I also agree that it is frustrating that the downtown streetcar transit has taken the backburner."
_
I'm not sure why either of you think this.  We are literally scrambling to get through the required processes to get to the engineering phase.  I guess I realize that this might simply be a perception issue with all of the rhetoric from other committees, oversight board, and recent press.  But believe me that the streetcar is going forward in a big way.  I can't and won't blog all of the details, but we are doing our part.

----------


## Steve

xxx

----------


## Rover

Steve, please elaborate.

----------


## lasomeday

Urban Pioneer, How much has the "Core to Shore" plan affected your process?

I don't mind the theory of "Core to Shore", but to use it as a set base map is beyond idiotic.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> Urban Pioneer, How much has the "Core to Shore" plan affected your process?
> 
> I don't mind the theory of "Core to Shore", but to use it as a set base map is beyond idiotic.


It hasn't really affected it at all with exception of the Park subcommittee.  They have specifically asked that we go down and interface with the park.  At a minimum, we will be at Robinson, which is a block away.  Integrating transit into the new Boulevard may offer expansion possibilities, but because the design process for it has not begun yet, it hasn't been a debated item.

So C2S as it stands by itself as an "idea" has not swayed Phase 1, 2, or 3 streetcar conceptual routes as of yet.  Obviously, that could change, but the "drivers" have not been there specifically.

----------


## Popsy

Urban,  Not that anyone would care but I could feel a lot better about the streetcars if a route did not go up to 13th St.  I thought the streetcars were sold as being just in the core.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> Urban,  Not that anyone would care but I could feel a lot better about the streetcars if a route did not go up to 13th St.  I thought the streetcars were sold as being just in the core.


Well, originally, it was just a "core circulator."  What happened is that Councilman White among others basically impressed up on us that the only way we would have Council support is if the streetcar was designed to "get somewhere out of downtown."  Thus the advent of the "Bricktown to Midtown" line.  Designed for future expansion to the NW being Plaza District, OCU, 23rd/Classen.

Today we learned a few hours ago that the consultants for the hub agree and further exploration of the future transit numbers suggest that a "Light Rail Line" is a possibility all the way up Classen and NW Expressway.  Obviously it will take further study.  But undeniably, it seems as though the math is backing up the Committee's answer to Councilman White.

It is easy to grasp why they would go for a "Light Rail Line" as there is no existing rail corridor to use for commuter rail to the NW.  And that is where much of the suburban growth is.

To reduce costs, "Rapid Streetcar" may be an option for such a corridor in the future up that way.  Such vehicles can use the MAPS track and powering system but have priority enabling express service at around 50 MPH back to the Santa Fe Hub.

So I wouldn't feel to concerned yet as we explore all of this in long range planning if we did get up to 13th street.

----------


## Steve

Was there a MAPS 3 subcommittee meeting today? Nothing is posted at www.okc.gov

----------


## Urban Pioneer

ACOG Hub Committee meeting.  The next one I believe is on the 15th.  We are trying to coordinate the streetcar subcommittee and Hub meetings as they conflict on that day though.  A public meeting is planned inside of Santa Fe station on the 16th though about the hub project.

----------


## HOT ROD

Urban, that sounds like a wonderful idea and I think NWX and Classen thrufares are 'natural' light rail corridors (and possibly the ONLY ones that exist today in OKC) - BUT

I also agree with the critics that we should START that light rail corridor with bus. Begin with Express bus to build ridership. Once critical mass is achieved, then we move to Commuter Bus (which is expanded Express Bus for those who are not aware [express runs during rush hours and has very limited stops, commuter bus runs more frequently and moreso through the day and typically has a few more stops than express]). I wouldn't feel very good (and neither would the feds/state) by OKC planning to JUST build a light rail line without first having critical mass numbers/transit users built up along the corridor first. And no doubt, such a light rail line (even if it is so-called Expanded/Rapid Streetcar - which I think is a horrible idea given the distance/just build LRT) will require monies above what MAPS could/SHOULD contribute.

I honestly think/hope that MAPS IV capitalizes on the MAPS III Streetcar portion, and is more or less a TRANSIT MAPS for the region - with the suburbs chipping in this time (at least where the lines would likely go).

----------


## Spartan

> It hasn't really affected it at all with exception of the Park subcommittee.  They have specifically asked that we go down and interface with the park.  At a minimum, we will be at Robinson, which is a block away.  Integrating transit into the new Boulevard may offer expansion possibilities, but because the design process for it has not begun yet, it hasn't been a debated item.
> 
> So C2S as it stands by itself as an "idea" has not swayed Phase 1, 2, or 3 streetcar conceptual routes as of yet.  Obviously, that could change, but the "drivers" have not been there specifically.


Well I am sure that other developments are a factor, but I imagine the subcommittee would weigh them just the same as other developments (or weigh the ones that actually exist now a little more).

But I do think that a streetcar line through C2S that connects Capitol Hill would be a better way to catalyze development in there than by throwing all of our resources there when the park and convention center might make more sense in different spots.

----------


## betts

Actually, one of the most interesting things that came out of the hub meeting yesterday is that bus rapid transit is about as expensive to implement as the streetcar:  10 to 20 million per mile.  So, to me, bus rapid transit should be off the table in most discussions.

----------


## Spartan

> Actually, one of the most interesting things that came out of the hub meeting yesterday is that bus rapid transit is about as expensive to implement as the streetcar:  10 to 20 million per mile.  So, to me, bus rapid transit should be off the table in most discussions.


110% agree. BRT is a sham that plays on people's hesitation to make the plunge into real transit. It is basically about avoiding fixed guideway transit at all costs, even if those costs become higher than rail transit.

I don't think that is saying that LRT needs to be on the table though, but I think we can all hopefully settle on the fast streetcar concept. In some European cities they're called "snell trams" (snell means "fast" in many languages). I've seen them all over the Netherlands.

----------


## BoulderSooner

LRT 100% needs to be on the table ...  in a few directions  NW for one it is the only real option

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> And no doubt, such a light rail line (even if it is so-called Expanded/Rapid Streetcar - which I think is a horrible idea given the distance/just build LRT)


This comment puzzled me a bit.  Rapid Streetcar is LRT.  The difference between a "Dart type" LRT and Rapid streetcar is cost.

There is nothing wrong with Rapid Streetcar from a design standpoint in an existing vehicular lane or a protected lane on corridor such as NW Expressway or Classen.  In fact, it would have "less impact."  The difference between the two is that the rail for "Dart type" is a heavy gauge because the vehicles are heavier and they tend to be in more of a protected alignment.  Because the rail itself is larger, it is more invasive and requires more cost for site preparation.

If we wanted to use the MAPS streetcar line as a "inbound" section, we would have to spend more money on heavier track and such.  Even DART is considering Rapid Streetcar as a more cost effective alternative.

Many of the streetcars themselves are designed so that more car units can be sandwiched in between thus creating a Dart type capacity vehicle.  But it wouldn't make every local stop in downtown or else it would take forever to get there and the stops would have to over sized.

Anyways, it is something to consider and will take more study.  Probably too complicated to get into detail on this C2S thread.

----------


## HOT ROD

I personally think people are getting too cute with regard to all of this hybrid naming of things. Streetcar is a streetcar, Light Rail is light rail. There is a difference in the two, and as someone who has ridden both and whose city has both - I can attest there are major differences, most of which come from capacity and transit times. 

It is rather stupid IMO to build a Streetcar/Tram longer than a 5 mile journey, because of the nature of Streetcar (frequent stops, small capacity). Streetcar is basically one step above a bus, the benefit of which it shares with LRT in that the rails are fixed. But it is what it is, and Streetcar has too many stops and too small of vehicles to be considered for long distance or 'metro' type of operations. Who would want to be on a Streetcar for the duration of NWX into downtown - something that most likely would take over one hour given the stops and likely would be a white elephant given the headways.

this is why I say, just plan for the NWX to be light rail. LRT will be cheaper in OKC anyways, and with LRT you can plan for a 'metro' like system with stops every mile. If you all are afraid that OKC will not fill up a Light Rail train, then just use one car/pair instead of running hour long Streetcar runs. 

If you're going to have limited stops along NWX (say, every mile - which makes sense), then you might as well do it as LRT. NWX and Classen are 'classic' LRT corridors with traffic separation you can run trains in the median and be able to have 'shorter' trip durations using 'higher' capacity LRT cars and less frequent stops (say 1 mile along NWX, major destination hubs/streets in the inner city).

Streetcar is a great idea for downtown and the inner city, given the frequent stops and short distances. But over the 3 mile trip threshold, Streetcar starts to lose its appeal. This may all be speculation, but I think it is important for the city to plan for an overall transit network. And we need to capitalize on technology that exists and use the best of whats out there for our needs and not "force" technology to do extended service just because we are scared about usage and/or cost.

In the long run, I think 'Rapid' Streetcar would fail - because its name 'rapid' is a misnomer. Streetcar by definition and design is ALREADY rapid, and what the 'Rapid Streetcar' people are really pitching is "Extended/Long Range Streetcar" - which by nature will fail (small cars/low capacity, long distances, lengthy headways, frequent stops). It would be a waste.

----------


## Rover

I remember reading about an innovative train tranisit system that used a series of disconnected cars on a fixed rail system.  It used a scheduling system much like some of the new elevators where you put in the floor you are going to and it uses an algorythm to aggregate riders on cars to the same or nearby floors.  In other words, the stops were secondary loops.  When you check in at your departure you punch in a destination station.  Then the next car going there stops and picks you up.  It essentially fills with riders going to the same places and bypasses making stops at each intermittent stop.  The cars are smaller, faster and cheaper to run, and the scheduling makes for rapid transit.  Cars are dispatched into the system based on demand and pick/up drop off stations.  By doing it this way you can have more cars on the track making pick-up time shorter.  It is something we should look at....thinking outside the box.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> I personally think people are getting too cute with regard to all of this hybrid naming of things. Streetcar is a streetcar, Light Rail is light rail. There is a difference in the two, and as someone who has ridden both and whose city has both - I can attest there are major differences, most of which come from capacity and transit times. 
> 
> It is rather stupid IMO to build a Streetcar/Tram longer than a 5 mile journey, because of the nature of Streetcar (frequent stops, small capacity). Streetcar is basically one step above a bus, the benefit of which it shares with LRT in that the rails are fixed. But it is what it is, and Streetcar has too many stops and too small of vehicles to be considered for long distance or 'metro' type of operations. Who would want to be on a Streetcar for the duration of NWX into downtown - something that most likely would take over one hour given the stops and likely would be a white elephant given the headways.
> 
> this is why I say, just plan for the NWX to be light rail. LRT will be cheaper in OKC anyways, and with LRT you can plan for a 'metro' like system with stops every mile. If you all are afraid that OKC will not fill up a Light Rail train, then just use one car/pair instead of running hour long Streetcar runs. 
> 
> If you're going to have limited stops along NWX (say, every mile - which makes sense), then you might as well do it as LRT. NWX and Classen are 'classic' LRT corridors with traffic separation you can run trains in the median and be able to have 'shorter' trip durations using 'higher' capacity LRT cars and less frequent stops (say 1 mile along NWX, major destination hubs/streets in the inner city).
> 
> Streetcar is a great idea for downtown and the inner city, given the frequent stops and short distances. But over the 3 mile trip threshold, Streetcar starts to lose its appeal. This may all be speculation, but I think it is important for the city to plan for an overall transit network. And we need to capitalize on technology that exists and use the best of whats out there for our needs and not "force" technology to do extended service just because we are scared about usage and/or cost.
> ...


I understand what you are saying and don't disagree with it.  However, the technologies have blended together somewhat over the past 5 years to be more cost effective.

So the question that I was stressing was we might feel that NW Exp deserves "true" Light Rail, but should the MAPS streetcar sections be an early investment allowing for such a future extension?  If so, "Dart" type rail prep would cause the streetcar infrastructure to cost more.  If you believe that a bigger/slight heavier streetcar could serve those future needs, it would allow you to spend less on heavier rail as part of this Phase 1 project.

Not to get into semantics or a debate, but it is something that we intend to study.  Obviously the future passenger load is the question.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

If you want to take this up further, go to the transit thread as the C2S thread has been "derailed" enough.  lol

----------


## Spartan

Hey UP, what do you think of the opportunity to use streetcar instead (a line linking downtown and the southside) to spur development from core to shore?

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> Hey UP, what do you think of the opportunity to use streetcar instead (a line linking downtown and the southside) to spur development from core to shore?



First- Connections to Capitol Hill Proper can be made as part of a Commuter Rail stop on the way to More/Norman as depicted in the study.

2nd- the MAPS streetcar route proposed has the inherent ability built in to the system to extend further into C2S or even potentially the river area.

I think that the future looks favorably on C2S.  Depending on the MAPS schedule as it relates to the park, that definitely will affect the short term viability of the area.  However, the demolition will continue and the Sky Dance Bridge will be erected.

My opinion is that if developers make a pitch in the area and want streetcar, they should consider it as strongly as they would a parking garage or other infrastructure element they often ask for via TIF funds.  Use the Portland model.  Have the connections there, make the extension part of the project costs itself.

I do not feel at this time that MAPS streetcar monies should be used to try to "spur" development in a "Phase1 or 2."  TIF or other funds should be used in the area as part of an actual planned project.  We have enough "infill" to do along the rest of the line and should focus on early ridership to ensure that there is a successful start to the streetcar system.

"Making it to the bridge/Union Station" would have its benefits though.  Going beyond that would be difficult to justify.

Our local developers are either going to have to broaden their obsession with parking to the streetcar, or I'm sure that out-of-state developers will do it for them as they have done in other cities.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

I don't suppose anyone cares to see the old International Harvester building go do they? 



Map

----------


## Dustin



----------


## UnFrSaKn

A lot has changed already since that was produced.

----------


## BBatesokc

Maybe I missed it, but has Robinson (in the Core-to-Shore area) always been referred to (officially) as Hubcap Alley?

I just noticed these signs attached to several light poles in the area.....

----------


## Urban Pioneer

Cool sign.

----------


## BBatesokc

> Cool sign.


I personally thought it was on the verge of being a cool sign, but didn't quite make it.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> I don't suppose anyone cares to see the old International Harvester building go do they? 
> 
> 
> 
> Map


I missed the last Park Subcommittee meeting but ran into Michelle at Coffee Slingers.  She said that assessing historic buildings that were slated to be torn down to be potentially incorporated into the park is now being discussed.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> I personally thought it was on the verge of being a cool sign, but didn't quite make it.


I guess I like it because it looks like the neighbors actually made it themselves.

----------


## Pete

> has Robinson (in the Core-to-Shore area) always been referred to (officially) as Hubcap Alley?


Yes, I've heard that area called that many times and for good reason.

I hope at least the section between the new I-40 and the river gets cleaned up.

----------


## Architect2010

> I guess I like it because it looks like the neighbors actually made it themselves.


I've seen them myself and they look like they were professionally produced. That picture makes them look like cardboard. 

I've seen these signs up for over a month now, maybe longer if I remember right. That little strip between the river and I-40 is almost completely devoid of any life. However, I really dig the empty garages and buildings lining the street. It would be a really neat area if gentrified, which obviously, someone is taking the proactive step. That strip has also received rebuilt sidewalks and curbs along it's entirety.

----------


## metro

Awesome find, cool sign, and yes that area has been called that for a long time. I like it, definitely original to OKC

----------


## edcrunk

> I don't suppose anyone cares to see the old International Harvester building go do they? 
> 
> 
> 
> Map


One of my earliest experiences at an underground dance club was in the basement of this building in 1992.

----------


## Just the facts

> I don't suppose anyone cares to see the old International Harvester building go do they? 
> 
> 
> 
> Map


Apartments now... Condo conversion later.

----------


## Steve

Targeted for demolition by city now for Core to Shore, dirt later.

----------


## Fantastic

> Targeted for demolition by city now for Core to Shore, dirt later.


Well, that's a shame.

----------


## SOONER8693

Typical OKC. If there is an older building with character, get that fu**ing thing down as quickly as possible.

----------


## JayhawkTransplant

> Targeted for demolition by city now for Core to Shore, dirt later.


Is this a recent development? I was not aware of this...

----------


## Skyline

> Targeted for demolition by city now for Core to Shore, dirt later.


Of course, .... Why should we expect anything else?

----------


## OKC@heart

I wish that OKC would get it in thier head that a city is vastly more interesting and genuine when the New is woven in and amongst the historical older structures that can still have ultility.  It is sensless to demolish buildings such as this particularly when we have a undeminished supply of vacant lots so readily available within the urban core.  Lets try filling them in rather than trying to wipe the slate clean for grand gestures and plans that oh yeah (I.M. Pei) sometimes due to unforseen economic forces don't make it into existence.  Same song differnt day...

----------


## rcjunkie

> Of course, .... Why should we expect anything else?


Of course, building sets empty for years, with mother nature taking it's toll adding to further decay of said building, the City decides to remove said building and a few get their Hanes in a wad. Why not be proactive and try to save said buildings prior to it's demise.

----------


## Just the facts

> Targeted for demolition by city now for Core to Shore, dirt later.


Well that is just freaking great.  Who is running this show, Destructo the Clown?

----------


## lasomeday

> Targeted for demolition by city now for Core to Shore, dirt later.


It is stupid leadership and dumb ideas that will keep OKC behind Tulsa.  

I have got to get out of this town!

----------


## metro

> Is this a recent development? I was not aware of this...


No, this has been the plan all along; unfortunately.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> It is stupid leadership and dumb ideas that will keep OKC behind Tulsa.  
> 
> I have got to get out of this town!


okc hasn't been behind tulsa for about 15 years

----------


## Architect2010

> It is stupid leadership and dumb ideas that have kept Tulsa behind OKC.


Fixed for truth.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

Regarding the Harvester Building, as I posted earlier, apparently discussions were had at the last Park Subcommittee meeting regarding saving/salvaging some of these old builds to be potentially incorporated in the park design.  So it sounds as though saving them is a potential option should the Park Committee be allowed to make recommendations or change the original concept.

----------


## Pete

This building doesn't even border on the park!

I believe it was originally acquired under the assumption the convention center would be built in this area and in that case, it would have to have been razed.  But of course that all has changed so I hope they reconsider the fate of this building.

----------


## Rover

> It is stupid leadership and dumb ideas that will keep OKC behind Tulsa.  
> 
> I have got to get out of this town!


Have fun in Tulsa.  They have been so much more progressive and their city leadership works so much better than here.   LOLROF.

----------


## lasomeday

> Have fun in Tulsa.  They have been so much more progressive and their city leadership works so much better than here.   LOLROF.


Who said I was moving to Tulsa?  I was just comparing two cities.

----------


## Rover

I's sorry.  I thought you said you were getting out of this stupid town and you obviously prefer Tulsa.  Great.  Go there if you think things are better there.  Or anywhere else you want.  It would be horrible to stuck in a stupid and behind town.  I am sure their grass really is greener.

----------


## Fantastic

> Who said I was moving to Tulsa?  I was just comparing two cities.


I agree with Rover, that really is what it sounded like.  Believe me, the grass is NOT greener.  But hey if you hate OKC so much and love Tulsa so much, do move there.  I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, I just want people to be happy, and if someone isn't happy here, they should go to where they are happy.  And for the record, I love Tulsa, I just happen to love OKC more.

----------


## Fantastic

> This building doesn't even border on the park!
> 
> I believe it was originally acquired under the assumption the convention center would be built in this area and in that case, it would have to have been razed.  But of course that all has changed so I hope they reconsider the fate of this building.


I hope you are right, I think it would be a great spot for lofts or condos.

----------


## Bellaboo

> It is stupid leadership and dumb ideas that will keep OKC behind Tulsa.  
> 
> I have got to get out of this town!


Piling on a bit, but we blew by Tulsa in the mid '90's. It's their leadership that is in question. If enough revolting is said about this building, it will make a difference. Look how the boulevard went from 6 to 4 lanes over night, I'd bet a large part of it was due to this board.

----------


## Rover

The disappointing thing is that this, along with many others that get demolished, are allowed to be ignored until it comes to this.  Initiatives to make these properties into something meaningful and lasting going forward needs to happen before we expect the city to save or protect it.  It is like we expect to ignore and abuse these properties and show them no love....until someone else agrees and wants to tear them down.  Then, all of a sudden everyone gets emotional.  Get emotional BEFORE not AFTER it is too late.

----------


## soonergolfer

Does anyone ever think the cost of repairing a building is not justifiable? I am pretty sure the city does not have the money to buy every single building build before World War II, and rehab them. It is not a knock to OKC or any other city, its just the way that it is.

----------


## Spartan

> Does anyone ever think the cost of repairing a building is not justifiable? I am pretty sure the city does not have the money to buy every single building build before World War II, and rehab them. It is not a knock to OKC or any other city, its just the way that it is.


Why do you think that the CITY has to do anything? People make investments in real estate all the time, and historic preservation is one of many viable development portfolios that are common-place downtown. Numerous people have made those projects among the most successful in all of downtown. And furthermore, as far as quality development goes, there is no cost difference between preservation and new development.

----------


## ljbab728

> And furthermore, as far as quality development goes, there is no cost difference between preservation and new development.


Spartan, that's a very broad statement and not always true.

----------


## Spartan

The only thing that could categorically make new development more cost-effective is if you're allowed to slide on building standards. If the projects are held to an equal building standard, you don't save money by clearing a site and starting over from scratch. That's also a waste of building materials and land impact. There are a dozen things that are wrong with this picture--things that are simply not allowed in most other cities.

Today, the Oklahoma land run mentality has gone from being about free land to nonexistent building standards.

----------


## ljbab728

> The only thing that could categorically make new development more cost-effective is if you're allowed to slide on building standards. If the projects are held to an equal building standard, you don't save money by clearing a site and starting over from scratch. That's also a waste of building materials and land impact. There are a dozen things that are wrong with this picture--things that are simply not allowed in most other cities.
> 
> Today, the Oklahoma land run mentality has gone from being about free land to nonexistent building standards.


Spartan, I'm in agreement with you about preservation of existing worthy buildings.  I still don't believe, however, you can such a broad statement about the economics involved.  Every project can be very different.

----------


## Spartan

Great, I hope you as fervently argue the point with the whole downtown OKC real estate establishment that is clinging onto the contrary categorical statement, just like generations typically will cling onto outdated and unsustainable methods.

----------


## rcjunkie

> Spartan, that's a very broad statement and not always true.


Actually, it's probably never true.

----------


## Just the facts

The sad part is the City, and quasi-city organizations, set the standard and OKC has set the bar real real low.  From lower bricktown, to the chamber building, to the proposed police headquarters - it is all bad.  When they do something right like the Skirvin it is usually because they partner with a private company.

----------


## soonergolfer

> Why do you think that the CITY has to do anything? People make investments in real estate all the time, and historic preservation is one of many viable development portfolios that are common-place downtown. Numerous people have made those projects among the most successful in all of downtown. And furthermore, as far as quality development goes, there is no cost difference between preservation and new development.


I realize that, but someone mentioned it is as of it is the cities obligation to restore the building, as if a knock to okc. I think it is a bit of a stretch to hope investors come in soon and restore the building. The cost is going to be very high. Also, I know there are tax credits and TIF, but those are very difficult to obtain and a lot of politics are involved. 
Right now the area is a dead zone until the park is under way, which does not seem to be moving too quick.

----------


## lasomeday

> okc hasn't been behind tulsa for about 15 years


Have you been to Tulsa in the last three years?  Downtown, Blue Dome, Brady Theater districts are booming and a lot more urban and mixed use than anything we have in OKC.  Urban Design wise Tulsa > OKC.  I am probably moving to Denver.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Have you been to Tulsa in the last three years?  Downtown, Blue Dome, Brady Theater districts are booming and a lot more urban and mixed use than anything we have in OKC.  Urban Design wise Tulsa > OKC.  I am probably moving to Denver.


bye

----------


## lasomeday

> bye


Wow, you don't even grasp sarcasm!  Mr Boulder.

----------


## BDP

> Wow, you don't even grasp sarcasm! Mr Boulder.


I thought you were serious, too. There are a lot with Tulsa tunnel vision that say the same things.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Wow, you don't even grasp sarcasm!  Mr Boulder.


i did not  ... sorry about that ...

----------


## rcjunkie

> Wow, you don't even grasp sarcasm!  Mr Boulder.


Neither do I, drive careful.

----------


## Spartan

> Actually, it's probably never true.


Case in point. This is why (how) I've turned into a preservation crusader.

----------


## Spartan

> I realize that, but someone mentioned it is as of it is the cities obligation to restore the building, as if a knock to okc. I think it is a bit of a stretch to hope investors come in soon and restore the building. The cost is going to be very high. Also, I know there are tax credits and TIF, but those are very difficult to obtain and a lot of politics are involved. 
> Right now the area is a dead zone until the park is under way, which does not seem to be moving too quick.


Well, you tell me which happens first. That building gets renovated by private investors, or they instead by the closest vacant lot and build a smashing mixed-use development on that site. If you ask me, the second scenario is a LOT further off.

That is if we're going to look at these things in a truly objective sense, rather than assessing difficulty level before anything has even been examined properly. That's how we've lost at least 10 historic buildings in last 3-5 years. This trajectory is unacceptable and will probably leave all of Bricktown and Automobile Alley razed before the world is even over in a year.

----------


## rcjunkie

> Case in point. This is why (how) I've turned into a preservation crusader.


You missed the point, it's almost always cheaper to tear down and build new then do a major renovation.

----------


## Urbanized

Hey, I'm pretty open-minded. Other than the Bricktown Ballpark, show me an example of a historic or even just a good-quality old building demolished in downtown Oklahoma City in the past 25 years, then replaced with another building of substance and quality (or in fact anything other than a parking lot or patch of grass), and I will totally consider jumping on the "it's better to tear it down than wait for a developer" bandwagon.

Better yet, show me ANY building that was torn down on spec (the building in Bricktown was demolished to make way for a sure-thing ballpark), and replaced by something better in the past 25 years. Anything? Bueller?

----------


## Rover

Re-use is certainly preferrential. Why does it seem to take the threat of demolition to get any momentum to reconstruct and re-use these historic properties?  Should the city set up its own historic preservation which accross the board bans the deconstruction and REQUIRES minimum maintenance for preservation.  What happens if a current owner can't afford to keep the property up but no reasonable buyers are willing to take the risk or make the investment...does the city foreclose on it?

----------


## lasomeday

> You missed the point, it's almost always cheaper to tear down and build new then do a major renovation.


Cheaper!  That is what you get too!  Cheap crap!  Nothing with as much character or quality finishes as the existing building.

----------


## Urbanized

Or, more often that that, you literally get...nothing.

----------


## Rover

> Cheaper!  That is what you get too!  Cheap crap!  Nothing with as much character or quality finishes as the existing building.


Pretty generalized and sterotypical statement.  I dare say the Edge will be better than the old Mercy Hospital building.  Devon wound up being a pretty high quality development too.   I hear what you are saying, but each one requires specific consideration or it and the alternatives.

----------


## Rover

> Cheaper!  That is what you get too!  Cheap crap!  Nothing with as much character or quality finishes as the existing building.


Pretty generalized and stereotypical statement.  I dare say the Edge will be better than the old Mercy Hospital building.  Devon wound up being a pretty high quality development too.   I hear what you are saying, but each one requires specific consideration or it and the alternatives.

----------


## Urbanized

The old Mercy Hospital -- which was admittedly derelict perhaps beyond redemption, not to mention built in a way that actively discouraged redevlopment -- was demolished nearly 14 years ago to make way for an accepted OCURA project. It was NOT demolished on spec. That project ended up not happening, as did a subsequent project on the same plot of land. The Edge has yet to turn dirt; they "hope" to turn dirt by next Fall. I, too, hope it happens.

Devon was built on land that was cleared nearly 40 years prior, on spec. Devon would have been built somewhere else downtown if that land were not available. The availability of that property is not what triggered the building of Devon Tower.

Tearing down old buildings doesn't cause new ones to pop up; that's the lesson of OKC's urban renewal era. Clearing property does not create new development; it never does. Market demand for new development creates new development. Sometimes that results in clearing land to accommodate the new, and that is usually OK, provided the new use is higher and better.

----------


## Bellaboo

> The old Mercy Hospital -- which was admittedly derelict perhaps beyond redemption, not to mention built in a way that actively discouraged redevlopment -- was demolished nearly 14 years ago to make way for an accepted OCURA project. It was NOT demolished on spec. That project ended up not happening, as did a subsequent project on the same plot of land. The Edge has yet to turn dirt; they "hope" to turn dirt by next Fall. I, too, hope it happens.
> 
> Devon was built on land that was cleared nearly 40 years prior, on spec. Devon would have been built somewhere else downtown if that land were not available. The availability of that property is not what triggered the building of Devon Tower.
> 
> Tearing down old buildings doesn't cause new ones to pop up; that's the lesson of OKC's urban renewal era. Clearing property does not create new development; it never does. Market demand for new development creates new development. Sometimes that results in clearing land to accommodate the new, and that is usually OK, provided the new use is higher and better.


Leadership Square - they almost did NOT tear down an old building that would have been on the southeast corner of the block....they made a big deal how it made the price go up for such a small building. But it would have been way out of place if it would have been left.

For that matter, any of the buildings built between 1970 and 1985 would have replaced old structures.

----------


## Just the facts

If clearing land created development OKC would be the envy of the world.  As urbanized said, that is the lesson we should have learned from urban renewal (queue the International Harvester building).  No plan to replace but for some reason it has to be cleared and it must be done ASAP.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

If this true, and it is still on the slate for the wrecking ball, then where is the Preservation community?  I can't see how it is, since the CC is not going there and it is not part of the park.

----------


## Urbanized

> Leadership Square - they almost did NOT tear down an old building that would have been on the southeast corner of the block....they made a big deal how it made the price go up for such a small building. But it would have been way out of place if it would have been left.
> 
> For that matter, any of the buildings built between 1970 and 1985 would have replaced old structures.


There is a reason I said in the last 25 years.

But again, many of those structures (the ones that WERE replaced) were demolished to clear the way for specific, intended projects. The yawning gap-tooth areas interlaced with and surrounding downtown are a testament to the failed policy of tearing down worthwhile buildings with nothing specifically planned to replace them. It's amazing that we are even HAVING this discussion in 2011.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

----------


## Just the facts

> If this true, and it is still on the slate for the wrecking ball, then where is the Preservation community?  I can't see how it is, since the CC is not going there and it is not part of the park.


They are too busy reading Stage Center proposals (another building that has to be cleared without a plan for a replacement structure).

----------


## Urbanized

Another thing: the demolished buildings that WERE replaced in the 60s, 70s and 80s all had one thing in common: they were in the CBD. There were going to be new buildings built in the CBD no matter what, driven by market demand. I think the chances of something on the fringe of downtown -- torn down on spec -- being replaced by a new structure anytime soon are pretty remote. At least that's what history tells us.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> They are too busy reading Stage Center proposals (another building that has to be cleared without a plan for a replacement structure).


I'm serious.  What is the official word on this from Planning or Public Works?

----------


## Just the facts

> I'm serious.  What is the official word on this from Planning or Public Works?


According to Steve 2 days ago it is still on the "destroy" list.

----------


## Skyline

I really hope that someone builds a nice surface parking lot there. 

There is no place to park in this area and we will all need somewhere to "pay n park" when visiting the Core to Shore.

----------


## Just the facts

> I really hope that someone builds a nice surface parking lot there. 
> 
> There is no place to park in this area and we will all need somewhere to "pay n park" when visiting the Core to Shore.


They razed paradise and put up a parking lot.

No chance of a parking lot here.  There is no canal.

----------


## Urbanized

Seriously though, has there been any building torn down in the downtown area on spec (without a real, defined project attached) in the past 25 years, that ended up being anything other than pavement or a patch of grass? I really am asking. My memory is not perfect. Heck, make it 30 years. Bueller? Anyone?

----------


## Just the facts

If there was I can't think of it.  The closest I can think of was the proposed chamber building but the lot was probably cleared more than 30 years ago and the new building never materialized anyhow.

----------


## rcjunkie

> They are too busy reading Stage Center proposals (another building that has to be cleared without a plan for a replacement structure).


Vacant land would be an improvement over a vacant, decaying structure.

----------


## Bellaboo

> There is a reason I said in the last 25 years.
> 
> But again, many of those structures (the ones that WERE replaced) were demolished to clear the way for specific, intended projects. The yawning gap-tooth areas interlaced with and surrounding downtown are a testament to the failed policy of tearing down worthwhile buildings with nothing specifically planned to replace them. It's amazing that we are even HAVING this discussion in 2011.
> 
> "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana


I think the biggest chunk of clearing was done late '60's  thru  the  '70's. There hasn't been much destructed in the last 25 years.

----------


## Urbanized

> Vacant land would be an improvement over a vacant, decaying structure.


The same could have been (and was) said a few years ago about the Skirvin. And most of the buildings in Bricktown, from the seventies through the nineties. That building is a near-twin to several of Bricktown's most substantive structures, a number of which were "vacant and decaying" for years, if not decades.

I could not disagree more with your statement; a vacant building - especially a quality and/or historic one, is almost ALWAYS worth more than an empty lot, especially in an are that is heavily comprised of vacant lots.

Again, show me where anything torn down on spec in the past 30 years has created development.

----------


## Urbanized

> I think the biggest chunk of clearing was done late '60's  thru  the  '70's. There hasn't been much destructed in the last 25 years.


And it is a fairly well-accepted position that OKC lost more than it gained during the Urban Renewal period of the 60s and 70s. Are you defending those teardowns as good policy?

And again, I maintain that the scattering of buildings that replaced the teardowns -- buildings like Leadership Square, BOK, Corporate Tower, Oklahoma Tower, or even the Myriad -- those buildings were built due to market demand and a desire to be in the CBD, not because there happened to be vacant land sitting there waiting for them. Would they have been built in those specific locations had that land not been pre-scraped? Maybe, maybe not. But they probably still WOULD have been built.

Like I said -- and someone like Steve might need to weigh in here, because I am unsure which of those buildings were torn down for a specific project and which were demolished on spec -- some of those buildings were definitely a higher and better use. I have no issue with demolition of a most buildings (besides obvious historic treasures), provided they are replaced with something of equal or greater value.

But there are so few examples in OKC's history of spec teardowns resulting in a better building in a reasonable amount of time -- even within a generation -- that I feel pretty safe in saying that demolishing that building just for the sake of demolishing would be a bad trade-off for a patch of grass.

----------


## Urbanized



----------


## Urbanized

By the way, there has been considerably more torn down over the past 25 years than you might think. It has just been more insidious than wholesale, an more of it has been at the fringe of downtown than near the core. I can think of a number of places torn down or burned in the past decade to 15 years along Walker north of 6th, for instance. Most of them are now grass, but a couple of them do have nice asphalt parking lots.

----------


## metro

> Seriously though, has there been any building torn down in the downtown area on spec (without a real, defined project attached) in the past 25 years, that ended up being anything other than pavement or a patch of grass? I really am asking. My memory is not perfect. Heck, make it 30 years. Bueller? Anyone?


India Temple?

----------


## Steve

> According to Steve 2 days ago it is still on the "destroy" list.


I've not heard anything indicating a change in plans on this. But I'll check into it soon. I know the city went to extraordinary measures to insure the original film exchange building wasn't bought and renovated by a construction company to become its new hq.

----------


## OKC74

This probably isn't the right place to post this...and...I apologize if it's been answered already.  But...I've noticed that with all of the changes going on downtown that all of the traffic signals are now the left to right ones instead of the up and downs.  I heard something about this on the news.  Do we know if this is a trend that will spread throughout the city?  Or just the downtown area?  I'm in favor of changing them all over town.  With the wind that we have, the outer layer of the lights always look cracked or  blown away...maybe if they were ALL sideways the wind wouldn't impact them as much.

----------


## BoulderSooner

> I've not heard anything indicating a change in plans on this. But I'll check into it soon. I know the city went to extraordinary measures to insure the original film exchange building wasn't bought and renovated by a construction company to become its new hq.


what measures?

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> This probably isn't the right place to post this...and...I apologize if it's been answered already.  But...I've noticed that with all of the changes going on downtown that all of the traffic signals are now the left to right ones instead of the up and downs.  I heard something about this on the news.  Do we know if this is a trend that will spread throughout the city?  Or just the downtown area?  I'm in favor of changing them all over town.  With the wind that we have, the outer layer of the lights always look cracked or  blown away...maybe if they were ALL sideways the wind wouldn't impact them as much.


Just downtown are going to horizontal format to help further deliniate the P180 area.

----------


## Just the facts

I think the horizontal light are used because they are easier to see while stopped at the light, especially with the introduction of left-turn lights at all intersections.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

Perhaps...  But remember the committee liking them because they were different.  Lol

----------


## Urbanized

> India Temple?


Patch of grass. At least for now.

That said, if they construct the new building that they have indicated will go there, I wouldn't classify that as a "spec" teardown. That building apparently was in their long-range plans all along. And depending on the quality of the new building, this could be a reasonable example of "higher and better" use.

Again, I am not a knee-jerk preservationist. I do think certain buildings should be off-limits forever (the Skirvin was an example), but for the most part I am OK with demolitions that make way for a sure-thing improvement. If a sure-thing, financed, quality hotel or high-rise housing were announced for that specific location -- and the only impediment was the demolition of that building -- I would go swing a sledgehammer myself to hasten the process.

However, no matter how you slice it, tearing down quality/historic buildings and replacing them with parking lots or patches of grass and then HOPING for new buildings to replace them has been proven time and again to be bad policy.

----------


## SkyWestOKC

> Again, I am not a knee-jerk preservationist. I do think certain buildings should be off-limits forever (the Skirvin was an example), but for the most part I am OK with demolitions that make way for a sure-thing improvement. If a sure-thing, financed, quality hotel or high-rise housing were announced for that specific location -- and the only impediment was the demolition of that building -- I would go swing a sledgehammer myself to hasten the process.
> 
> However, no matter how you slice it, tearing down quality/historic buildings and replacing them with parking lots or patches of grass and then HOPING for new buildings to replace them has been proven time and again to be bad policy.


A good example of the first paragraph is the Aloft Hotel. The Inebriate building (I think?) was knocked down to make the plot of land clear for Aloft. There probably used to be buildings on that main parcel which the urban renewal took with it. But that street has a good example of also a historic renovation, the Clark Building (not on the historic register, but still a redevelopment of an existing building).

----------


## Urbanized

> A good example of the first paragraph is the Aloft Hotel. The Inebriate building (I think?) was knocked down to make the plot of land clear for Aloft. There probably used to be buildings on that main parcel which the urban renewal took with it. But that street has a good example of also a historic renovation, the Clark Building (not on the historic register, but still a redevelopment of an existing building).


That's a perfect example. Next to the now-demolished Public Inebriate Alternative was the Finley Building. That was actually a really nice mid-century building with a great history that certainly could have been rehabbed into something worthwhile. But when the Aloft became a real project, by all means I supported its demolition. That is a very clear higher and better use for that property. A hardcore preservationist might have a problem with it, but I do not. But again, it was not torn down just for the sake of demolition; it was torn down to clear the way for a real project.

----------


## metro

Regardless, it was tore down on spec. Hopes and dreams have fallen through far to often in this city, they could have waited for demo until ready to build.

----------


## Urbanized

Finley wasn't torn down on spec; it was demolished for the Aloft Hotel project, currently underway.

----------


## Spartan

I think we're splitting hairs here on the type of demolition situation. The point is that Finley was one of downtown's few successful demolition situations. I would even call it an unqualified success once this beaut gets built (by which I mean no matter what).

----------


## metro

> Finley wasn't torn down on spec; it was demolished for the Aloft Hotel project, currently underway.


My comment was in regards to India Temple. I think some posts got deleted.

----------


## Spartan

> My comment was in regards to India Temple. I think some posts got deleted.


Haha, go figure. Probably a flame war involving, well, any of us.

----------


## Just the facts

> My comment was in regards to India Temple. I think some posts got deleted.


Even India Temple wasn't torn down on speculation.  Sandridge had planned to expand on the site all along, they just chose not to tell anyone for some reason.  Kermac on the other hand - no known use for that land other than flower beds.

----------


## mcca7596

> Maybe I missed it, but has Robinson (in the Core-to-Shore area) always been referred to (officially) as Hubcap Alley?
> 
> I just noticed these signs attached to several light poles in the area.....


You know, I was just thinking how the east side of the lower park is supposed to go right up to where these buildings are. I hope they stay and aren't demolished; this area has a lot of obvious potential ala Film Row.

----------


## Snowman

While they may not be torn down on spec and some may be worth keeping around. The intent is to draw more dense development to that entire area, something has to go.

----------


## mcca7596

> While they may not be torn down on spec and some may be worth keeping around. The intent is to draw more dense development to that entire area, something has to go.


That's just it though, these are there and it IS dense development. I'm afraid that sort of streetwall would be forever lost. I really am becoming a mild version of Kerry; the aesthetics of a streetwall are honestly what I love the most about urban environments.

----------


## Snowman

> That's just it though, these are there and it IS dense development. I'm afraid that sort of streetwall would be forever lost. I really am becoming a mild version of Kerry; the aesthetics of a streetwall are honestly what I love the most about urban environments.


Dense is relative, I would not want it to be replaced with suburban style developments like how lower bricktown developed but if they got mid rises like in some of the C2S renderings indicate they want then I am fine with them going.

----------


## Just the facts

> That's just it though, these are there and it IS dense development. I'm afraid that sort of streetwall would be forever lost. I really am becoming a mild version of Kerry; the aesthetics of a streetwall are honestly what I love the most about urban environments.


That is a slippery slope, I was once a mild version of myself as well.

----------


## mcca7596

> That is a slippery slope, I was once a mild version of myself as well.


LOL, literally.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

Has anyone seen the new Core to Shore report they are presenting to all the MAPS 3 committees?

----------


## Pete

Here you go:

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/core2shore12412.pdf

----------


## Just the facts

> Here you go:
> 
> http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/core2shore12412.pdf


LOL - what a spin.  I wonder which company came up with this wording.  Translation - we built this park for us.  The peasant can have Central Park.




> Some expressed that rather than hinder development to the south, the
> Convention Center might serve to create a more intimate atmosphere for the
> Myriad Gardens while defining the northern edge of the Downtown Park




I can't believe this actually made it into the report.




> The current use of the Cox Convention Center is almost two-thirds community oriented
> and the design of the new Convention Center should recognize and strengthen that
> condition




And where would this be done?  The park should drive residential development - not a convention center.




> Both residential and hotel development should be considered as options adjacent to the
> new Convention Center




I don't see how there is room to even do this, unless the whole thing went verticle.




> A part of the new Convention Center block could be carved out for private development




Once again - where would this occur?




> Build on the success of Myriad Gardens by promoting further development
> around Myriad Gardens


After reviewing the whole document you can tell that the author and most contributers get "urban development" but there are few 'power brokers' that don't.  Their input stands out like a sore thumb.  The plan is 85% good stuff and 15% WT*.  I can easily go through this document and pick out what comments were suggested for inclusion by Devon.

----------


## Jchaser405

> After reviewing the whole document you can tell that the author and most contributers get "urban development" but there are few 'power brokers' that don't.  Their input stands out like a sore thumb.  The plan is 85% good stuff and 15% WT*.  I can easily go through this document and pick out what comments were suggested for inclusion by Devon.


All I could think was "REALLY?" while reading through this especially the "Some expressed that rather than hinder development to the south, the
Convention Center might serve to create a more intimate atmosphere for the
Myriad Gardens while defining the northern edge of the Downtown Park" potion. oh well, I guess I will get use to seeing a huge building from the MBG instead of a beautiful park!

----------


## Just the facts

We are still talking about a $250 million convention center that is supposed to have more contiguous floor space than the Cox Center aren't we.  There is a huge disconnect between the convention center envisioned to meet the needs of the neighborhood and one that is going to provide enough space to increase out of area conventions by 900%.  "Tell them what they want to hear and hope they don't connect the dots" strategy doesn't work in the internet age.

----------


## jungmuny

So they are going to dramatically reduce the footprint of the cc?  Meanwhile the park is surrounded by huge tracts of land that could be used to increase or keep the footprint the same?




> General consensus among interviewed stakeholders is to keep the substation where it is now.


WRONG

----------


## Rover

Keep in mind, the current footprint includes a large arena that won't be duplicated in the new cc.  

I didn't think that using the Ford site for more park has ever been in anyone's plan.  The issue is what kind of structure will divide the Myriad Gardens and Central Park.  Most on here want a residential/mixed use project with some height anyway.  Either way, the view from one to the other WILL be blocked if either sect gets their way.

----------


## Rover

> "Tell them what they want to hear and hope they don't connect the dots" strategy doesn't work in the internet age.


Isn't it the truth.  With internet EVERYONE with a keyboard and an opinion is an expert.

----------


## GaryS

> I think we're splitting hairs here on the type of demolition situation. The point is that Finley was one of downtown's few successful demolition situations. I would even call it an unqualified success once this beaut gets built (by which I mean no matter what).


Out with the old and in with the new.  I think the developers should be congratulated for removing that eye sore.  As far as the future success, well I geuss that only time will tell.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

I have heard two comments from other committee members as we were not informed of this study.

1.  Who requested the study and why?

2.  Who were the "stakeholders and interested parties" that were interviewed?

I also think the questions regarding the streetcar- "What is the rider profile? and Who is this transit serving?" sound like they were tacked onto the list of questions about The Edge development.  lol

----------


## rcjunkie

> We are still talking about a $250 million convention center that is supposed to have more contiguous floor space than the Cox Center aren't we.  There is a huge disconnect between the convention center envisioned to meet the needs of the neighborhood and one that is going to provide enough space to increase out of area conventions by 900%.  "Tell them what they want to hear and hope they don't connect the dots" strategy doesn't work in the internet age.


Just curious, how long have you been designing and building convention centers.

----------


## Just the facts

> Isn't it the truth.  With internet EVERYONE with a keyboard and an opinion is an expert.


No, it means we can find out what they tell group A and compare that to what they tell group B and have access to the historical record.

----------


## Just the facts

> Just curious, how long have you been designing and building convention centers.


How long have you?  I first started working as a City Planner in 1998 but have been studying urbanism since about 1991.

----------


## rcjunkie

> How long have you?


I haven't, but I don't pretend to be an expert and know what and won't work.

----------


## Just the facts

> I haven't, but I don't pretend to be an expert and know what and won't work.


Well then if you don't know what you are talking about maybe you should sit down and be quite, and let the adults discuss the issues.

My guess is you didn't like me questioning your right to discuss the issues of the day.  BTW - I have seen your posts on the politics page.  How long have you been in Congress?

----------


## rcjunkie

> Well then if you don't know what you are talking about maybe you should sit down and be quite, and let the adults discuss the issues.
> 
> My guess is you didn't like me questioning your right to discuss the issues of the day.  BTW - I have seen your posts on the politics page.  How long have you been in Congress?


The difference being that I state what I believe without claiming to know everything. Nice try though.

----------


## Fantastic

Great, here we go...  Seems like the New Convention Center thread all over again...

Look, guys, we are all here to discuss our opinions, even argue back and forth about them, but when two parties refuse to yield it always ends up the same:  Party A, "Since when have you been an expert in ______?"  Party B: "Acctually, since _____, and because of that I know what I'm talking about, and you don't."  Cue the personal attacks... page after page after page, and at some point it stops being relevent.

Just chill out, guys.

----------


## Just the facts

You're right Fantastic but there seems to be a reoccurring theme on OKCTalk.  There are essentially two kinds of people on OKCTalk.  The first group looks at the news and events of the day and comments on them – good or bad.  The second group comments on the people in group one.   It usually consist of "you don't live in OKC" or "you're not an expert".  It gets old.

In the spirit of burying the hatchet - I have decided not join group 2 and take back my comment.  So where were we?

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> I have heard two comments from other committee members as we were not informed of this study.
> 
> 1.  Who requested the study and why?
> 
> 2.  Who were the "stakeholders and interested parties" that were interviewed?
> 
> I also think the questions regarding the streetcar- "What is the rider profile? and Who is this transit serving?" sound like they were tacked onto the list of questions about The Edge development.  lol


I'm going to re-ask these questions again.

----------


## jungmuny

In the past it has appeared that Cornett and the Council have had this MO with MAPS:  After the referendum has passed, acted like some new information has been discovered by a consulting firm, information that goes against voter mandate.  This then allows them to reappropriate the revenue by blaming it on consultants (think P180 projections being off by 100%), thereby insulating themselves from public backlash and keeping the tax revenue spigot at full blast.

----------


## krisb

A "center for conventions" that connects with pedestrians on the street level. This gives me hope.

----------


## RodH

> I am curious how it could be done better.  Genuinely curious.  These costs must be incredibly difficult to estimate _without engineering_ having been done first.  And engineering costs are going to come out of the funding of the project.  So how can OKC get better numbers without accurate engineering done first?


This.

----------


## Just the facts

> I have heard two comments from other committee members as we were not informed of this study.
> 
> 1.  Who requested the study and why?
> 
> 2.  Who were the "stakeholders and interested parties" that were interviewed?
> 
> I also think the questions regarding the streetcar- "What is the rider profile? and Who is this transit serving?" sound like they were tacked onto the list of questions about The Edge development.  lol


Your guess is as good as anyone’s.  I can tell you the Convention Center Committee and Devon Energy were well represented.  At least they stopped with the ‘vibrations’ concern.

----------


## jungmuny

The engineering is important but it should be funded separately from the major funding referendums.  I remember being about 10 years old and thinking, they think they can build a lengthy canal for $8 million?  It came in at $20 m. 
But the streetcar issue isn't about engineering.  They are asking who is going to use it and "What is is the rider profile?".  This has a criminal connotation.  The voters who passed the proposal, that's who!  I am just saying they are laying the groudwork to reneg on the streetcar.

edit: Btw I'm not morally opposed to this type of political maneuvering, just passionate about the streetcar.

----------


## Just the facts

> ... I am just saying they are laying the groudwork to reneg on the streetcar.


This has been my fear from day one and have been warning against it every chance I get.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> It looks like it was done by ADG (I know you know that) and I wonder if it was simply something they put together voluntarily.  Not sure how much difference there is from this "study" and collecting existing notes and slides into this document.  Just a thought.


Your being too kind.  This is a position statement from a select group of individuals.  And I don't mean our good mayor and city council.  To call it a "study" is a genuine stretch.

It is a survey at best of undefined individuals with no solicited broad public input.

----------


## BigD Misey

> sit down and be *quite*


I havent been in the construction and development game for about 6 years now so ill be _quite_ quiet after these Messages:

If OKC is serious about being a player for corporations and conventions and continuing the dream of being an 'elite' city (and I believe everyone on this board is), OKC NEEDS convention facilities and not just a mediocre one. Granted the population and corporate presence and tourism of cities like Houston, Chicago, Vegas, Orlando and LA warrant 2 or 3 Tier 1&2 CCs, but it goes to show: You need a Jewel that catches peoples eye. 

May as well get used to OKC progressing without your consent JTF. 
Surely you arent suggesting OKC (metro population 1.25M) lag FURTHER behind cities like Omaha (population 1.2 mill in metro area/ final cost 291M), Savannah (200k population: final cost 197M) -or- Nashville (population 1.5M - proposed REBUILD of CC cost 595M), all of whom already have a running start on OKC.

I think the city has done great in the last 10-15 years even with perceived imperfections in the original plan, and considering the overruns in the past. Hopefully It wont slow down soon.

With Boeing, the Energy hubs, the Thunder and the River events becoming a real player in the downtown area, OKC will be getting allot of attention quickly and when they see the Cox (arena) convention center, nobody will be thinking "THATS a beautiful place, we want to go out of our way to go there for our convention!" Just keepin it real...OKC needs a really nice CC, other cities have already started to remedy their viability.

----------


## Spartan

An arms race indeed.

----------


## Just the facts

> If OKC is serious about being a player for corporations and conventions and continuing the dream of being an 'elite' city (and I believe everyone on this board is), OKC NEEDS convention facilities and not just a mediocre one.


Here we are in the catch 22 position again.  The chamber says 2/3 of convention center visitors are local.  If the goal is to expand the other 1/3 then we aren't going to do it with the convention center proposed.  We need to spend way more than $250 million.  Of course, the Chamber already knows this and called the MAPS III CC a phase 1, with a phase 2 to come later?  Where do they plan on building this phase 2 by selecting a land-locked location for phase 1?

I am all for the convention center (I can't seem to repeat this enough), I just wish they would move it from the current location to a place that would allow for contiguous expansion while reserving prime space for private development.  MBG is supposed to be a driver of private development but how can that be accomplished if the City keeps building publicly funded projects around it?  I don't know why that doesn't make sense.

----------


## kevinpate

Call me cynical if you must, but yeah .... if you are rabid about , or even mildly interested in, the streetcar coming to life, it would be good to be even more vigilant than ever before.  That mess contains questions that were pretty much already answered (my opinion) but as the answers are not appreciated, it seems the tactic is to just ask all over again.  But, who will be getting asked if that happens?

----------


## ABryant

That PDF was like watching a high school student project created the night before it was due. The language was atrocious. There was very little information given that could not be assumed from the body of information known to the general public. Even worse, this half baked "study" claimed that the street car route needed an additional "study". Do they expect  to be paid by the city to author the needed streetcar study?

----------


## Just the facts

> That PDF was like watching a high school student project created the night before it was due. The language was atrocious. There was very little information given that could not be assumed from the body of information known to the general public. Even worse, this half baked "study" claimed that the street car route needed an additional "study". Do they expect  to be paid by the city to author the needed streetcar study?


That particular question is a tough one for me as I personally don't like the route selected nor the use of couplets, but I resigned myself to the fact that the decision had already been made so I stopped bring it up.  A question about the route doesn't concern me near as much as questions about whether we should have a system at all.

----------


## Jchaser405

> Here we are in the catch 22 position again.  The chamber says 2/3 of convention center visitors are local.  If the goal is to expand the other 1/3 then we aren't going to do it with the convention center proposed.  We need to spend way more than $250 million.  Of course, the Chamber already knows this and called the MAPS III CC a phase 1, with a phase 2 to come later?  Where do they plan on building this phase 2 by selecting a land-locked location for phase 1?
> 
> I am all for the convention center (I can't seem to repeat this enough), I just wish they would move it from the current location to a place that would allow for contiguous expansion while reserving prime space for private development.  MBG is supposed to be a driver of private development but how can that be accomplished if the City keeps building publicly funded projects around it?  I don't know why that doesn't make sense.


Exactly!

----------


## king183

My biggest concern is what I perceive to be laying the groundwork for doing away with the streetcar, or at least delaying it or scaling it back.  Look at these questions from the report.  These are all questions I've seen repeatedly addressed by Urban Pioneer and others.  So why are they making a re-appearance as if these issues are just now coming up?

Modern Streetcar

Findings:
 There was general concern among stakeholders interviewed that the
transit component of the MAPS 3 program needs additional study and
planning. Questions that were raised include:
- What is the market for transit?
- What is the demand?
- How will it connect employment centers and housing?
- What is the rider profile? Who is this transit serving?
- How can transit in Oklahoma City be leveraged to spur high
quality development?
 There was concern among interviewed stakeholders about possible
streetscape clutter created by an overhead wire system.

----------


## betts

There are very simple and obvious answers to the majority of those questions....which leads me to question the breadth of knowledge and sophistication of the questioners.

----------


## Rover

> Here we are in the catch 22 position again.  The chamber says 2/3 of convention center visitors are local.  If the goal is to expand the other 1/3 then we aren't going to do it with the convention center proposed.  We need to spend way more than $250 million.  Of course, the Chamber already knows this and called the MAPS III CC a phase 1, with a phase 2 to come later?  Where do they plan on building this phase 2 by selecting a land-locked location for phase 1?
> 
> I am all for the convention center (I can't seem to repeat this enough), I just wish they would move it from the current location to a place that would allow for contiguous expansion while reserving prime space for private development.  MBG is supposed to be a driver of private development but how can that be accomplished if the City keeps building publicly funded projects around it?  I don't know why that doesn't make sense.


The biggest critics of the cc on this board think there will be no need for expansion as they believe it is a dying business.  If they are right, then all the hand wringing about expansion is baseless.  If indeed they are wrong, the current Cox site is the most logical or the south of the Chesapeake arena.  And, before everyone gets uptight about it being across the blvd, go see Orlando.  It has multiple halls separated by a huge blvd.  Doesn't seem to hurt their business.  Chances are the expanded space will be for multiple events with conflicting dates, not so much for one huge event (we aren't likely to get those anyway). 

Secondly, while the MBG is supposed to drive private development, that doesn't have to mean that it is driving only development for a person or two who already happens to own property adjacent.  If you are looking at it in a micro sense, I guess the objection stands, but if you are looking at it as improving the whole of the downtown core and thereby attracting private development to the core, then it is a weaker objection. I do not believe the huge investment in the garden was just to make ONE parcel more valuable.   The validity of the logic just depends on how you want to frame the argument.  Each has its point.

----------


## Skyline

Has there ever been a top priority Maps project that did not get built?

I know we are waiting on a downtown school, but that is moving along and will be built.

----------


## Just the facts

> The biggest critics of the cc on this board think there will be no need for expansion as they believe it is a dying business.


I think you mean critic - singular.

Have you ever walked around the outside of Orange County Convention Center?  It is deadsville.  International Drive is one of the busiest streets in Orlando with more shopping (albeit tacky shopping) than you can shake a stick at - until you get the convention center area, then all sidewalk life ceases to exist.  Even the convention centers inside Disney World are put at the backs of the hotels out of site because no one wants to walk next to 900 linear feet of walls (or in the case of the Orange Count CC - a half mile of blank walls).

No one wants to turn Oklahoma Blvd into this section of International Drive.  The only pedestrians are the taxi drivers.



Downtown Orlando (sans convention center) however, is booming.

----------


## Just the facts

> Has there ever been a top priority Maps project that did not get built?


Yes, the rail system in MAPS I.  It was supposed to link downtown with the hotels along Meridian with a stop at the fairgrounds.

----------


## Jchaser405

> No one wants to turn Oklahoma Blvd into this section of International Drive.  The only pedestrians are the taxi drivers.


My personal experience has been similar, As I have traveled the past two years for my org I have noticed that most convention sites are dead majority of the time and avoided by locals (including the Cox). 
It would be helpful to me if someone could give me an example of a convention site built correctly that draws tourist and locals.

----------


## Fantastic

> Yes, the rail system in MAPS I.  It was supposed to link downtown with the hotels along Meridian with a stop at the fairgrounds.


Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not 100% sure (maybe 85-90%), but I'm pretty sure the light rail system was only talked about in the early stages of the development... By the time MAPS went to a vote, the idea had been replaced with the Spirit Trolleys which DO link downtown with those hotels (although not the fairgrounds).  So, since it was just an early concept that was never voted on as a part of the first MAPS, it cannot be considered something that did not get built as a part of MAPS because it WASN'T a part of MAPS.

----------


## skanaly

I would think there would be mixed-used places around the new CC

----------


## Rover

> It would be helpful to me if someone could give me an example of a convention site built correctly that draws tourist and locals.


Off the top of my head I can think of a couple: Vancouver and Columbus were both very busy outside when I was there recently.  Also New Orleans.  But there were conventions going on then, too.  Calgary, which is repeatedly pointed out as an example, has theirs right downtown also and is surrounded by a lot of activity.

I don't think by their nature CCs are tourist draws.  If we are trying to draw tourists to downtown maybe we could skip the CC and put mini Magic Mountain there.

Things that benefit from locating close to CCs:  business services, tour businesses, shipping services, hotels, restaurants, coffee shops, art galleries, entertainment venues, etc.  It doesn't have to kill business.

----------


## Just the facts

> Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not 100% sure (maybe 85-90%), but I'm pretty sure the light rail system was only talked about in the early stages of the development... By the time MAPS went to a vote, the idea had been replaced with the Spirit Trolleys which DO link downtown with those hotels (although not the fairgrounds).  So, since it was just an early concept that was never voted on as a part of the first MAPS, it cannot be considered something that did not get built as a part of MAPS because it WASN'T a part of MAPS.


At the time MAPS I passed it was supposed to be a rail system.  It wasn't until about 2 years after the vote that the federal matching grant was denide and it was switched to rubber tire trolley.  The people voted on a train and the City didn't deliver a train.

----------


## MDot

> Off the top of my head I can think of a couple: Vancouver and Columbus were both very busy outside when I was there recently.  Also New Orleans.  But there were conventions going on then, too.  Calgary, which is repeatedly pointed out as an example, has theirs right downtown also and is surrounded by a lot of activity.
> 
> I don't think by their nature CCs are tourist draws.  If we are trying to draw tourists to downtown maybe we could skip the CC and put mini Magic Mountain there.
> 
> Things that benefit from locating close to CCs:  business services, tour businesses, shipping services, hotels, restaurants, coffee shops, art galleries, entertainment venues, etc.  It doesn't have to kill business.


I was in Columbus a few months back and it was very busy outside. From my observation it was one of the few places in Columbus that had people around it.

----------


## Tier2City

> My biggest concern is what I perceive to be laying the groundwork for doing away with the streetcar, or at least delaying it or scaling it back.  Look at these questions from the report.  These are all questions I've seen repeatedly addressed by Urban Pioneer and others.  So why are they making a re-appearance as if these issues are just now coming up?
> 
> Modern Streetcar
> 
> Findings:
>  There was general concern among stakeholders interviewed that the
> transit component of the MAPS 3 program needs additional study and
> planning. Questions that were raised include:
> - What is the market for transit?
> ...



You really do have to wonder exactly who they "interviewed."  Surely not anyone on the Modern Streetcar Alternatives Analysis Steering Committee?  They met multiple times from May 2010 to May 2011 and specifically reviewed professional studies that answered these questions.

Here's the list of members of the AA Steering Committee:
http://www.letstalktransit.com/Websi...ber%202010.pdf 

Seems like a very comprehensive representation of downtown stakeholders.

----------


## Just the facts

nm - that was the AA committee not a MAPS III committee.

----------


## RodH

> At the time MAPS I passed it was supposed to be a rail system.  It wasn't until about 2 years after the vote that the federal matching grant was denide and it was switched to rubber tire trolley.  The people voted on a train and the City didn't deliver a train.


Why don't you tell the whole story if you are going to use this as your example.  Why did the "City" not deliver?

----------


## Urbanized

> At the time MAPS I passed it was supposed to be a rail system.  It wasn't until about 2 years after the vote that the federal matching grant was denide and it was switched to rubber tire trolley.  The people voted on a train and the City didn't deliver a train.


Actually former Congressman Ernest Istook made it impossible, and City officials were privately (and in some cases not so privately) furious. The people voted to fund a small percentage of the overall cost of the trolley plan - contingent on receiving federal funding, which should have been a cinch, based on the politics of the time.

Istook was on the House Appropriations subcommittee, and chaired Appropriation's Transportation subcommittee. He was a noted opponent of nearly all rail initiatives, and he intervened (against protocol, in some respect) in the funding of the trolley, which was actually not even in his district. He buried the trolley funding, and at the same time steered already-dedicated transportation dollars away from Oklahoma in another controversial move. Killing the trolley didn't save U.S. taxpayers, a penny; it just reallocated money already identified as transportation dollars.

It's really not fair to say that the "City didn't deliver a train," because while technically correct, they did everything within their power and were denied by the feds in a way that at the time qualified as highly unusual and unexpected. The rubber tire trolleys were a compromise that made nobody happy, save Ernest.

However, more than a few people today will tell you (quietly) that it might have been a good thing we were denied then, because at the time downtown redevelopment was in its infancy and any route chosen would have been a total crapshoot, likely to not mesh with current or future development patterns.

----------


## Just the facts

> It's really not fair to say that the "City didn't deliver a train," because while technically correct, they did everything within their power and were denied by the feds in a way that at the time qualified as highly unusual and unexpected. The rubber tire trolleys were a compromise that made nobody happy, save Ernest.
> 
> However, more than a few people today will tell you (quietly) that it might have been a good thing we were denied then, because at the time downtown redevelopment was in its infancy and any route chosen would have been a total crapshoot, likely to not mesh with current or future development patterns.


I was just trying to keep it simple to answer the question.  Count me as one of the people who is glad it never got built.  It would have destroyed ANY chance of rail in OKC for three more generations.  It was only going to Meridian to get the support of the hotel operators who were threatening to fight MAPS.  It was being designed and built for all the wrong reasons.

----------


## mcca7596

> However, more than a few people today will tell you (quietly) that it might have been a good thing we were denied then, because at the time downtown redevelopment was in its infancy and any route chosen would have been a total crapshoot, likely to not mesh with current or future development patterns.


This is a very good point I've never thought of before. The only thing I can think of that could be better than what we're getting now is that it might have led to downtown residential taking off sooner and faster.

----------


## Rover

I thought development will follow rail.  If so, why would the route matter so much?  We would have had a head start and building on it now because it would have generated billions in investment. We wouldn't be arguing location of the cc as it could have been on all that vacant land by the fairgrounds. A win-win, huh?

----------


## Just the facts

> I thought development will follow rail.  If so, why would the route matter so much?  We would have had a head start and building on it now because it would have generated billions in investment. We wouldn't be arguing location of the cc as it could have been on all that vacant land by the fairgrounds. A win-win, huh?


You are going to have to clarify if you are being sarcastic or not first.

----------


## Rover

> You are going to have to clarify if you are being sarcastic or not first.


Only semi sarcastic.  Here's the point.  It seems as if everyone worried about the city deceiving us and that there is no future in CCs, it seems an odd argument then to argue we shouldn't have one because the site is too small for expansion.  If they are so sure it will not be used, then certainly an expansion won't be necessary.

As for the rail, okay I was being sarcastic.  The argument for it seems to have been that it will stimulate all this development along the route.  Others argue the route must follow current demand and usage patterns.  I argue that itis somewhere in between.  My response was to the same people saying they were glad we didn't do it years ago because it was destined to go towards the Meridian area.  My cynical response was, "so what".  It would have just driven development that way and now we are years down the road with lost opportunity.

----------


## Urbanized

> Only semi sarcastic.  Here's the point.  It seems as if everyone worried about the city deceiving us and that there is no future in CCs, it seems an odd argument then to argue we shouldn't have one because the site is too small for expansion.  If they are so sure it will not be used, then certainly an expansion won't be necessary.
> 
> As for the rail, okay I was being sarcastic.  The argument for it seems to have been that it will stimulate all this development along the route.  Others argue the route must follow current demand and usage patterns.  I argue that itis somewhere in between.  My response was to the same people saying they were glad we didn't do it years ago because it was destined to go towards the Meridian area.  My cynical response was, "so what".  It would have just driven development that way and now we are years down the road with lost opportunity.


The trolley that was killed by Istook was a rail circulator in downtown. It was anticipated that perhaps down the road there might be a way to leverage an I-40/Meridian rail connection, but the trolley that voters approved in 1993 was to be an old-fashioned trolley (much like what runs in Memphis or NOLA), that made a loop around downtown, nothing more.

----------


## Just the facts

> The trolley that was killed by Istook was a rail circulator in downtown. It was anticipated that perhaps down the road there might be a way to leverage an I-40/Meridian rail connection, but the trolley that voters approved in 1993 was to be an old-fashioned trolley (much like what runs in Memphis or NOLA), that made a loop around downtown, nothing more.


No, it was planned to use the existing rail to Meridian.  No new track was part of it.

----------


## Urbanized

> No, it was planned to use the existing rail to Meridian.  No new track was part of it.


Wow. You're right. Just read the 1993 ballot language again for the first time in years. I had forgotten the I-40 connection led the transit discussion at election time. I can promise you though, by the time the actual planning/defining came around (much like where we are currently with MAPS 3), the discussion had moved strongly in the direction of a trolley circulator in downtown. I guess that is very similar to how the canal took on a life of its own. On the ballot it was an afterthought mentioned in passing on the river improvements subsection. By the time it came to implementation it had become a cornerstone project.

----------


## Urbanized

JTF, here is an article from The Oklahoman's archives on Sept 11, 1996 (with apologies to SOPA Steve):




> Istook Stance May Kill Plan, Officials Say
> 
> Charolette Aiken   
> Published: September 11, 1996
> 
> While a downtown light rail system is critical to the success of the $297 million MAPS plan, city officials said Tuesday, Oklahoma City taxpayers may not be able to afford it if Rep. Ernest Istook blocks federal funding.
> 
> "We would have to come up with a plan outside of MAPS and I don't know yet how we would do that. We can't (afford) the $13 million or $15 million that it's going to take to do it," Mayor Ron Norick said.
> 
> ...

----------


## Just the facts

Thanks for posting that story.  I love it when everyone gets to be right.  They mentioned 9 stops on the downtown loop; did they ever make a route public?  If so, does anyone know what that route was?

----------


## Fantastic

Ok, I apologize for my previous comment, I really thought the light rail to spirit trolley change happened earlier in the process.  Eh, whatever.  The trolleys have worked out pretty well.  And I like thier versatility.  Seems to me that as the Convention Center and park come online, trolley stops can be made at these destinations, whereas if we had a light rail system we would have had to develop AROUND it (not that it would have been all that bad of an idea) because you can't just move the light rail.  

Speaking of the Spirit Trolleys, any information on their longevity?

----------


## Just the facts

> Ok, I apologize for my previous comment, I really thought the light rail to spirit trolley change happened earlier in the process.  Eh, whatever.  The trolleys have worked out pretty well.  And I like thier versatility.  Seems to me that as the Convention Center and park come online, trolley stops can be made at these destinations, whereas if we had a light rail system we would have had to develop AROUND it (not that it would have been all that bad of an idea) because you can't just move the light rail.  
> 
> Speaking of the Spirit Trolleys, any information on their longevity?


Not to LOL, but LOL!  The Spirit trolley were a disaster by every measurable standard.

http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/20...cost-downtown/

----------


## Urbanized

They were so serious about the downtown circulator idea that when they rebuilt Walnut/Mickey Mantle between the ballpark and the canal (both physically and chronologically) I'm pretty sure they did it in such a way that there was a roadbed for rail under the brick. Not sure of the 9 identified trolley stops.

----------


## Larry OKC

*In the defense of the City*, as others have correctly pointed out, it wasn't their fault that the rail type streetcars didn't get built. I don't have the article handy but it stated that they already had track delivered and it was staged to begin laying said track. Then at the proverbial last minute federal funding was cut. If that article was correct, obviously the route had been determined by that point (but I don't ever recall a specific path, other than the general DT to the Fairgrounds to the Meridian hotel corridor).

While many projects in the original MAPS Ballot were general (but all were listed), some were fairly specific (especially for a Ballot, am sure the actual Ordinance 20,045 had more specifics but don't have access to it). As far as the ballot language goes, the Streetcars were very general. In fact the type of "transportation system" isn't mentioned at all. Most discussion seemed to be centered on the rail-bound streetcar idea but this was mentioned in an Oklahoman sidebar:



> Tranportation Link: The city council could choose light rail, monorail or another mass transit system to link downtown with the interstate 40 and Meridian hotel area.


From the 1993 MAPS Ballot (Provided courtesy of Doug on the 1st page of the _"New info on MAPS 3"_ thread):




> Subsection
> 
> (B)(8) All or part of a transportation system and/or related facilities to provide access between Interstate Highway 40 and Meridian Avenue and downtown Oklahoma City; provided, said system and/or facilities shall be funded *only if a Federal grant covering not less than 50%* of applicable costs is obtained.


The ballot had a few supplemental projects listed if funding didn't run out on the main ones:



> (C)(2) All or part of a transportation system and/or related facilities to provide access between downtown Oklahoma City and the vicinity of Remington Park, provided said system and/or facilities shall be funded *only if a Federal grant covering not less than 50%* of applicable costs is obtained.


So it was very clear, even on the ballot that this was dependent on Federal funding coming through (which the City clearly expected to be a given). Interesting to note that this was remembered this time around with MAPS 3 as the Mayor stated that they didn't want to include anything that was dependent on outside funding to get built. We would do it on our own and there would be sufficient funding for cost over runs built in. Can't locate the particular article at the moment, but this one has similar sentiment:
http://www.newsok.com/article/3400807
*MAPS 3 proposals almost ready for Oklahoma voters* (_Oklahoman_, 9/14/09)



> "We are very mindful of doing everything we can to make sure we have enough money to do the projects at the level that the people are going to expect.

----------


## Fantastic

Thanks Larry, that is great information.

As far as the Spirit Trolleys go... Look, I'm sorry that someone whom I personaly respect a great deal had a horrible experience three years ago, but when I said they worked out pretty well, the "measurable standard" that I was using was what I see everyday, and working where I work, I DO see them used on a daily basis, especially durring the main tourist season, and even in the offseason.

NOW back to what I was TRYING to ask.  As far as Core To Shore goes...  Is it possible that Trolley stops could be made at some of the new attractions (Park, CC, and any other associated development), or will that over extend the Trolley "fleet?"  And IF Trolley stops will be added to these new attractions, how long will the aging "fleet" remain serviceable?

----------


## Larry OKC

*Fantastic*: You're welcome. While I am sure they do get used, their impact could be so much greater if they fixed many of the problems discussed here and I think mentioned in the recent blog link (havent checked it). Same with the River Cruise boats. These are  the same folks that are presumably going to be running the MAPS 3 Streetcars...

----------


## Just the facts

From 2010.  Is the downtown trolley still free?  How is the ridership?

http://www.acogok.org/Newsroom/Downloads11/20112013.pdf




> Route 51 (Orange Line Trolley) was reduced to operate only on Fridays and Saturdays from 2:30 pm until 10:30 pm. Route 51 serves the Stockyards district and the Meridian Hotel area. COTPA operated this route using a 29’ Opus bus with a “Stagecoach” style of exterior graphic wrap, not a heritage trolley-look bus after August 1.
> 
> Route 52 (Red Line Trolley) was eliminated in February. It used to run in the Downtown-Bricktown area during weekdays.
> 
> From July 1, downtown trolleys (Blue Line Trolley) were offered free to ride for one year. Platt College is sponsoring this free fare.


One cut, one scaled back, and one free.

----------


## jungmuny

> *In the defense of the City*, ...
>  Then at the proverbial last minute federal funding was cut. If that article was correct, obviously the route had been determined by that point (but I don't ever recall a specific path, other than the general DT to the Fairgrounds to the Meridian hotel corridor).


The reality is that federal funding was never a real possibility. 
Here are the basic reasons I know of that a pet project would get federal funding:
-The President repays a state for their loyalty by using his political capital to push through a project.
-The President, with an eye toward reelection, pushes for federal funding in a swing state.
-A state delegate in Congress uses his seniority on a certain committee/subcommittee to get some funding sent home(e.g. Istook with the crosstown).
-A state delegate in Congress feels reelection heat and pushes through funding back to his constituency.

None of these situations applied to Oklahoma/OKC in the 90s.  The question of federal funding was a smokescreen, it wasn't politically viable.  I'm convinced the streetcar will end up being the legacy of all the MAPS projects and probably Cornett because it was the most popular line item on a ballot that barely passed.  Whether the whole thing was a sham or an unqualified success depends on how the streetcar gets built.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> NOW back to what I was TRYING to ask.  As far as Core To Shore goes...  Is it possible that Trolley stops could be made at some of the new attractions (Park, CC, and any other associated development), or will that over extend the Trolley "fleet?"  And IF Trolley stops will be added to these new attractions, how long will the aging "fleet" remain serviceable?


The whole point of the rails embedded in the street is that they can't move, therefore, leading to private and public development along the tracks.  Would Oklahoma City be here today if AT&SF and SL&SF decided on other routes?  No, I don't think so.  You underestimate the value of any kind of iron rail.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

For what it's worth, MTP has a full audio recording of the entire MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee meeting that will be posted for podcast streaming once the levels are mastered.

----------


## Fantastic

> The whole point of the rails embedded in the street is that they can't move, therefore, leading to private and public development along the tracks.  Would Oklahoma City be here today if AT&SF and SL&SF decided on other routes?  No, I don't think so.  You underestimate the value of any kind of iron rail.


Yes, I understand this, and no I do not underestimate rail... quite the opposite, all I said was that I liked the versatility of the Spririt Trolley... NEVER did I say that I didn't like light rail, as a matter of fact in my original question, I said it would not be a bad thing to develop around a light rail system




> And I like thier versatility.  Seems to me that as the Convention Center and park come online, trolley stops can be made at these destinations, whereas if we had a light rail system we would have had to develop AROUND it *(not that it would have been all that bad of an idea)* because you can't just move the light rail.


I truely appologize if my stance on light rail was misunderstood, I was simply trying to address some of the positive aspects of the trolleys, not undermine light rail.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> For what it's worth, MTP has a full audio recording of the entire MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee meeting that will be posted for podcast streaming once the levels are mastered.


http://soundcloud.com/moderntransitp...maps-3-transit

----------


## skanaly

Is there an updated Core to Shore map somewhere?

----------


## Spartan

> Ok, I apologize for my previous comment, I really thought the light rail to spirit trolley change happened earlier in the process.  Eh, whatever.  The trolleys have worked out pretty well.  And I like thier versatility.  Seems to me that as the Convention Center and park come online, trolley stops can be made at these destinations, whereas if we had a light rail system we would have had to develop AROUND it (not that it would have been all that bad of an idea) because you can't just move the light rail.  
> 
> Speaking of the Spirit Trolleys, any information on their longevity?


Well, rubber-tire trolleys became popular in the 90s and quickly got debunked. There does need to be a certain degree of permanence in order for a transit solution to result in ridership, infill, and functionality.

----------


## Steve

Urbanized, never heard that nickname used in reference to me before.
I'll be visiting your store in the morning for free "samples" of your First Rate historic photos, DVDs, CDs and art work. I'm sure you won't mind, seeing as you're such a proponent of ensuring we have the right to enjoy the fruits of folks' creative efforts for free. 
With that response to your nickname done with, I'd also advise caution in assuming anything written under the byline of the story you posted is completely accurate.

----------


## Just the facts

> The whole point of the rails embedded in the street is that they can't move, therefore, leading to private and public development along the tracks.  Would Oklahoma City be here today if AT&SF and SL&SF decided on other routes?  No, I don't think so.  You underestimate the value of any kind of iron rail.


That is why towns built along railroads still exist and towns built on stage coach lines are called ghost towns today.

----------


## Rover

Oddly enough, it was also rails that enabled the first suburban sprawl.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> That is why towns built along railroads still exist and towns built on stage coach lines are called ghost towns today.


And towns that set up before the railroads picked their routes and were missed by even a few miles, went quietly into the night.

----------


## Fantastic

> Well, rubber-tire trolleys became popular in the 90s and quickly got debunked. There does need to be a certain degree of permanence in order for a transit solution to result in ridership, infill, and functionality.


*facepalm*  How many times do I have to say this.  I'm NOT against light rail.  JTF, Spartan, and OKCisOK4me have all misunderstood my point.  I specifically noted in that post that developing around a permanent rail line would NOT HAVE BEEN A BAD IDEA...  I even quoted myself later and made that part bold so you guys would understand.  I even apologized for not being clear about it.  So let me once again try to clear this up.

I see people use the trolleys everyday.  So you can't tell me that they are a disaster.  I SEE THEM BEING USED CONSTANTLY.  That does not mean that I think they are more effective than rail.  Rail will encourage development, the trolleys will not.  But one positive to the trolleys is that they are more versitile and pick up and drop off points can be changed as needed...  So for the last time... pointing out the positive aspects of the trolleys does NOT mean that someone is against rail, or that that person does not see the benefits of rail.

All I want to know is if trolley stops will be added near new attractions, and how much longer the trolleys will operate.

----------


## Just the facts

I guess it comes down to what you think the purpose of a transportation system is.  A lot of people think it is just a means to get from point A to point B and leave it at that.  If you look at the bigger picture, transportation determines the locations of point A and B and can influence development patterns for generations.  The more permanent the transportation infrastructure is the more influence it exerts.

Do 100 people ride the downtown trolley?  Probably.  Is anyone going to build a $30 million apartment building because it is on the trolley route?  Nope.  I am more interested in driving development for generations.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> *facepalm*
> All I want to know is if trolley stops will be added near new attractions, and how much longer the trolleys will operate.


Good question.  Folks, stop badgering the man!  The "life span" of the existing trolley units is approximately 12 - 13 years before you can get rid of them.  That is an FTA mandate since there are federal monies involved.  Some of them have been refurbished.  Some of them have not seen 12 - 13 years of continuous use as some were rotated "back-ups."

I would suspect that they will continue to run downtown until the streetcar system is running.  If they are kept by COTPA, it would probably be for special event use and to reach areas not covered by the new streetcar system.  Because the maintenance on them is somewhat intensive, I would suspect that new types of buses might replace hem ultimately.

Folks, people hate it when you subvert the thread.  Back to topic which is C2S.  There is a great deal of info out there now.

----------


## Fantastic

Thanks Urban Pioneer, that's exactly what I wanted to know.

----------


## Urbanized

> ...I'd also advise caution in assuming anything written under the byline of the story you posted is completely accurate.


While I understand your point, during that time frame I can tell you I was involved in a number of meetings, lunches and whatnot with people who were close to the matter (many of them people you know well also), who were very clear on the subject. The focus of the "transportation" project switched almost exclusively to discussion of a trolley circulator, with only lip service and loose "phase two" discussion of the I-40/Meridian link. The plan was to put rail in the streets downtown, have rubber tire service to I-40/Meridian, and (hopefully) eventually expand rail service to that location and elsewhere. You and I have a mutual friend who I'm sure would privately corroborate this.

Also, the thread has moved off-topic. Sorry for my role in the threadjack.

----------


## jungmuny

> http://soundcloud.com/moderntransitp...maps-3-transit


Bullet points for the beginning and end because I skipped the convention center mess:
-Consultants proposed a Bricktown parking garage referred to as the U-haul site.  Because Continental is moving in and also because of Thunder games, a north downtown garage became higher priority.  Sites considered are 6th and Robinson, 9th/10th and Robinson, and another further west.  The Bricktown garage is still under consideration supposedly.  
-5-6 miles of streetcar were promised at $20 million a mile.  3-4 are currently being planned.  
-Sante Fe depot got purchase approval.
-A city garage was sold to Sandridge for $8.6 million, which was used to pay all? outstanding bonds.  This puts them in a position to get "back into debt"

Edit: Thanks for the fact checking Pete, somebody's paying attention!  At 1.30 in the clip, they say they go from $45 m in debt to no debt, so I thought the parking garage covered the whole amount.

----------


## Urban Pioneer

> Bullet points for the beginning and end because I skipped the convention center mess:
> -Consultants proposed a Bricktown parking garage referred to as the U-haul site.  Because Continental is moving in and also because of Thunder games, a north downtown garage became higher priority.  Sites considered are 6th and Robinson, 9th/10th and Robinson, and another further west.  The Bricktown garage is still under consideration supposedly.  
> -5-6 miles of streetcar were promised at $20 million a mile.  3-4 are currently being planned.  
> -Sante Fe depot got purchase approval.
> -A city garage was sold to Sandridge for $45 million, which was used to pay all? outstanding bonds.  This puts them in a position to get "back into debt"


I'd say the most interesting thing about this particular meeting is that it gives some "context" to what a great many "movers and shakers" are thinking in the C2S area.

I do have a problem with a great many of the opinions put forth expressed as if they constitute a "study."  It was a survey with some respected planing firms giving the survey more weight.

Several of us have talked to several of the people interviewed, and even as a survey, it was completely unscientific with different questions asked of different people and no uniform context.

The thing that this "study" does illustrate is that many good ideas are sticking, many "mistakes" will be carried through, and there are still many uneducated people in urban design who are thrown into the middle of this plan.  OKC is growing up, and is finally culminating the precursor to the final vision for the Park, Blvd, and CC site.

----------


## Pete

> -A city garage was sold to Sandridge for $45 million, which was used to pay all? outstanding bonds.  This puts them in a position to get "back into debt"


The Broadway-Kerr Garage was sold by COPTA to SandRidge for $8.6 million.

Not sure where that $45 million figure came from, but it's obviously way off.

----------


## Snowman

> The Broadway-Kerr Garage was sold by COPTA to SandRidge for $8.6 million.
> 
> Not sure where that $45 million figure came from, but it's obviously way off.


I am not sure if this may be the case, but there was a discussion about selling multiple garages at city council what seems like a few months ago, it is possible the 45 million figure was the estimated sale prices of all the possible garages that may be sold combined.

----------


## Pete

The only garages sold other than Broadway-Kerr are the two City Center Garages, but that was a couple of years ago.

They have said they are negotiating to sell the Century Center garage but that hasn't happened yet.

----------


## Pete

Listening to this podcast, the whole idea of the survey presented in the meeting seems misguided.

Basically, they went to a bunch of downtown power players and asked for opinions of the streetcar (among other things) and you can tell that many of them are either completely uninformed or out-right against the system.  They came back with comments "What is the need for this system?  What is the projected ridership?  What is the profile of the riders?  What is the economic impact?"

All these questions are completely silly at this point.  MAPS 3 has long been approved and the streetcar was the most popular part of it.  Why even go out and solicit such questions at this point?  It just puts negative rhetoric out to the public which in turn causes more negativity.

I don't blame the subcommittee for implying their years of work has been disrespected.  I'd also argue that soliciting that sort of input at this stage is completely counter-productive.

This "survey" -- being incorrectly presented as a study -- was not very well thought out or executed.  It's also clear that several powerful people downtown are working against the streetcar.

----------


## Spartan

> Listening to this podcast, the whole idea of the survey presented in the meeting seems misguided.
> 
> Basically, they went to a bunch of downtown power players and asked for opinions of the streetcar (among other things) and you can tell that many of them are either completely uninformed or out-right against the system.  They came back with comments "What is the need for this system?  What is the projected ridership?  What is the profile of the riders?  What is the economic impact?"


I bet you those kinds of questions wouldn't be asked about the convention center...

----------


## Pete

The survey actually solicited input on the CC, Central Park and the streetcar -- all under the umbrella of Core to Shore but broken out separately.

The comments about the streetcar were almost all negative and/or in the vein of "why are we doing this?".  For the other two they were mainly positive with some small suggestions.


I'll link the findings later, as the city site seems to be on the fritz right now.

----------


## kevinpate

> I bet you those kinds of questions wouldn't be asked about the convention center...



Nah, they asked the same questions, but each had the same answer as well: "who cares.  We want one and we're gonna get one."

----------


## Pete

Listening to the presentation by Rick Cain of COPTA he did say they had $45 million in debt before selling the City Center garages and now Broadway-Kerr.

Now they have no debt they are finalizing a study that seems to indicate there will be the need for two CBD garages just for downtown workers and probably a couple of more (Bricktown and AA) to support economic development in those areas.

Mentioned Robinson between 5th & 6th as a possible location but nothing has been finalized as of yet.

----------


## Just the facts

> Basically, they went to a bunch of downtown power players and asked for opinions of the streetcar (among other things) and you can tell that many of them are either completely uninformed or out-right against the system.  They came back with comments "What is the need for this system?  What is the projected ridership?  What is the profile of the riders?  What is the economic impact?"
> 
> All these questions are completely silly at this point.  MAPS 3 has long been approved and the streetcar was the most popular part of it.  Why even go out and solicit such questions at this point?  It just puts negative rhetoric out to the public which in turn causes more negativity.


If I was trying to build a convention center that is going to cost 2 or 3 time as much as I have available I would be trying to cast as much doubt on other projects as I could.

----------


## Spartan

> Nah, they asked the same questions, but each had the same answer as well: "who cares.  We want one and we're gonna get one."


Yeah, either that or the evil laugh..

----------


## Steve

It's interesting how these processes get shaped as they go along...

----------


## BBatesokc

Original Core to Shore assumptions face scrutiny in new report
Consultants overseeing master planning for MAPS 3 have completed a report that calls into question several aspects of the Core to Shore plan, including original suggestions that the area will attract retail and residential development.


Read more: http://newsok.com/original-core-to-s...#ixzz1pqTlA53K

http://newsok.com/original-core-to-s...rticle/3659676

----------


## betts

> Original Core to Shore assumptions face scrutiny in new report
> Consultants overseeing master planning for MAPS 3 have completed a report that calls into question several aspects of the Core to Shore plan, including original suggestions that the area will attract retail and residential development.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://newsok.com/original-core-to-s...#ixzz1pqTlA53K
> 
> http://newsok.com/original-core-to-s...rticle/3659676


I never saw the areas adjacent to the park as extremely appealing for retail, but anyone who thinks that property adjacent to the park won't be appealing for residential hasn't thought this through and likely lives in the suburbs.  Town homes adjacent to the park would be enough for me to consider moving, and would likely appeal to families more than current downtown housing.  The new school will add to interest in living downtown for families and land adjacent to the park is close. We have yet to see what the appeal of an upscale tower downtown would be, but the security of a tower with doorman could well also appeal to people who've not yet seen downtown housing that they like. We're not necessarily talking next year. The Core to Shore plan was always a long term one.  But I would move there next year, as a little blight adjacent doesn't scare me.

What I think is a mistake is spending any money to wrap the substation. I would wait to see what the convention center land sells  for.  If the price is close to that figure, I'd start thinking about marketing that land to a developer.  That piece of property is too valuable to waste $10 million on a disguise.  Of course, I would put the convention center there, so what do I know?

----------


## Popsy

Somewhat amazing to me that Steve's article left out the part about numerous stakeholders questioning the validity of the streetcar.  After listening to city staff and and consulting firms bring the streetcar committee up to date and the committee members reaction to the update one would think that would be part of the article or a seperate article in itself.  In my view the concerns over development in the core to shore are easily remedied.  Just run the streetcar line down Robinson, behind Union Station, then back north on Walker, encircling the park and development will be generated at a frantic pace.  At least I have been led to believe that would be the case if the streetcar enthusiats are to be believed and I have no reason not to believe them.  Midtown development will grow on it's own as it has already started.  Will the steetcar committee suggest this to win over those doubting stakeholders or are they fearful their claims of development following the tracks could very well be a ruse?  Please tell us what you think JTF.

----------


## Just the facts

Success of the streetcar around the Concention Center will depend on if the CC can deliver the promised 900% increase in out of state attendance.  Or was that a ruse to win over stakeholders to support adding the CC to MAPS III.  Personally, I think the streetcar can come closer to spuring development along the park than the CC can come to seeing a 900% increase in out-of-state attendance.

However, I would love to see Core to Shore developed as a high density pedestrian/mass transit area.  I say the city should allocate extra funds to extend the streetcar to this area as part of phase 1.

----------


## Popsy

Why, JTF, should extra funds be extended when the Midtown route can be dropped and the money from that be used in core to shore.  After all, Midtown was never mentioned on the ballot (it was to be a downtown issue) or in the fixed guideway study as only downtown was mentioned.  Also, what caused you to throw in thoughts about the CC as my question to you never mentioned the CC.  I just wanted to know your or any others opinions about the core to shore area be subject to development following the rails.  Could you direct your thoughts to whether or not develpment would follow the rail in the core to shore area?

----------


## Larry OKC

Lets not get into what was and wasn't on the ballot (since nothing specific was on the ballot)...and they were already getting panned that MAPS 3 was DT centric again (it was more of a hybrid of MAPS & MAPS 4 Kids). But IIRC, it was *UrbanPioneer* that mentioned the Midtown spur was a direct result of the Council wanting to get more mileage as it were out of the Streetcar and not just a DT circulator. However, I agree it was a given that there would be a tie-in with the Streetcars and as many of the other MAPS & MAPS 3 projects as possible. Running the length and/or looping around the Park & the Union Station a logical Streetcar stop

----------


## Popsy

Larry, I think I might disagree with you here as a vague memory of the ballot referenced the projects being touted, which included a downtown streetcar system.   Perhaps you know of a website that has a copy of the ballot..  My point here is that provided development follows the rail as streetcar activists insist it does,  would placement of rail in that area better serve the city by enhancing and speeding up development in core to shore and would that not be better for the city than a jaunt up to 13th street in midtown?  I would also be interested in knowing if any of the streetcar committee members live near the proposed midtown route.

----------


## Larry OKC

*Popsy*: You may be thinking of the original MAPS ballot which did list the projects (with a surprising amount of detail), MAPS 3 did not list ANY of the projects, basically defined the beginning/ending dates of the tax, the amount of the tax and the stipulation that the money be spent of the vague term "capital improvements". The actual Ordinance went into great verbiage defining it but was so inclusive that it could honestly be spent on just about whatever the Council decides at the time. The Ordinance didn't list the projects either. There was the infamous "Letter of Intent" that did list the projects, but that "Intent" wasn't even mentioned or referenced on the Ballot/Ordinance. It is legally non-binding and as we found out with the courts decision with Bass Pro, the Council can legally change their intent at any time.

I don't disagree with the point of your post...continue...

----------


## Urban Pioneer

Lets just say that you will then both be pleased with the new route about to be released from our committee for approval.  C2S and Deep Deuce are now proposed to be serviced and there is no proposal for two separate stages.  More to come shortly.

----------


## Popsy

Larry, I wasn't confusing it with the original Maps, but could easily have confused it with the letter of intent being a part of the ballot.  I think I can safely say that the letter of intent referenced it being a downtown streetcar and core to shore will be a part of downtown as will bricktown.

----------


## Larry OKC

If one of those is me, that is way kewl.... :Irule:

----------


## mcca7596

> I say the city should allocate extra funds to extend the streetcar to this area as part of phase 1.


You mean potential federal funds, correct?

----------


## Tier2City

The exact text of the letter of intent (don't laugh, Larry) reads:

2. A new rail-based streetcar system to service the inner city and/or to service other areas within The City of Oklahoma City, plus funding for other transit infrastructure as appropriate, such as connections to other rail-based systems and/or a transit hub.

----------


## mcca7596

> Midtown development will grow on it's own as it has already started.


The streetcar will just make Midtown that much more viable for downtown living and more dense. There is nothing to leverage right now with Core to Shore in regards to the streetcar, other than the park. 

I think even if the streetcar concentrated on CTS, it would take it 20 years to just become what Midtown is now. Whereas, if the streetcar services Midtown, it and Deep Deuce could be in 20 years where CTS is going to be in 50+ years (if that makes sense).

----------


## Urban Pioneer

The Wednesday MAPS 3 Transit Subcommittee Meeting...  Strong discussion and a formal response to the Core to Shore Study.

http://soundcloud.com/moderntransitp...maps-3-transit

----------


## Urban Pioneer

We were forced to discuss this again at length.

http://soundcloud.com/moderntransitproject-okc/

----------


## Spartan

What was the outcome of the last formal response?

----------


## BoulderSooner

> What was the outcome of the last formal response?


received by the maps 3 board .. goes with core to shore study to the council meeting today

----------


## Spartan

Hmm..I may head down there to see what happens at council..thanks.

----------


## Double Edge

I watched it this morning.

----------


## BDP

IMO, MidTown is the key to the streetcar's success. There is sooooo much more that could be done with that district. If they try and do anything other than CBD > Deep Deuce > MidTown, then it will be way less successful than it could. Initially serving C2S would probably ensure that this project will be the end of rail in Oklahoma City. Some seem worried that it won't be used and if they run it to a district that is generations away from being viable as opposed to serving the ones that are already emerging, then it's guaranteed to fail, meanwhile killing any hope that it will be expanded in the future and maybe killing a lot of trust in the voters to ever do another MAPS type initiative. I'm sure some secretly hope that is the case.

----------


## Just the facts

nm

----------


## SoonerBoy18

When does the core to shore developments actually start? Do residents have to vote to approve it before they get started?

----------


## G.Walker

> When does the core to shore developments actually start? Do residents have to vote to approve it before they get started?


MAPS3 via the Central Park will jump start Core to Shore.

----------


## Spartan

Doubtful. C2S is doomed.

----------


## betts

> Doubtful. C2S is doomed.


Seriously??? You've got that much developable land adjacent to the CBD, close to Bricktown, touched by the Peake, served by the streetcar, close to the river and you think it's doomed?  I think it is drought with possibility. I know eople who are renting while waiting for the first housing options to be developed.  I would live there myself, should the opportunity arise.

----------


## wschnitt

> When does the core to shore developments actually start? Do residents have to vote to approve it before they get started?



God I hope not.  I think the intention was private developments.

----------


## Spartan

> Seriously??? You've got that much developable land adjacent to the CBD, close to Bricktown, touched by the Peake, served by the streetcar, close to the river and you think it's doomed?  I think it is drought with possibility. I know eople who are renting while waiting for the first housing options to be developed.  I would live there myself, should the opportunity arise.


Yes, seriously. Why hasn't it developed over the last hundred years? Answer - the exact same factors that we have recreated in a frenzy of bad planning. There was a highway in the way, now there will be two, far more intrusive than the Crosstown viaduct ever was. There was a convention center in the way, now there will be an even larger one. 

I don't know what OKC leaders are smoking right now honestly. Bath salts? Does bath salts make someone want to commit a C2S??  :Smiley036: 

Life will be easier when the people who care so much just give up. The worthless triumvirate of Cornett, Couch, and Wenger will succeed in running OKC into the ground. It's not a question of if, but rather when. At least back when the junta was the most insidious factor in city politics, most all could still agree they were competent. OKC will start making good decisions again when it reaches rock bottom, just like in the 90s.

Sometimes I think there may not be a more hopeless city out there, but then I'm always reminded that Dallas, the city we aspire to recreate, is pretty hopeless as well. They're just 6 times larger and growing 3 times as fast as us.

----------


## Snowman

> Why hasn't it developed over the last hundred years?


It did, your forgetting our original urban renewal plan of bulldoze and hope for development.

----------


## Spartan

Which by the way, let's talk about all the structures in C2S that are going to be bulldozed. Probably the Salvation Army, old Film Exchange, other buildings lining S. Broadway and S. Robinson, and probably all of SW 3rd which should be a historic district in its own right.

Shockingly enough, there is still even more de-urbanization that can occur here. We have a new rock bottom to set as our goal with wholesale 70s-style urban renewal orchestrated by people who refuse to learn from history, let alone read about it.

----------


## betts

Spartan, unless I've missed something, the parks subcommittee is looking at saving some of those buildings. As far as saying OKC is the most hopeless city out there, it's when people think that that we might as well give up hope.  You're too young to remember Oklahoma City 30 years ago.  I thought OKC was hopeless then, and am pretty astounded at what has happened since.  I've had two people here in Chicago tell me they visited Oklahoma City recently and both of them commented on how "pretty" our downtown is.  Now, urban and gritty might be our goal, but pretty is quite an improvement from desolate wasteland, which was my description of downtown when  I moved here.

----------


## ljbab728

betts, Spartan is obviously just in one of his moods today.  He'll get over it.

----------


## rcjunkie

> betts, Spartan is obviously just in one of his moods today.  He'll get over it.


Is your tongue still in your cheek ?

----------


## mmonroe

http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=5646

Sounds familiar....

----------


## Just the facts

Unless Cincinnati is going to get rid of that 318' of road space between downtown and the river it isn't going to work there either.  It is sad to think that all 318' feet of road capacity could be replaced by one single lane of track 4' 8.5" wide, but they chose the 18 lanes of road instead.  I had a high hopes for C2S but with the extreme width of the new I-40 I just don't see how it is going to happen.

----------


## BoulderSooner

those developments will be very very successful ... living between the 2 pro stadiums  right next to the CBD and also next to the street car line ...   it will be a home run

----------


## Just the facts

> those developments will be very very successful ... living between the 2 pro stadiums  right next to the CBD and also next to the street car line ...   it will be a home run


We'll see.  Philadelphia has a very similar situation - super high density development in South Philly, I-76, and then three sports stadiums.  For some reason the high density doesn't cross the freeway.  They also have the same thing along I-95 (high density on one side - low density on the other).

----------


## BoulderSooner

> We'll see.  Philadelphia has a very similar situation - super high density development in South Philly, I-76, and then three sports stadiums.  For some reason the high density doesn't cross the freeway.  They also have the same thing along I-95 (high density on one side - low density on the other).


i will also say that the bridge crossings are also pretty pedestrian friendly .... during OU/cinn  we (and lots of others) walked all over the CBD and then back to the football stadium

----------


## Just the facts

> i will also say that the bridge crossings are also pretty pedestrian friendly .... during OU/cinn  we (and lots of others) walked all over the CBD and then back to the football stadium


The key to walking is having a destination to go to.  If you were in downtown Cincy and there was not a game would you walk over to the stadium?

----------


## BoulderSooner

> The key to walking is having a destination to go to.  If you were in downtown Cincy and there was not a game would you walk over to the stadium?


of course not ... but if i lived next to the stadium .. and i wanted to go to a bar or grab a bite to eat i would go into down town ..  or jump on the street car and go to uptown (not sure what they call it)

----------


## Just the facts

The presence of a streetcar does make a difference.

----------


## Larry OKC

<sigh> This is what I was talking about having the Streetcar going to Union Station...the fact that it went there would help make it a destination, instead of an interesting focal backdrop

----------


## betts

MAPS IV Larry!  I should insert an evil grin smiley here, I suppose.  There's only so much money, and the streetcar will stop across from the park.  The park itself will be a destination, and if there's something interesting in Union Station such as a restaurant, a museum, some shopping, people will walk there during their stroll through the park.  I'd like to see it used as an event center as well, as people will want to get married in the park, and it would be nice to have an adjacent reception option.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

Must we remind Larry that Union Station has been rendered useless when it comes to being redeemed as an actual station.  Yes, if we get East/West commuter rail service on that line--one day--it might make for a nice lil stop but it's just too far away from downtown to be a pedestrian friendly stop.  The Santa Fe station is THE STATION that is in the works.

----------


## Spartan

The reason Union Station was rendered useless is because the rail yard was removed by ODOT, I hear they built a highway up against it, so as to make sure there is never room again to make Union Station viable as a hub for rail.

----------


## Dubya61

> The reason Union Station was rendered useless is because the rail yard was removed by ODOT, I hear they built a highway up against it, so as to make sure there is never room again to make Union Station viable as a hub for rail.


(Sarcasm inferred, I believe, but) Please forgive my naivete:  Is ODOT against non-automobile transportation?  What the heck does ODOT stand for? and should it be ODOA?

----------


## Spartan

Well, I have never accused ODOT of much simply because I don't know a lot about them, but I do think the Crosstown project was a Big Dig (any project that triples in cost over its lifetime strikes me as pretty corrupt), many transit experts have accused ODOT of having a vendetta against trains, and the moderate transit experts who can't afford to burn bridges have even said that the rail office at ODOT is a corner of a basement. So you can draw your own conclusions...

So at best they just don't understand rail and won't give it a chance, at worst...(I think these things fall in the middle usually)

----------


## catcherinthewry

> Well, I have never accused ODOT of much simply because I don't know a lot about them


"Don't know a lot about them".....but then you go on to throw a bunch of speculation about them out there.  Wow.

----------


## Spartan

> "Don't know a lot about them".....but then you go on to throw a bunch of speculation about them out there.


A bunch of speculation? Wow. I could say a lot worse things about ODOT, I thought the poster would appreciate a more conservative answer that allowed him to draw his own conclusions. Here's a whole post I did a while ago on ODOT's legacy in downtown OKC. For those of you who don't know, it was ODOT that completely leveled almost all of Deep Deuce.
http://downtownontherange.blogspot.c...in-dt-okc.html

And let me get this straight. You're personally attacking me for pausing and avoiding a blanket statement, deferring to comments from people who would know a lot more on the situation than me, and then keeping the scope of my comments to what I do know. 

But yes, I apologize for keeping my more indicting comments to the entities that I do know the ins and outs of. Let us know if you care to defend ODOT against any of the facts anyone else has stated. I'll also mention that I know last time was the first time ODOT has ever submitted a "real" RFP to FTA for meaningful rail transit funds, meaning that they actively decided against for all prior appropriation rounds. 

I also know that FTA decided against giving OKC a grant to extend our streetcar coverage because they noted a significant lack of political will, I would conservatively guess that ODOT had a lot to do with that. I guess I forgot to mention that.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

19 vs 7291...whoops!

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Must we remind Larry that Union Station has been rendered useless when it comes to being redeemed as an actual station.  Yes, if we get East/West commuter rail service on that line--one day--it might make for a nice lil stop but it's just too far away from downtown to be a pedestrian friendly stop.  The Santa Fe station is THE STATION that is in the works.


even an east west line would not go by union station it would go from MWC to Sante Fe  to the airport to ??

----------


## catcherinthewry

> 19 vs 7291...whoops!


And how many of those 7291 have been negative.  I may not have been around very long, but it doesn't take long to get tired of Spartan's constant negativity.  I've gotten the impression that I'm not the only one.




> And let me get this straight. You're personally attacking me for pausing and avoiding a blanket statement, deferring to comments from people who would know a lot more on the situation than me, and then keeping the scope of my comments to what I do know.


You call that a personal attack?  I just thought it was ironic that you stated that you didn't know much about ODOT then threw out accusations about them while attributing them to uncited "transit experts".

----------


## catcherinthewry

> http://downtownontherange.blogspot.c...in-dt-okc.html


Finally a citation.......oh wait, you're citing yourself. :Headscratch:

----------


## kevinpate

A park, a park
a lark flew by a park
No waiting, no baiting
no highway or rail hating
a park, a park, a park

and ... the potential for development around it.

I'm thinking some big open kite flying space will be fun when it is in place.

----------


## Larry OKC

> MAPS IV Larry!  I should insert an evil grin smiley here, I suppose.  There's only so much money, and the streetcar will stop across from the park.  The park itself will be a destination, and if there's something interesting in Union Station such as a restaurant, a museum, some shopping, people will walk there during their stroll through the park.  I'd like to see it used as an event center as well, as people will want to get married in the park, and it would be nice to have an adjacent reception option.


(Not all directed at Betts)
And it may be MAPS 4 before we are ready to use Union Station for its designed purpose (rail transport) again. While some of the tracks were torn out with I-40 relocation, it is my understanding that some remain so it could still be used for a Streetcar stop. i understand that the Santa Fe is going to be the Hub (I have said it before, from an asthetics standpoint, I would flop the two buildings if I could), but that doesn't mean Union Station can't be utilized too...it is far from being "rendered useless". It is only rendered useless if you make the deliberate decision to make it that way be not having the Streetcar go there which is what wee are doing if the proposed route is approved. it is not too late to correct it.  I understand the limited funds aspect (but offered suggestions to get more mile for the buck on that, at least enough to make it to Union Station). Hopefully if it isn't somehow used for Streetcars, it will be used for other Park purposes(but why not those and a Streetcar stop too?) like a place to get something to eat, rent a bike etc and not remain office space for our parking folks....which is definitely not an example of higher and/or best use IMHO

Also, in Core to Show renderings, there was supposed to be an Event Center built next to the Station but it was one of the things that committee said the Park needed to have that got eliminated

----------


## Larry OKC

> A park, a park
> a lark flew by a park
> No waiting, no baiting
> no highway or rail hating
> a park, a park, a park
> 
> and ... the potential for development around it.
> 
> *I'm thinking some big open kite flying space will be fun when it is in place.*


Be careful of the trees and the power lines from the substation...
 :Sofa:

----------


## Just the facts

> <sigh> This is what I was talking about having the Streetcar going to Union Station...the fact that it went there would help make it a destination, instead of an interesting focal backdrop


The difference is Larry that the Cincy streetcar will serve two exisiting destinations on the south side of the freeway - two sports stadiums one of which hosts 91 home games.  Union Station doesn't host anything.

----------


## Larry OKC

*JTF*: And it wont as long as people keep viewing it the way they are...I was agreeing with your point that for walking (as some are suggesting is going to happen with the way the Streetcar is routed now), is that it needs to be a destination point, that can be helped by it being a Streetcar stop along with the other things *betts* mentioned...you asked:



> If you were in downtown Cincy and there was not a game would you walk over to the stadium?


Is someone going to walk to Union Station if there is nothing there? 

And my apologies, I am not trying to hijack the thread but the Park and Streetcar are an integral part of Core to Shore

----------


## Just the facts

I know we had this discussion before but let's say the streetcar gos to Union Station and has a stop right at the front door.  Who do you envision getting on and off at this stop?  Where is this person going, where are they coming from, and why are they there?   Are they just going to go there because that is where the streetcar goes?

----------


## Larry OKC

The same folks that are riding the streetcar to any of the stops on the route. Those that want to check out the Union Station and what it has to offer, those using the Park but aren't inclined to walk it from one end to the other to do so. Those wanting to go across the SkyDancer bridge. If you have no interest in that particular stop, you stay on it until it gets where you want to go...same for any of the other stops. Same for bus stops or any other form of transportation

----------


## Just the facts

Based on those activites you provided I can probably count on one hand the number of people who fit that profile.  If you don't like to walk why are you going to the park or crossing a 400' pedestrian bridge?  Maybe an urban excursion train would be more suited to what you are thinking.

----------


## ljbab728

> Based on those activites you provided I can probably count on one hand the number of people who fit that profile.  If you don't like to walk why are you going to the park or crossing a 400' pedestrian bridge?  Maybe an urban excursion train would be more suited to what you are thinking.


Here's the solution, Kerry.  LOL

Put one of these running all over the park and nobody will have to walk anywhere.

----------


## Spartan

I used to ride the one at the Zoo when I was on training wheels. I don't even know if they still have that train out at the Zoo, but it was cool. That just made me realize my earliest train love, thanks ljbab.

There's also something identical to this at old timey amusement parks like Cedar Point in Ohio or Arnolds Park in Iowa.

----------


## ljbab728

> I used to ride the one at the Zoo when I was on training wheels. I don't even know if they still have that train out at the Zoo, but it was cool. That just made me realize my earliest train love, thanks ljbab.
> 
> There's also something identical to this at old timey amusement parks like Cedar Point in Ohio or Arnolds Park in Iowa.


 I was joking in posting that video but actually something like that might eventually be a fun thing for the park.

----------


## Just the facts

> I was joking in posting that video but actually something like that might eventually be a fun thing for the park.


If anyone ever gets the chance check out the Largo Central Park Railroad in Largo, FL.  If you love trains then you will love that park.  On the first full weekend of eveny month they have model trains big enough to ride and the tracks go all over the park.  Very cool and very fun.

http://www.lcrailroad.com/

----------


## Buffalo Bill

> The reason Union Station was rendered useless is because the rail yard was removed by ODOT, I hear they built a highway up against it, so as to make sure there is never room again to make Union Station viable as a hub for rail.


According to JTF post#353, the single lane of track that currently runs past Union Station has the transportation equivalent of 318' of roadway.  I'd hardly consider Union station to be rendered useless.

----------


## Buffalo Bill

> Well, I have never accused ODOT of much simply because I don't know a lot about them, but I do think the Crosstown project was a Big Dig (any project that triples in cost over its lifetime strikes me as pretty corrupt), many transit experts have accused ODOT of having a vendetta against trains, and the moderate transit experts who can't afford to burn bridges have even said that the rail office at ODOT is a corner of a basement. So you can draw your own conclusions...
> 
> So at best they just don't understand rail and won't give it a chance, at worst...(I think these things fall in the middle usually)


I visited the ODOT rail branch years ago after a fatal car train accident at Coffee Creek road and the BNSF.  They have the top floor SW corner office.  Great views of downtown.  Maybe your "moderate transit experts who can't afford to burn bridges" should visit them, too.  Or maybe stop telling lies.

----------


## Just the facts

> According to JTF post#353, the single lane of track that currently runs past Union Station has the transportation equivalent of 318' of roadway.  I'd hardly consider Union station to be rendered useless.


The problem is that the one track is owned by Union Pacific who said no to people on or near the tracks.

----------


## Buffalo Bill

> The problem is that the one track is owned by Union Pacific who said no to people on or near the tracks.


So the old railyard was rendered useless by UP's policies?

----------


## Just the facts

> So the old railyard was rendered useless by UP's policies?


Yep - even if was still there we couldn't use it.

----------


## Larry OKC

> Based on those activites you provided I can probably count on one hand the number of people who fit that profile.  If you don't like to walk why are you going to the park or crossing a 400' pedestrian bridge?  Maybe an urban excursion train would be more suited to what you are thinking.


Really? Then why are we building this relatively massive MAPS 3 park anyway? It is to be a community gathering point for all kinds of programmed uses. Because of the layout of the Park, it is going to be a long walk from one end to the other and shortcuts will be welcomed. Not everyone is capable or willing to walk the several blocks from one end to another. I don't understand the walking rationale being used here. Why are you expecting the Park people to walk but not everyone else? In other words, why is the Streetcar going directly to the Hub or some of the other stops and not some spot up to 3 blocks away?

Not against the excursion train idea either. Maybe we can get the Railroad Museum to relocate to the Park???

----------


## Just the facts

For walking to be a mode of transportation there has to be something at both ends of the walk, otherwise it is just excercise.  If someone is there to simply 'see the park' what difference does it make if they get dropped off on the edge of the park or the middle of the park?

----------


## Spartan

> I visited the ODOT rail branch years ago after a fatal car train accident at Coffee Creek road and the BNSF.  They have the top floor SW corner office.  Great views of downtown.  Maybe your "moderate transit experts who can't afford to burn bridges" should visit them, too.  Or maybe stop telling lies.


Heavy-handed. That is just what I heard from someone who had just came from that office, but perhaps I should pay a visit to ODOT. Why do you think I'm trying to lie to people on here? Please inform me what financial or otherwise interest you think I have that is motivating me to pull the wool over..

Why did you goad me into an appraisal of ODOT just to berate me for making a comment on ODOT? I don't understand that logic, you seem to be desperate for an excuse to make heavy-handed posts, or is that just the buffalo talking?

----------


## Buffalo Bill

> Heavy-handed. That is just what I heard from someone who had just came from that office, but perhaps I should pay a visit to ODOT. Why do you think I'm trying to lie to people on here? Please inform me what financial or otherwise interest you think I have that is motivating me to pull the wool over..
> 
> Why did you goad me into an appraisal of ODOT just to berate me for making a comment on ODOT? I don't understand that logic, you seem to be desperate for an excuse to make heavy-handed posts, or is that just the buffalo talking?


I didn't say that you lied, only that you were spreading misinformation from your "moderate transit experts who can't afford to burn bridges" re ODOT rail branch.  

Tsk, tsk.

----------


## Larry OKC

*Buffalo Bill:* So who was the last line of your post directed: 



> Or maybe stop telling lies.

----------


## Larry OKC

> For walking to be a mode of transportation there has to be something at both ends of the walk, otherwise it is just excercise.  If someone is there to simply 'see the park' what difference does it make if they get dropped off on the edge of the park or the middle of the park?


I was agreeing with your point, so I am not sure why this concept is so hard to understand. I can only presume I am not explaining it right. By its design/layout, the Park is long and narrow. That means there are going to be areas that some folks will be interested in and some not. Those points of interest may not be all clustered together. There are going to be those that either by choice or ability, will not be able to transverse the distance. If they are only given one option of a drop off point, that restricts accessibility. The easier you make something to do, the more likely most are going to do it. The harder you make it, the less likely. There will be exceptions but that is human nature. For those taking the Streetcar, the greater the Park you can expose them (as opposed to just 1 corner) the more things might be of interest to them etc. More exposure leads to more use. If we want to spend $132+ million on a Park and then not have it used to its full potential, much less the RIO by encouraging high density residential development above and beyond what the Park itself is suppose to generate. For a myriad of reasons, it is obvious that the Streetcar needs to transverse as much of the Park as possible (but at least to Union Station in this round of funding) and an obvious stop is a train station. Just as the other train station is the obvious location for the Hub.

----------


## Buffalo Bill

> *Buffalo Bill:* So who was the last line of your post directed:


At the "moderate transit experts".  Stated that they should either visit the ODOT Rail Branch or stop telling lies about it and its location.  

Sorry if it was misconstrued that I was saying Spartan was lying.

----------


## Larry OKC

I could see where it could go either way...

----------


## Just the facts

I think I see where you are coming from Larry.  The presence of the park is to encourage nearby high density multi-story housing (you don't need a back yard if there is 50 acre park right across the street).  You are of the opinion that introducing the streetcar to this area will facilitate that development (correct me if I got that wrong).

If that is the case then it comes down to priorities with phase 1.  The area between Deep Deuce, downtown, Automobile Alley, and Midtown already has a few thousand residents that can make use of the streetcar today – plus, there is plenty of vacant land along the route for urban in-fill (and who knows, maybe an urban park on the north side of downtown).  This route will deliver instant ridership on day one.

One thing to keep in mind is that this MAPS III streetcar is only phase 1 (with a possible phase 2 headed towards HSC).  This WILL NOT be the only two phases.  Every city in the world that has reintroduced rail transit can’t build new lines fast enough.  People flock to it because of its convenience, developers crave it because it allows them to build higher densities, and governments love it because it is much cheaper to build and maintain then roads.  Of course, there are people who don't like it - Departments of Transportation, UAW/Automakers, and other people invested in road construction.

Just wait until commuter rail is introduced – not only will Edmond and Norman be wanting it, but every town, hamlet, and community within 50 miles of OKC will be scrambling to find a way to get connected.

----------


## Larry OKC

*JTF*: Think we are on the same page now  :Cool: 

There are no guarantees that we are going to get more funding (hopeful but not guaranteed). I understand that this is going to be a "starter system" but what happens if those other funds don't happen? The Mayor explicitly stated that they weren't putting anything into MAPS 3 that we couldn't pay for and complete ourselves. Solving the very same problem we got into with the MAPS 1 Streetcars. We all know how that turned out. We got the rubber tired Trolleys instead. If we are going to spend $128,815,000 on the Streetcars, it seems logical to put them in the areas where you are going to maximize RIO. Hopefully they aren't going to cost as much as projected (think the numbers are avg/mile) and we can get those few extra blocks to get to Union Station. But on the other hand it may cost more and track may have to be cut.

----------


## Just the facts

Larry, the money will be there because it has to be.  The world is entering a new phase of fuel were gasoline is going to be priced based on the global market.  Economies that are based on the individual automobile mode of transportation are going to be at an economic disadvantage to those that allow the free movement of people and goods without the use of global priced fuels.  A seismic shift is coming to the American transportation landscape.  The US is not going to have a choice but to fund rail transit.  The automobile is a luxury mode of travel and we as a nation can no longer afford the luxury.  Individuals will still be able to afford the luxury but they won’t be doing it in the numbers they are doing so today.

Riderships increases today are mostly based on the high price of gasoline, but as Americans realign their living arangements to be closer to rail transit lines then the cost considerations will move away from fare vs gasloine price to fare vs total cost of owning a car.  When that happens good by automobile and the gasoline taxes used to fund highway maintenance.  I ran the numbers for myself and if we could get rid of just one car by living closer to a rail transit station or in a walkable community we would save close to $1,000 per month.  If we could get rid of both cars we could afford a house/condo payment just on the money we SAVE by not having 2 cars (if I need a car we can rent one by the hour).

I am not saying that is going to happen over night but that is clearly the trend and the ultimate outcome.  Anyone not planning for that will get left behind.

http://www.apta.com/mediacenter/pres...Ridership.aspx

----------


## Larry OKC

Maybe the money will be there eventually but I wouldn't be counting on it in the short term. If it happens that is great, but if not we might end up with another AICC.

----------


## warreng88

Tire shop near OKC convention center development site to close
By Brian Brus
Journal Record
Oklahoma City reporter - Contact: brian.brus@journalrecord.com / 405-278-2837 / https://twitter.com/JRBrianBrus 
Posted: 05:55 PM Tuesday, June 26, 2012

OKLAHOMA CITY – Ira’s Tire Shop will yield to the development of a new convention center downtown and close its doors for good after 75 years, co-owner Mike Smith confirmed Tuesday.

The small business is in the way of Oklahoma City’s Core to Shore and MAPS 3 development plans, on the corner of SW Second Street and S. Hudson Avenue, sandwiched between the site chosen for a convention center and the former Interstate 40 crosstown. The Urban Renewal Authority this month contacted Smith and his brother, Donald Smith, to let them know the agency intended to buy the property.

“The city has requested that Urban Renewal acquire the convention center site, which is everything from Robinson all the way over to Walker, from Reno down to the old I-40 that they’re tearing down near SW Third,” authority Executive Director JoeVan Bullard said. “We’ll do everything we can to negotiate a purchase of that land. Letters have gone out to the owners in that area that say we’re interested in the area.

“Eminent domain would be the absolute last resort and the Urban Renewal Authority acting on behalf of the city will go the extra mile, knowing that this family has owned the tire shop for years and years,” he said.

The shop has been targeted for one of the MAPS 3 projects approved by voters in 2010. The temporary 1-cent sales tax is expected to raise $777 million for a 470,000-square-foot convention center, 70-acre public park, Oklahoma River improvements, a streetcar in downtown and other projects. Development has coincided to a small degree with the movement of the Interstate 40 crosstown south several blocks toward the river, opening a large swath of land for redevelopment, referred to as Core to Shore.

The City Council in March 2010 approved Urban Renewal’s involvement in acquiring Core to Shore properties, which Bullard said is now under way for the convention center.

He said a registered letter was sent to the Smiths to let them know the authority intends to ensure respectful, fair and equitable treatment of all property owners in the pursuit of their property. The only other real estate of interest for the convention center is held by REHCO Downtown Development LLC, a local property development group.

“The people who have sold their property to Urban Renewal on the south side of the old I-40 that we’re buying property for the park, they’re walking away with a very fair price,” Bullard said. “You get not only the appraised value of the land but you get relocation and re-establishing expenses as well.

“Ira’s has always been a very strong downtown customer. They stayed downtown when everybody else was fleeing, so I’ve got a deep appreciation for those folks,” he said.

According to the Oklahoma County assessor’s office, Ira’s property has a market value of $237,000.

“We’ll keep going until somebody comes in and buys us,” Mike Smith said. “And they’ll get us sooner or later. … We’re sitting in a good spot to be bought out. But I’ve got no idea how much they’ll offer us.”

The tire shop hasn’t always been at its current address. When it was owned by the brothers’ father, Ira, the business was in the 200 block of SW Third Street and had to move to allow for widening Interstate 40. So Mike Smith said being closed by more development involving an interstate would be an appropriate end to an era.

“We’re not going to move again. I’m 71 and Donnie’s 74. We’ve got good health and stay pretty active and busy. So we’ll just wait it out,” he said. “This will be the end of it.”

----------


## wschnitt

My friend that works in the planning office said that as part of the core 2 shore, all of the hubcap alley buildings were slated to be torn down for a part.  I do not see how that could possibly be true.  Any thoughts?  I think he was confused with central park but then he said between 11th and 15th street.  ideas?

----------


## ljbab728

It looks like there are a few bumps in the road with unhappy property owners in the area.

http://newsok.com/some-oklahoma-city...rticle/3692804

----------


## BoulderSooner

pretty much a non story ..

----------


## betts

Had there been no park, their land would be virtually worthless.

----------


## Snowman

> It looks like there are a few bumps in the road with unhappy property owners in the area.
> 
> http://newsok.com/some-oklahoma-city...rticle/3692804


as in they are only getting around two times the appraised value of the properties not three or being able to hold on to sell after the park directly by them.

----------


## Spartan

Can we get pictures up of these people? I'm curious how many teeth they have.

----------


## ljbab728

> Can we get pictures up of these people? I'm curious how many teeth they have.


LOL, I saw pics in the paper this morning.  There were no open mouths so I couldn't count teeth.

----------


## ophitke38

Along the bluff overlooking Wheeler Park is an excellent location for a row of high-rise townhouses or condos. Probably a really good sunset view over the park and the river, plus whatever Kirk Humphries decides to build at the old downtown airport. Concentrating residential in one area allows for adjacent areas to have more greenspace.

----------


## ophitke38

Wow - I looked at the Chamber's spiffy conceptual videos of what "tomorrow's downtown Oklahoma City" might look like, and I cringed. Streets were a block wide, sidewalks even further apart - did they even listen to the ULI observations? Or did this crap predate that? The city has to be pedestrian friendly. What the Chamber's putting out is far from it.

----------


## Larry OKC

> Had there been no park, their land would be virtually worthless.


True but since there is going to be a Park, the value has risen...maybe the City should have bought the property before they announced the plans for the park when it was worthless? Like they did with other properties in the Park area before MAPS 3 passed 9with G.O. bond money)???

----------


## BoulderSooner

> True but since there is going to be a Park, the value has risen...maybe the City should have bought the property before they announced the plans for the park when it was worthless? Like they did with other properties in the Park area before MAPS 3 passed 9with G.O. bond money)???


its not like the city is doing the appraisal ... and the city is not the final say on the amount when it goes to court

----------


## Larry OKC

That is correct, however, maybe they should have tried to buy the property when the appraisal was much less before its value went up due with the City initiative? Granted they would have been taking a chance but they already had money approved by the voters for that purpose even if MAPS 3 failed. Then the CIty could have sold the property if they decided they didn't need it after all.

----------


## Just the facts

Larry - the current appraised value is $709,000.  The City is offering $1.2 million.  The owner wants $2.5 million ($1.8 million more than the appraised value).

----------


## Larry OKC

What was he wanting before?

----------


## Just the facts

> What was he wanting before?


My guess is he wasn't asking anything since it wasn't for sale.  He inherited the land from his grandfather, ran a slum housing project for several years on the site until it burned down, and then waited around to try and cash in.  This guy is one of those responsible for the wasteland that was this part of town for the last 30 to 40 years.  He should be kicked in the groin.  The City really should look at some kind of density taxation for the urban core.  Vacant lots should be taxed at rate that would discourage them.

----------


## Teo9969

> My guess is he wasn't asking anything since it wasn't for sale.  He inherited the land from his grandfather, ran a slum housing project for several years on the site until it burned down, and then waited around to try and cash in.  This guy is on of those responsible for the wasteland that was this part of town for the last 30 to 40 years.  He should be kicked in the groin.


Well, he'll get kicked in the groin if OKC eminent domains him into $250k less than their initial offer. I hope he gets nothing but the appraised value.

----------


## Just the facts

> Well, he'll get kicked in the groin if OKC eminent domains him into $250k less than their initial offer. I hope he gets nothing but the appraised value.


I would like to see the City search their records and make sure he is the rightful owner.  A lot of shinnagens took place in OKC in the early days (even by today's standards).  I would rather see the City go Willy Wonka on him where he gets nothing.

----------


## Larry OKC

I am conflicted on this, as while I don't want to see taxpayer dollars wasted in paying more than what the property is really worth, I am also generally opposed to eminent domain taking of private property for a want, not a need. The Park is a want. And the property in question isn't even in the path of the Park but is adjacent to it? That means the City is using it to take private property, not for a public purpose (Park) but to turn around and sell it to a developer??? That just seems wrong on so many levels. If the guy wants to sell, fine, he has set his price. If the City wants it bad enough, they should pay that price rather than have a court legally take it from the guy for less. If the City doesn't want to pay his price, again fine, build around his property or build someplace else. And what is the property worth? As someone argued on the scalping thread, the value is what the buyer is willing to pay vs. what the seller is asking. The true value is where those two numbers meet.

----------


## Just the facts

I know what you are saying Larry.  The Supreme Court ruled the City can use eminent domain to take private land and resell it to private developers so the City has that going for them.  In most cases I don't like that idea but this clearly a case of someone milking the system for more than it is worth and being a lowlife in the process.  And it isn't like the guy lives here and has no where else to go - it's a vacant lot.

----------


## CaptDave

Jeez, I didn't realize the property in question was _adjacent_ to the park. I agree that eminent domain is not appropriate for acquiring land on the periphery of the for the park without very compelling reasons and justification. I think eminent domain is proper to acquire the land for the park only since that is the public project. Let the developers worry about buying the land around it (and they will) using their time and money to do the research and legal requirements. The city has no business buying land just to turn around and sell it to a private developer. I think the city is possibly setting itself up for a lot of criticism when the eventual buyers of the land around the park become evident. Does everything involved with Oklahoma politicians have to have the scent of impropriety? Just once I would like to see something done where there were no ethical lapses either perceived of real.

----------


## Snowman

> Jeez, I didn't realize the property in question was _adjacent_ to the park. I agree that eminent domain is not appropriate for acquiring land on the periphery of the for the park without very compelling reasons and justification. I think eminent domain is proper to acquire the land for the park only since that is the public project. Let the developers worry about buying the land around it (and they will) using their time and money to do the research and legal requirements. The city has no business buying land just to turn around and sell it to a private developer. I think the city is possibly setting itself up for a lot of criticism when the eventual buyers of the land around the park become evident. Does everything involved with Oklahoma politicians have to have the scent of impropriety? Just once I would like to see something done where there were no ethical lapses either perceived of real.


On the other side why should the city/public invest millions to raise the price someone has been squatting on land for decades and would likely continue to do for years.

----------


## Just the facts

Land assembly is the biggest hurdle to urban development and it doesn't help when you have squatters that do the bare minimum, and a lot of times not even that.  The City needs to find a way to aggressively solve this issue.  Maybe they think this approach will do that because they were able to buy a lot of land this way with little to no hassel.

----------


## Oil Capital

According to the DO article, the property in question is _not_ adjacent to the park, it is part of the park property.  From the article:

"In 1889, D.W. Chandler  the Hope brothers' maternal grandfather  along with their great uncle and aunt, claimed two lots on the block that *now comprises the far northwest corner of the planned municipal park."*

Read more: http://newsok.com/some-oklahoma-city...#ixzz20vb9rdpD

----------


## Soonerus

The Crosstown Expressway depressed the value of all properties cut off from downtown to the South, including this property.

----------


## CaptDave

Thanks for the clarification Oil Capital. I stand corrected. 

I am still hopeful (idealistic I know) the Core to Shore area will fill in during my lifetime. That area directly south of the CBD and all the way westward to the Farmers Market could see an influx of redevelopment like nowhere else IF the boulevard is designed with that goal.

----------


## Snowman

> The Crosstown Expressway depressed the value of all properties cut off from downtown to the South, including this property.


If you owned it since the time of construction of the original crosstown then the total dollar amount will be much higher due to inflation, how much value it could have been is speculation at best. The original migration out after WW2 started lowering a lot of value out of everywhere downtown, extended even more by the freeways (still affecting the entire downtown).

----------


## shane453

> The city has no business buying land just to turn around and sell it to a private developer. I think the city is possibly setting itself up for a lot of criticism when the eventual buyers of the land around the park become evident. Does everything involved with Oklahoma politicians have to have the scent of impropriety? Just once I would like to see something done where there were no ethical lapses either perceived of real.


Read Supreme Court case Berman v. Parker (1954). If there is a comprehensive redevelopment plan in place it is a constitutionally sound "public purpose" to use eminent domain on private property and then hand that property over for development. More recently Kelo v. City of New London (2005) pretty much affirmed the same thing. In New London eminent domain was used in a much more established neighborhood. There is no legal problem using ED in this situation and compared to many other eminent domain cases there is not too much of an ethical argument.

----------


## CaptDave

I was voicing my personal opinion on the use of ED, Shane. It think there are appropriate uses for it but think the Kelo decision overreached.

----------


## Just the facts

> I am still hopeful (idealistic I know) the Core to Shore area will fill in during my lifetime.


Unless you die in the next 10 years you should have no problem seeing this happen.  People are going to be stunned how fast this fills in, especially if a future streetcar route serves the area.

----------


## CaptDave

Honestly JTF, I might be part of that infill. I can see that area of OKC being a great place to live if its potential is realized.

----------


## Larry OKC

> According to the DO article, the property in question is _not_ adjacent to the park, it is part of the park property.  From the article:
> 
> "In 1889, D.W. Chandler — the Hope brothers' maternal grandfather — along with their great uncle and aunt, claimed two lots on the block that *now comprises the far northwest corner of the planned municipal park."*
> 
> Read more: http://newsok.com/some-oklahoma-city...#ixzz20vb9rdpD


You are correct about that particular property, but the article also mentions the City buying adjacent properties, that is what I have a greater fundamental problem with, Supreme Court decision or no. It is wrong. Wasn't it shortly after that decision that the property of one of the majority justices had their property obtained by eminent domain being sold not for a public project itself (like the Park) but to private developers?

*JTF*: I understand what you are saying about property owners doing nothing, we have seen the results of that along the Canal. However, I still think it is fundamentally wrong to force someone to sell. It may be legal, but that doesn't make it right.

----------


## Just the facts

> *JTF*: I understand what you are saying about property owners doing nothing, we have seen the results of that along the Canal. However, I still think it is fundamentally wrong to force someone to sell. It may be legal, but that doesn't make it right.


The guy owning the land is pretty old - I say we just wait him out and buy it from whomever inherits it.

----------


## kevinpate

> The guy owning the land is pretty old - I say we just wait him out and buy it from whomever inherits it.


And if whoever inherits decides to build a little bungalow to retire to near a park?  I'm fine with that, though I suspect many would not be.

----------


## CaptDave

> And if whoever inherits decides to build a little bungalow to retire to near a park?  I'm fine with that, though I suspect many would not be.


That is exactly what I would do had I been able to purchase some land down there a couple years ago when I looked. My dream would be to develop some park front brownstones / townhouses and live in one of the end units....or mixed use development with flats overlooking the park on the upper 3 or 4 floors; but alas the bank account does not permit that.

----------


## ljbab728

An update on the park presented to the advisory board.

http://newsok.com/planners-eye-flexi...rticle/3695493

----------


## OKCisOK4me

Yeah, what did happen to that $135 million price tag?

----------


## jn1780

> Yeah, what did happen to that $135 million price tag?


Maybe that's only including phase 1 which starts in 2014.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> Maybe that's only including phase 1 which starts in 2014.


Yeah, could be...but you'd think our newspaper writers would include such info...  Awwww, nevermind, it's the Oklahoman...

----------


## Architect2010

Definitely only Phase 1. But watch them just scratch Phase 2. ;] Kidding of course, I just wanted to see convention center reactions. Lol.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

Just out of curiosity...when they do Phase II, does that mean that everything from imaginary Hudson Avenue to Robinson down to the River will be acquired via eminent domain as well?

----------


## BoulderSooner

> Just out of curiosity...when they do Phase II, does that mean that everything from imaginary Hudson Avenue to Robinson down to the River will be acquired via eminent domain as well?


the area that will be the park will ..    and most likely some of the park frontage as well

----------


## Larry OKC

The City has said they don't have near the funds to do it, but they did set it up to do so by declaring all of the Core to Shore area as blighted etc (not just the Park/land adjacent)

----------


## BoulderSooner

the south part of the park is just harvey to robinson

----------


## OKCisOK4me

Thanks BS ;-)

So just to clarify, SW 10-15th Streets will dead end at Harvey as from the Skydance Bridge to the Oklahoma River will be Greenspan/park. Any chance we will see future development of the land between I-40, Harvey, River, and Walker? This part of the city is still considered a Latino community. 

Assuming private developers can't use eminent domain, how will they go about obtaining those properties from the citizens currently there?

----------


## Snowman

Offer a price the owner is willing to accept

----------


## OKCisOK4me

Which is the easiest answer. Just wondering that if they don't, does the developer go through the same process as the city did.

----------


## shawnw

Can there/should there be an interconnect of some kind (besides the river trail) to Wheeler Park?  There are four ball fields as well as a large open field where people play soccer. Instead of competing with Wheeler maybe they should complement each other?    (sorry if this has been discussed already... probably has)

----------


## OKCisOK4me

I think there should be another pedestrian bridge over the river. Im gonna blow some taxpayers pots with this idea but...

The Skydance Bridge is the male? I think a river bridge would make a helluva female... Partners would get people off the interstate to see giant metal mating birds (Im laughing at myself on the inside).

----------


## CaptDave

Wonder if ODOT would demand to drive trucks across a PEDESTRIAN bridge over the river too?

----------


## Just the facts

> Wonder if ODOT would demand to drive trucks across a PEDESTRIAN bridge over the river too?


Yes.

----------


## Snowman

> Wonder if ODOT would demand to drive trucks across a PEDESTRIAN bridge over the river too?


The request for maintenance vehicles to be handled was what caused the Skydance bridge to be significantly altered from the original design.

----------


## mcca7596

> The request for maintenance vehicles to be handled was what caused the Skydance bridge to be significantly altered from the original design.


I thought it was mere funding issues (I thought that the requirement to have vehicles was known before the design change).

----------


## rcjunkie

> *The request for maintenance vehicles to be handled was what caused the Skydance bridge to be significantly altered from the original design.*


Absolutely not true, it was a matter of cost and nothing else.

----------


## betts

> Absolutely not true, it was a matter of cost and nothing else.


Although, the requirement to provide room for maintenance vehicles added to the cost.

----------


## LandRunOkie

> I think there should be another pedestrian bridge over the river.


There is a bridge at May with barricaded sidewalks.  The bridge at Lincoln has sidewalks with 8" high curbs and railing for the steepest part.  I'm sure some of the bridges at Western, Walker, and Robinson have sidewalks.  The one on Shields doesn't have any sidewalks, yet seems to still get some foot traffic lol.  Increasing the signage would be a huge help.  The blue signs with bicyclists and pedestrians and arrows to show the crossing points and trails would be huge.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> There is a bridge at May with barricaded sidewalks.  The bridge at Lincoln has sidewalks with 8" high curbs and railing for the steepest part.  I'm sure some of the bridges at Western, Walker, and Robinson have sidewalks.  The one on Shields doesn't have any sidewalks, yet seems to still get some foot traffic lol.  Increasing the signage would be a huge help.  The blue signs with bicyclists and pedestrians and arrows to show the crossing points and trails would be huge.


Both Walker and Robinson have sidewalks on each side of the bridges over the new I-40 and yet, there's a pedestrian bridge smack in the middle of them.  Therefore I say it wouldn't hurt to put another one over the river.

----------


## Larry OKC

Remember the reason for the Pedestrian Bridge is to continue the Harvey Spine and connect the Upper/Lower sections of the Park. For some reason I have stuck in my head that at some point in the future, the Park is also supposed to extend to the other side of the River so another Pedestrian Bridge wouldn't be out of the consideration.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> Remember the reason for the Pedestrian Bridge is to continue the Harvey Spine and connect the Upper/Lower sections of the Park. For some reason I have stuck in my head that at some point in the future, the Park is also supposed to extend to the other side of the River so another Pedestrian Bridge wouldn't be out of the consideration.


Exactly.  Keep the Harvey Spine going.

----------


## Snowman

> Remember the reason for the Pedestrian Bridge is to continue the Harvey Spine and connect the Upper/Lower sections of the Park. For some reason I have stuck in my head that at some point in the future, the Park is also supposed to extend to the other side of the River so another Pedestrian Bridge wouldn't be out of the consideration.


There was a pedestrian bridge over the river in all the variations of the C2S plan I saw

----------


## catch22

Couldn't find a Hubcap Alley thread. This is pretty close I suppose.


Hubcap Alley by Matthew Bridges, on Flickr

Hubcap Alley by Matthew Bridges, on Flickr

Hubcap Alley by Matthew Bridges, on Flickr

Hubcap Alley by Matthew Bridges, on Flickr

Hubcap Alley by Matthew Bridges, on Flickr

Hubcap Alley by Matthew Bridges, on Flickr

Hubcap Alley Signage by Matthew Bridges, on Flickr

Hubcap Alley by Matthew Bridges, on Flickr

----------


## metro

That first pic, 1100 S. Robinson is undergoing renovations I noticed lately. Anyone know what's going in there?

----------


## Fantastic

> Couldn't find a Hubcap Alley thread. This is pretty close I suppose.



http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?...t=hubcap+alley

post #14 in the tread has a link to my Hubcap Alley album... though it wasn't sunny that day, I kinda liked the overcast sky for such an area of town.  (p.s... I haven't paid photobucket, so if the pics don't show up it's because the daily bandwith limit has been reached)

----------


## ljbab728

Preliminary options for the design of the new park to be announced next week.




> Oklahoma City residents will be able to see the first preliminary designs of the MAPS 3 downtown park at a public meeting next week.
> 
> Hargreaves Associates consultants and the city will host the second of three public meetings about the park's design Thursday, revealing three potential basic design plans for the park.


First MAPS 3 park design ideas for Oklahoma City to be revealed at public meeting | NewsOK.com

----------


## 1972ford

I hope they include a disc golf course

----------


## kevinpate

> That first pic, 1100 S. Robinson is undergoing renovations I noticed lately. Anyone know what's going in there?


IIRC, that will become a private residence.  Think I saw that on another thread here somewhere.  Will try to find it.

on edit -  see posts 22(ish) and forward a few in the Hubcap Alley thread, located at:
http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Hubcap+Alley

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Is this the official thread for the Central Park? Posted this on the MAPS 3 thread. I guess it's relevant to both.

Architects Reveal Newest Plans For Downtown OKC Park - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

----------


## Just the facts

After taking an initial look at the census map provided by heyerdahl I was thinking C2S could push 20,000 people per sq mi in density, but now I am wondering if it could be much higher, maybe even 100,000 people per sq mile.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Software to create a hypothetical development in downtown Oklahoma City's Core to Shore area | NewsOK.com

----------


## Snowman

SimCity Pro

----------


## Just the facts

Not sure about SimCity Pro but SimCity 4-Deluxe doesn't allow form based zoning, no mixed use development, nor streetcars.  Even in the sim world everyone has to drive.  I guess a game that allowed walkability, sustainable public finances, and little public infrastructure would be boring to play.

----------


## jn1780

> Not sure about SimCity Pro but SimCity 4-Deluxe doesn't allow form based zoning, no mixed use development, nor streetcars.  Even in the sim world everyone has to drive.  I guess a game that allowed walkability, sustainable public finances, and little public infrastructure would be boring to play.


Hard to build a simulation engine to model all that and still be affordable to the average consumer. I think it would be pretty fun if there was though. 


On SimCity 4-Deluxe, I always had to use cheat codes to even come close to having good mass transit. lol

----------


## kevinpate

> Not sure about SimCity Pro but SimCity 4-Deluxe doesn't allow form based zoning, no mixed use development, nor streetcars.  Even in the sim world everyone has to drive.  I guess a game that allowed walkability, sustainable public finances, and little public infrastructure would be boring to play.


But on the plus side, it would likely star you as the town mayor, wearing a cardigan, and welcoming everyone to your neighborhood.
8^)

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Not sure about SimCity Pro but SimCity 4-Deluxe doesn't allow form based zoning, no mixed use development, nor streetcars.  Even in the sim world everyone has to drive.  I guess a game that allowed walkability, sustainable public finances, and little public infrastructure would be boring to play.


SIM CITY 5 COMES OUT IN FEB.!!!!!! (and it will pretty much everything)

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> Oh, I can't wait. I am so upset they have been teasing us already with gameplay samples.


I Know right.. haha.. I'm gonna try and build a new computer specially for this game. It's gonna be awesome I know it!!

----------


## jedicurt

Actually March...

----------


## Plutonic Panda

I'm sorry if this video has already been posted but I thought this was freakin' awesome!! 

Oklahoma City's "Core to Shore" - by Skyline Ink on Vimeo

----------


## bchris02

> I'm sorry if this video has already been posted but I thought this was freakin' awesome!! 
> 
> Oklahoma City's "Core to Shore" - by Skyline Ink on Vimeo


Let's hope what actually gets built at least somewhat resembles that.  This is the one kind of development OKC is really missing that other cities have.  If this gets built as shown in the video, it could really thrust OKC onto the radar for in-migrating young professionals because this is the kind of environment many of them prefer.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

I could only dream of development like that in OKC. Hopefully if they screw up the boulevard, it doesn't mess up core to shore too bad. :/

----------


## CaptDave

> I could only dream of development like that in OKC. Hopefully if they screw up the boulevard, it doesn't mess up core to shore too bad. :/


I think it will Panda. That is one of the main reasons I decided to get involved with FBB. Mayor Cornett provided a wonderful vision for what that part of town could be and I sincerely hope it comes to fruition.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> I think it will Panda. That is one of the main reasons I decided to get involved with FBB. Mayor Cornett provided a wonderful vision for what that part of town could be and I sincerely hope it comes to fruition.


Well, I will start trying to be more active in all of this. This will be just such an amazing opportunity wasted. I feel if the citizens of OKC don't stand up and voice out with strength, we will only have ourselves to blame. I really think someone needs to remind ODOT their place in all of this.

----------


## catch22

> Well, I will start trying to be more active in all of this.* This will be just such an amazing opportunity wasted.* I feel if the citizens of OKC don't stand up and voice out with strength, we will only have ourselves to blame. I really think someone needs to remind ODOT their place in all of this.



This is what is frustrating about the Blvd project, we have such an opportunity and we are ruining it for no logical reason.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

> This is what is frustrating about the Blvd project, we have such an opportunity and we are ruining it for no logical reason.


What I want know is how in the world does ODOT think that a high speed elevated road(highway) would possibly be good for development??? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but, wasn't core to shore project designed around the removal of the elevated crosstown?

----------


## catch22

> What I want know is how in the world does ODOT think that a high speed elevated road(highway) would possibly be good for development??? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but, wasn't core to shore project designed around the removal of the elevated crosstown?


ODOT is run by traffic engineers, who by very nature do not study or practice urban planning. They concentrate on the free flowing of automobile traffic. They just do not study or specialize in what "pedestrian friendly" means. They aren't out to purposely destroy walkability, they are just doing their jobs. Traffic engineers are hired to move car traffic, planners are hired to move people. Both have different goals and methods. Your traffic engineer will build whatever will move traffic, your planner will aim to move people.

So, ODOT does not "see" what we are seeing. They don't really give pedestrians any weight in this (or understand how pedestrian movement works and how fragile it can be). So they don't understand how a bridge hurts walkability, or how walkable development organizes around walkable streets. They have tried to make concessions to make it walkable, but they still do not understand how to build it walkable (because they are not planners).

----------


## bchris02

As far as I know, the only part they are wanting to elevate is near Penn Ave?  Are they really talking about elevating the entire thing?

If the only part that is elevated is that far west, I don't see it having any impact on Core 2 Shore.  Am I wrong on this?

----------


## Fantastic

> As far as I know, the only part they are wanting to elevate is near Penn Ave?  Are they really talking about elevating the entire thing?
> 
> If the only part that is elevated is that far west, I don't see it having any impact on Core 2 Shore.  Am I wrong on this?


The controversy about the boulevard is that they wanted it elevated to Walker... that's alot of elevated highway!

----------


## CaptDave

> As far as I know, the only part they are wanting to elevate is near Penn Ave?  Are they really talking about elevating the entire thing?
> 
> If the only part that is elevated is that far west, I don't see it having any impact on Core 2 Shore.  Am I wrong on this?


The question is do you want the decimated area of blight as was left by the old Crosstown to remain on the "backporch" of the future Core to Shore developments? If it is once again cut off from the rest of downtown and no redevelopment from the Farmer's Market eastward occurs, do you really think people will want to move from Edmond, Mustang, Yukon, Norman, etc to what would otherwise be a nice area in C2S?

The city leadership does not seem to be looking very far forward on this one......they have tunnel vision on the area immediately adjacent to the Central Park and not much else.

----------


## bchris02

> The controversy about the boulevard is that they wanted it elevated to Walker... that's alot of elevated highway!


Yeah that would be a very bad idea.  Nothing east of Western should be elevated under any circumstance, and preferably nothing east of Penn.  Re-building an elevated highway would defeat the purpose of the entire thing.  Does it look like that is the plan that is going forward or will there be enough resistance to change it?

It seems like there is a sizable portion of OKC that wants a more urban, hip, pedestrian friendly downtown, but a majority is suburban/commuter centric and just doesn't understand it.  It's really not much different than other cities in the region, such as Little Rock which is still demolishing historic buildings and has loads of NIMBYs fighting any high-density development proposed for downtown.  The difference is OKC has all the ingredients to become the next Charlotte or Nashville as long as the city doesn't squander it.  Young, talented professionals by and large prefer high density, pedestrian-friendly environments and having such an option will go a long ways in attracting recent grads to OKC over other nearby cities and keeping local grads from moving away.

----------


## bchris02

> The question is do you want the decimated area of blight as was left by the old Crosstown to remain on the "backporch" of the future Core to Shore developments? If it is once again cut off from the rest of downtown and no redevelopment from the Farmer's Market eastward occurs, do you really think people will want to move from Edmond, Mustang, Yukon, Norman, etc to what would otherwise be a nice area in C2S?
> 
> The city leadership does not seem to be looking very far forward on this one......they have tunnel vision on the area immediately adjacent to the Central Park and not much else.


Yeah this could definitely be a problem.  While Core-2-Shore could still happen, the urban decay nearby wouldn't likely be redeveloped and thus would encourage people to continue to choose the suburbs.

----------


## Spartan

> Yeah that would be a very bad idea.  Nothing east of Western should be elevated under any circumstance, and preferably nothing east of Penn.  Re-building an elevated highway would defeat the purpose of the entire thing.  Does it look like that is the plan that is going forward or will there be enough resistance to change it?
> 
> It seems like there is a sizable portion of OKC that wants a more urban, hip, pedestrian friendly downtown, but a majority is suburban/commuter centric and just doesn't understand it.  It's really not much different than other cities in the region, such as Little Rock which is still demolishing historic buildings and has loads of NIMBYs fighting any high-density development proposed for downtown.  The difference is OKC has all the ingredients to become the next Charlotte or Nashville as long as the city doesn't squander it.  Young, talented professionals by and large prefer high density, pedestrian-friendly environments and having such an option will go a long ways in attracting recent grads to OKC over other nearby cities and keeping local grads from moving away.


It's not the urbanists against the majority. It's large crowds of mobilized urbanists against entrenched engineer bureaucrats who only build a certain type of road and nothing else.

----------


## catcherinthewry

> It's not the urbanists against the majority. It's large crowds of mobilized urbanists against entrenched engineer bureaucrats who only build a certain type of road and nothing else.


Yes, it's a true epic battle of good vs. evil :Fighting40: 

At least that is what you would believe if you only read this forum of like-minded people preaching to the choir.

----------


## bombermwc

> Let's hope what actually gets built at least somewhat resembles that.  This is the one kind of development OKC is really missing that other cities have.  If this gets built as shown in the video, it could really thrust OKC onto the radar for in-migrating young professionals because this is the kind of environment many of them prefer.


The unfortunate reality is that C2S will never look anything like any of the master plans. Being a private development area, what you'll see is a few city projects that get built "relatively" quickly (in terms of the project's life even though they'll be 15 years away). Then the rest will slowly trickle in later, but be a hodge podge of whatever each random developer wants. So there's no way they're going to look anything like what we see here....they'll be far less imaginative and fare more "cost effective" for the investors...meaning boring....see Bricktown Hotels.

If we get the park in there and start some residential mid-rise next to it (that's not upscale only), you'll see something happen. If we follow our recent pattern of building only expensive stuff, then you won't see anything happen. Downtown's tapped on the upscale market. If it wasn't, you'd see a scramble to build it in the available space, which there is plenty of.

----------


## betts

I don't think downtown has remotely tapped the upscale market.  And I don't blame developers for waiting to see what the park and convention center, not to mention Boulevard, look like before they jump. Deep Deuce is a perfect example of how you can't think too far ahead of the crowd.  City Place particularly, and the Maywood Brownstones perhaps, are the only truly upscale for sale developments downtown right now.  I see cracks in the thinking of people about living downtown if you have upscale money in your wallet, but the huge shift hasn't occurred yet.  What I predict is going to happen is that the single and young marrieds living in apartments downtown right now will not necessarily see moving out to the burbs as desirable, as they start families.  There's going to be a school downtown, and Core to Shore will provide land for housing very close to it.  Once they get more money in their pockets, their knee jerk response will not necessarily be to get a mini-ranch complete with lawn tractor.  They may well see buying a house downtown as a good thing.  I see that in my kids right now. They're either buying or thinking about buying right now, and the last thing they want is to tie themselves in to a big commute and live away from the action.  They're looking for housing close in enough so they can primarily use mass transit, but with schools that are acceptable for the families they're planning in the not so distant future.

----------


## Just the facts

The biggest deterrent to development in Core to Shore is the 400' foot width of I-40.  I-40 is as wide as the Oklahoma River.  I had high hopes for C2S to actually develop from the core all the way to the shore but I don't think that is going to ever happen as one unified piece of urban fabric.  I-40 is just too wide.  This make the land between I-40 and downtown even more crucial because it is the only place left in C2S that has any chance of pedestrian oriented development.

The problem with the boulevard is that it funnels all traffic onto two roads, the boulevard and Western.  Traffic will increase in number or speed which will deter people from walking across either of them.  If the boulevard ever does achieve the 94,000 cars a day ODOT predicts no one will ever want to walk across it.  If this boulevard is built C2S is dead - you can stop dreaming about it.  OKCs next great urban neighborhood will have to be built somewhere else, at which point the traffic engineers will claim victory by saying, "See, we told you the traffic was coming and that no one would want to live here."

----------


## Just the facts

The boathouse district is a land of it own cut off from everything else.  It is surrounded by I-40, I-35, a 400' river with an adjacent railroad yard, a canal, and a concrete railroad viaduct.  Soon you can add an elevated boulevard to the list of obsticles.  Getting anyone to live there will be a challenge.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> ODOT is run by traffic engineers, who by very nature do not study or practice urban planning. They concentrate on the free flowing of automobile traffic. They just do not study or specialize in what "pedestrian friendly" means. They aren't out to purposely destroy walkability, they are just doing their jobs. Traffic engineers are hired to move car traffic, planners are hired to move people. Both have different goals and methods. Your traffic engineer will build whatever will move traffic, your planner will aim to move people.
> 
> So, ODOT does not "see" what we are seeing. They don't really give pedestrians any weight in this (or understand how pedestrian movement works and how fragile it can be). So they don't understand how a bridge hurts walkability, or how walkable development organizes around walkable streets. They have tried to make concessions to make it walkable, but they still do not understand how to build it walkable (because they are not planners).


My only gripe about this is that they're pedestrians too.  Gotta crawl before you can walk--meaning walk before drive, lol.

----------


## Just the facts

> My only gripe about this is that they're pedestrians too.  Gotta crawl before you can walk--meaning walk before drive, lol.


You would like to think that but here are some photos of OKC traffic engieneers in their developmental years.  Marketing cars to kids is pretty bad and wide spread.

----------


## betts

> The boathouse district is a land of it own cut off from everything else.  It is surrounded by I-40, I-35, a 400' river with an adjacent railroad yard, a canal, and a concrete railroad viaduct.  Soon you can add an elevated boulevard to the list of obsticles.  Getting anyone to live there will be a challenge.


The one thing that will make that less true is the walkway along the canal.  Right now, living in Deep Deuce, the river seems far away and difficult to access.  But, once the canal and path are complete, I'm sure most of our walks will end up at the river.  I would guess it will feel the same coming from the river direction as well.  It will be great for pedestrians and casual bike riders.

----------


## Just the facts

Even when the canal is completed that will be a long walk with nothing to protect people from the elements.  At least with an urban street wall and buildings you can take cover from the wind and rain and walk in the shade or sunlight depending on the temp (not to mention the natural heat sink density generates).  There will be no more development along the canal after KDs is done.  Anyone living in that area will not have any daily necessities available to them on-site.  They will need to drive to get them.

----------


## Larry OKC

> The one thing that will make that less true is the walkway along the canal.  Right now, living in Deep Deuce, the river seems far away and difficult to access.  But, once the canal and path are complete, I'm sure most of our walks will end up at the river.  I would guess it will feel the same coming from the river direction as well.  It will be great for pedestrians and casual bike riders.


Betts,

Is the path you mentioned part of the MAPS 3 trails or is this something separate? If it is part of the Trails, has it been determined that is going to be part that we actually get? Meaning the $40 million "mistake" (leaving about 60 miles undone) and the funding shortfall of the remaining 57 miles (think it was cut back to 32)??? Has the Trails subcommittee determined where the 32 miles are going yet?

----------


## bchris02

> The unfortunate reality is that C2S will never look anything like any of the master plans. Being a private development area, what you'll see is a few city projects that get built "relatively" quickly (in terms of the project's life even though they'll be 15 years away). Then the rest will slowly trickle in later, but be a hodge podge of whatever each random developer wants. So there's no way they're going to look anything like what we see here....they'll be far less imaginative and fare more "cost effective" for the investors...meaning boring....see Bricktown Hotels.
> 
> If we get the park in there and start some residential mid-rise next to it (that's not upscale only), you'll see something happen. If we follow our recent pattern of building only expensive stuff, then you won't see anything happen. Downtown's tapped on the upscale market. If it wasn't, you'd see a scramble to build it in the available space, which there is plenty of.


I definitely agree that C2S will not be as grand as the master plans.  These projects are ALWAYS scaled down no matter what.  My hopes is that what actually gets built at least somewhat resembles it.  Something like Southend in Charlotte would be awesome (Google that to see some photos) and totally doable in OKC.  

What we DON'T need are bland, suburban style apartment complexes being built down there.  Yes, it may bring more middle-income people downtown but it would destroy the character that should separate downtown from anywhere Edmond or Moore.

----------


## Larry OKC

> Completely separate.  This is the canal connection to Regatta Park/Oklahoma River.  
> 
> Betts is right though.  This will suddenly make the Oklahoma River accessible to Bricktown traffic (pedestrian and cycle) where right now, it is just about impossible to walk to it. 
> 
> I'm really excited about it.


Thanks Sid,

Are the trails part of the Canal connection? To keep it within the 2007 G.O. Bond budget, they cut a few things out (Project 180esque..."to be built later")???

----------


## kevinpate

Larry,  

They will extend the spur off the river (currently ends at the Regatta Park plaza) under I-40 and to near the existing end of the BT canal.
The river spur will have a turnaround basin just to the southeast of the south canal basin. 
The new endpoint of the river spur will be a lower elevation than the canal basin.  
There will be a paved switchback walkway trail constructed between the canal basin walkway and the the new river spur basin.
I believe there will also be a walkway along the extended river spur to the current regatta plaza at the CHK boathouse (may be mistaken)

If I am correct then one eventually could start at the west end of the canal on the west end and walk along water on pavement all the way to the river and then along the river spur and then along the river as well.

----------


## betts

> Even when the canal is completed that will be a long walk with nothing to protect people from the elements.  At least with an urban street wall and buildings you can take cover from the wind and rain and walk in the shade or sunlight depending on the temp (not to mention the natural heat sink density generates).  There will be no more development along the canal after KDs is done.  Anyone living in that area will not have any daily necessities available to them on-site.  They will need to drive to get them.


I don't know.  We walk from 3rd St. along the canal down to the Land Run statues with our short-legged corgi all the time.  It's just a wee bit further to the river.  We carry water with us if it's hot, although I think water fountains with dog height fountains would be a very nice touch along the river trails.  Trash cans too (is it really possible to comment on the lack of trash cans along the river trail too often?) Remember too, the weather in Oklahoma is very nice for all but 4 months of the year.  January and February, July 15-September 15 can be miserable.  The rest of the time, it's pretty pleasant.  The canal bridges offer some protection from the weather, and there are places in Bricktown you can duck in, but really, how often do we get an unexpected shower?  While I agree that it would be nice if lower Bricktown were something other than what it is, it is walkable.

----------


## betts

> Larry,  
> 
> They will extend the spur off the river (currently ends at the Regatta Park plaza) under I-40 and to near the existing end of the BT canal.
> The river spur will have a turnaround basin just to the southeast of the south canal basin. 
> The new endpoint of the river spur will be a lower elevation than the canal basin.  
> There will be a paved switchback walkway trail constructed between the canal basin walkway and the the new river spur basin.
> I believe there will also be a walkway along the extended river spur to the current regatta plaza at the CHK boathouse (may be mistaken)
> 
> If I am correct then one eventually could start at the west end of the canal on the west end and walk along water on pavement all the way to the river and then along the river spur and then along the river as well.


You are correct.

----------


## Urbanized

Kevin, you are correct in every aspect except that the new river basin will actually be NORTHeast of the south canal basin rather than SOUTHeast.

As noted elsewhere, the extension is being incorrectly described as a canal extension when it is in reality an extension of the Regatta Park river channel/spur.

It has been described inaccurately as a canal extension for years, owing most likely to the fact that in the original MAPS the canal had "zones" (this river spur was originally described as "Canal Zone G"). These zones were once supposed to be grade separated, including grade separations that would have made the existing canal multiple pieces instead of the continuous stretch that now exists. So early on it was understandable that all zones were united under the one description of "Bricktown Canal."

This initial plan was fortunately changed by taking the north part of the canal enough below grade and the southern portion slightly ABOVE grade compared to the surrounding landscape, resulting in a continuous waterway. Zone G remained a relic of the original plan, however, as the river is IIRC 17' below the elevation of the canal.

So the reality is that what is now being extended underneath the new I-40 realignment would be more properly described as being RIVER-related. It will create a visual and hardscape connection with the Bricktown Canal, but the twain shall never truly meet. It's not THAT big of a difference, I suppose, but it is truly confusing to visitors and the public in general, who often believe the existing canal either HAS been extended or IS currently being extended, and that is just not the case.

----------


## bchris02

"Steve Lackmeyer: I think the Core to Shore plan is garbage as it relates to suggested private development and irrelevant to what the market will dictate. I have seen and heard nothing that validates any of the suggested private development in that study by out-of-state consultants. 
There will be no Nordstrums and definitely not a Borders Bookstore. We will likely see a lot of housing and just a few smaller retailers and service-oriented shops."

I think the Core 2 Shore concept with high-rises is a longshot for OKC, especially now that development is taking off north of downtown. The Core 2 Shore idea has its footings in the early 2000s in a very different OKC than the city we know today. I think something like Mud Island/Harbor Town in Memphis would be a cool way to do Core 2 Shore and also realistic for OKC.

HOME :: Harbor Town

Thoughts?

----------


## ErnestA

> I think the Core 2 Shore concept with high-rises is a longshot for OKC, especially now that development is taking off north of downtown. The Core 2 Shore idea has its footings in the early 2000s in a very different OKC than the city we know today. I think something like Mud Island/Harbor Town in Memphis would be a cool way to do Core 2 Shore and also realistic for OKC.
> 
> HOME :: Harbor Town
> 
> Thoughts?


I agree wholeheartedly. For Core to Shore to come anywhere near its vision, it must be driven by new residential neighborhoods. A New Urbanist development with varied housing styles, both single and multifamily, at varying price points, would be perfect for the land west of the Central Park. Besides the airpark site, it would be a great opportunity for OKC to grow a wholly new, dense urban neighborhood with its own aesthetic. And it would boast a sense of place original to OKC, next to a massive downtown park along the Oklahoma River. Yes.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

I think the city is under the impression that if they plant the central park then Core to Shore will come...like Field of Dreams or something.

----------


## bchris02

> I think the city is under the impression that if they plant the central park then Core to Shore will come...like Field of Dreams or something.


Agreed. The thing is, the concept was envisioned before all the development north of the CBD we are seeing today was even on the table. The master plan of Manhattan-style high-rises surrounding it is a pipe dream for OKC and simply isn't going to happen without an Austin or Charlotte style boom. However, a new urbanist community like the example I posted above is not, and would be a great way to get young families and others who might otherwise opt for the suburbs to consider downtown.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> Agreed. The thing is, the concept was envisioned before all the development north of the CBD we are seeing today was even on the table. *The master plan of Manhattan-style high-rises surrounding it is a pipe dream for OKC* and simply isn't going to happen without an Austin or Charlotte style boom. However, a new urbanist community like the example I posted above is not, and would be a great way to get young families and others who might otherwise opt for the suburbs to consider downtown.


Very true.  I wish I knew how to use a computer to produce the rendering in my head because it'd be a lot better than what the current vision for the Central Park is.

----------


## warreng88

I think the area around the Central Park will be a lot more like around Forsyth Park in Savannah then Central Park in NYC. There will be more 3-5 story developments surrounding the park than anything else. There might be a few high/mid-rises but I think those will go more in the CBD than C2S.

----------


## RickOKC

Wouldn't logic suggest that, if people in the early 2000's didn't know what would eventually become of the Core-to-Shore area, the our best projections now might prove to be a tad off, as well?  In other words, how do we know whether some major development (in addition to, but in part because of, the park) might not eventually cause the development complexion originally predicted?  The future holds so many unknown minefields and gold mines, we really have no idea what C2S will look like in 2030.

----------


## RickOKC

And that's the great and scary thing about OKC right now--almost anything could happen.

----------


## OKCRT

> And that's the great and scary thing about OKC right now--almost anything could happen.


I wish they would just build a Big 65k seat state of the art Football stadium there and go after the Oakland Raiders. Have a big Grand opening in 2017. That would spur development like never before in that whole area. I know,it's a dream but crazier things have heppened. Follow Indy's plan

----------


## Snowman

The plan was never ment to be ridgedly followed or expected to be done soon. It was to consider what changes from upgrades to the highway and river could enable. It lays out concepts to guide the kind of development to strive for over the next fifty years or more in that area.

----------


## OKVision4U

> I think the city is under the impression that if they plant the central park then Core to Shore will come...like Field of Dreams or something.


There is a great deal of truth to the "Build it and they will come" approach.  Where there's people, there will be developments.  And the Park will certainly pull a great deal daily foot traffic for developers to look to.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Very true.  I wish I knew how to use a computer to produce the rendering in my head because it'd be a lot better than what the current vision for the Central Park is.


Cuatrodemayo, maybe you could take the lead on the Central Park renderings, I'm sure they will be better than anything else out there.  I would love to see what your vision is for Core to Shore / The River.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> There is a great deal of truth to the "Build it and they will come" approach.  Where there's people, there will be developments.  And the Park will certainly pull a great deal daily foot traffic for developers to look to.


Yeah and while it (the park) sits early on after it is finished drawing the crowds, all the land surrounding the park will still look like crap.  I'll give it 20 years after the park is done that all fronts of the park are 100% developed.

----------


## OKVision4U

Any ideas on when the COOP area will be purchased?  ...is anyone interested?

----------


## betts

> Yeah and while it (the park) sits early on after it is finished drawing the crowds, all the land surrounding the park will still look like crap.  I'll give it 20 years after the park is done that all fronts of the park are 100% developed.


I would seriously consider buying there right now, if a developer were so bold as to start housing on the park now.  Once the park is done, I would consider renting, if there were very nice rentals available.  I love my house, but I might love living on the park more.  Or even the promise of a park.

----------


## hoya

The area from Hudson over to Walker, and from the Interstate up to around 3rd where the new Boulevard should be, is almost the same size as Bricktown and Deep Deuce put together (especially if you take out the big railroad easement parking lot that separates them).  I'm not sure what the best development would be for this area, but the city needs to work now to ensure that design standards for it are very very high.  I don't care if pieces sit empty for 20 years, we should not have developments like the Legacy taking up parkfront land.

Zero EIFS.  Minimum height requirement of 100 feet.  Things like that.  Developments on Hudson should be of the highest quality.  Further back, on Dewey or Shartel or Classen, still strong design rules but eliminate the height requirement.  We can create an Adams Morgan type environment in there.

----------


## Just the facts

> The master plan of Manhattan-style high-rises surrounding it is a pipe dream for OKC and simply isn't going to happen without an Austin or Charlotte style boom


Did I miss something with Core to Shore?  When did the city envision it with high rises around it?  The last renditions I saw from the city showed it almost totally surrounded by one-store single family homes with a few low rise apartments.

----------


## bchris02

> The area from Hudson over to Walker, and from the Interstate up to around 3rd where the new Boulevard should be, is almost the same size as Bricktown and Deep Deuce put together (especially if you take out the big railroad easement parking lot that separates them).  I'm not sure what the best development would be for this area, but the city needs to work now to ensure that design standards for it are very very high.  I don't care if pieces sit empty for 20 years, we should not have developments like the Legacy taking up parkfront land.
> 
> Zero EIFS.  Minimum height requirement of 100 feet.  Things like that.  Developments on Hudson should be of the highest quality.  Further back, on Dewey or Shartel or Classen, still strong design rules but eliminate the height requirement.  We can create an Adams Morgan type environment in there.


The one thing I agree with here is to not surround the park with developments like the Legacy. There needs to be design codes to ensure it's done right and not to the minimal standards so many developments here adhere to. However, the market must dictate the type of development that surrounds the park. This isn't Manhattan, SF, or Dallas. It isn't Charlotte, Denver, or Austin. I have a hard to believing there is going to be a rush to "manhattanize" the area surrounding the park, meaning we can't expect it to be all mid and high rises and if standards are set requiring it, the area surrounding the park could remain undeveloped for many, many years.

----------


## Just the facts

What about designating a uniform exterior and height that applies to every structure in Core to Shore?

----------


## warreng88

> Any ideas on when the COOP area will be purchased?  ...is anyone interested?


Do you know anyone with an extra $120 million laying around to purchase the land?

----------


## bchris02

> What about designating a uniform exterior and height that applies to every structure in Core to Shore?


Personally, I think Core 2 Shore should be a true new urbanist community, comprised of single family homes, apartments, and low-rise mixed use developments.  Quality and placemaking should be the focus.

Harbortown in Memphis is an example of what I envision.  That development is amazing and there is currently nothing that comes close in OKC.  Memphis isn't that far ahead of OKC in terms of urban development so if it works there it could definitely work here.

Here is the development from above.

----------


## hoya

> The one thing I agree with here is to not surround the park with developments like the Legacy. There needs to be design codes to ensure it's done right and not to the minimal standards so many developments here adhere to. However, the market must dictate the type of development that surrounds the park. This isn't Manhattan, SF, or Dallas. It isn't Charlotte, Denver, or Austin. I have a hard to believing there is going to be a rush to "manhattanize" the area surrounding the park, meaning we can't expect it to be all mid and high rises and if standards are set requiring it, the area surrounding the park could remain undeveloped for many, many years.


I think you're severely underestimating what this city can do.

----------


## betts

> Did I miss something with Core to Shore?  When did the city envision it with high rises around it?  The last renditions I saw from the city showed it almost totally surrounded by one-store single family homes with a few low rise apartments.


Actually, what I saw last for the western side of the park were 4 story townhouses built similarly to some of the blocks in London (particularly Notting Hill) with the front of the house facing the street all around the block, and a central greenspace.  But it was just a concept drawing.  The single family houses were west of the park, with a school in their midst.  Who knows what developers will think?  But I would hate to see four story apartment buildings similar to what we have in Deep Deuce there.  The park is the place to do something different.  Developers should not downplay the appeal of the park, especially to families, and build cheap and safe.

----------


## bchris02

> Did I miss something with Core to Shore?  When did the city envision it with high rises around it?  The last renditions I saw from the city showed it almost totally surrounded by one-store single family homes with a few low rise apartments.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

I know this has been posted before, but I'll post it again. I would love to see these things here!

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Also would've been nice to see this 



instead of this

----------


## Plutonic Panda

I believe C2S can work if the right things are done to try and make it happen.

----------


## bchris02

^^^ That is pretty cool.  It's a little more ambitious than the Memphis example I used, especially with all the mid-rise structures west of the park, but also has many of the same elements.

----------


## Just the facts

> 


Those aren't high-rises.  If anything, that looks like an attempt to portray the Back Bay area of Boston.

I was thinking that in the Core to Shore area the City could do something similar to what Paris did in the mid-1800's with the Haussmann faades.  Not in style mind you , but in spirit.  Define the vernacular Oklahoma City style and mandate that all facades in Core to Shore use it.  It would save the developers a ton of money and create a very unique district.

For the record, I consider the Main Place Building to be the prototypical Oklahoma City faade.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Do you know anyone with an extra $120 million laying around to purchase the land?


With the COOP still blending in w/ our new skyline, it needs to have a new owner for sure.  It makes it more difficult for the other developments to really take off.  If this property were to have an anchor development as "Corp Plaza on the River", you would see the other areas take off.  As is, its holding things back.

----------


## huskysooner

Does anyone have a feel for what price per SF the City paid to acquire land within the Maps 3 Park footprint? Also, does anyone have a good number for what the prime real estate surrounding the park (along Hudson, for example) is going for? I am sure there has been a lot of sales activity for the adjacent lots as the start date for park construction has drawn closer and closer.

----------


## warreng88

> With the COOP still blending in w/ our new skyline, it needs to have a new owner for sure.  It makes it more difficult for the other developments to really take off.  If this property were to have an anchor development as "Corp Plaza on the River", you would see the other areas take off.  As is, its holding things back.


I have a feeling by 2020 (when is the Coop planning on moving to SOKC again?) there will be someone who will buy it then sell it off in chunks. I don't think one large development will go on that space. Not sure we want a Gaylord Oklahoman in that area or a casino development and that is the kind of development we are talking about taking up that much space.

----------


## Pete

The Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority (OCURA) has been working on acquiring properties around the proposed Central Park.

In their meeting this week, they will be amending their plan:




> The Authority is carrying out the Core to Shore Urban Renewal Plan, approved by The City of Oklahoma City March 2, 2010, as amended November 27, 2012. To better facilitate the Urban Renewal Plans goals of creating infill neighborhoods surrounding the newly created park, it is appropriate and desirable to authorize the acquisition of the blocks surrounding the park. Additionally, in order to encourage property owners within the Urban Renewal Area with the means and desire to redevelop their property, it is appropriate and desirable to authorize owner participation agreements in accordance with the Oklahoma Urban Redevelopment Law. 
> 
> The proposed Second Amendment to the Core to Shore Urban Renewal Plan amends Exhibits 4, 4A, and 4B to the Core to Shore Urban Renewal Plan to show the new areas where the Authority will be authorized to acquire real property. The proposed Second Amendment also grants the Authority the authorization to enter into owner participation agreements with landowners to redevelop or rehabilitate their properties consistent with the Urban Renewal Plan, provided the landowners meet criteria established by a policy adopted by the Authority. 
> 
> OCURA may enter into agreements with the owners of record of property within the Urban Renewal Area if it determines it feasible and finds that the owner is financially and otherwise qualified to participate in the redevelopment of its property within the Urban Renewal Area. Wherever practicable, OCURA shall enter into agreements with the owners of record of properties receiving substantial benefit from public improvements and other public investments, such as infrastructure, parks or other public spaces, and transit. An owner participation agreement shall provide that the owner agrees to carry out the purposes of the Urban Renewal Plan and shall contain provisions deemed by OCURA to be necessary or desirable to assist in preventing the development or spread of future blight or to otherwise carry out the purposes of the Oklahoma Urban Redevelopment Law.  An owner participation agreement shall be consistent with and make requirements similar to the conditions imposed in agreements for land dispostion, including the requirement to redevelop the property in accordance with this Urban Renewal Plan, as may be amended from time to time.

----------


## Pete

Also, I had suggested that OCURA should have acquired the Stage Center site from the foundation then held a public process to determine it's highest and best use.

There was a counter-argument that the $4.275 million was beyond their means.

However, current financial statements show $10.1 million in assets; $4.9 in cash and $4.7 in investments.

And they certainly seem to have millions to spend on properties all over Core2Shore, which is still decades away from any real renaissance.

----------


## hoya

> Also, I had suggested that OCURA should have acquired the Stage Center site from the foundation then held a public process to determine it's highest and best use.
> 
> There was a counter-argument that the $4.275 million was beyond their means.
> 
> However, current financial statements show $10.1 million in assets; $4.9 in cash and $4.7 in investments.
> 
> And they certainly seem to have millions to spend on properties all over Core2Shore, which is still decades away from any real renaissance.


Like.  Or rather, dislike.  Too bad they didn't purchase Stage Center.

----------


## onthestrip

> The Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority (OCURA) has been working on acquiring properties around the proposed Central Park.
> 
> In their meeting this week, they will be amending their plan:


Man, that blue outline of the acquisition area is certainly an ambitious amount. Does OCURA have that much money to make all those acquisitions and if so, were do they get all their money?

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

> Cuatrodemayo, maybe you could take the lead on the Central Park renderings, I'm sure they will be better than anything else out there.  I would love to see what your vision is for Core to Shore / The River.


I've been considering taking a crack at redesigning the new park to show how it SHOULD be done, but 1) I have other projects that are getting priority right now and 2) I'm not sure there is enough grassroots support for an intervention ala FBB when it comes to the park.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

> Does anyone have a feel for what price per SF the City paid to acquire land within the Maps 3 Park footprint? Also, does anyone have a good number for what the prime real estate surrounding the park (along Hudson, for example) is going for? I am sure there has been a lot of sales activity for the adjacent lots as the start date for park construction has drawn closer and closer.


Got some land to unload?  :Big Grin:

----------


## shawnw

Even if you don't re-design the whole park, redesigning the portion around both the film exchange and union station could at least give people some vision about the posibilties...  :-)

----------


## CaptDave

> Did I miss something with Core to Shore?  When did the city envision it with high rises around it?  The last renditions I saw from the city showed it almost totally surrounded by one-store single family homes with a few low rise apartments.


That is what I recall also - rows of brownstone/townhouses were fronting the west side park with several different types of residential to the west with some mixed use development on the east and north.

----------


## OKVision4U

> I've been considering taking a crack at redesigning the new park to show how it SHOULD be done, but 1) I have other projects that are getting priority right now and 2) I'm not sure there is enough grassroots support for an intervention ala FBB when it comes to the park.


I have no doubt you are busy as "the best" are always in high-demand.  We just need A Design, that places the bar at the level you already invision in your designs.  Some of the other attempts at ( Core to Shore / The River / Central Park ) just feels like we are settling for "the runner up".  I don't know if we need a formal approach at the Central Parks plans, but they certainly need to have feel for what we all invision here.

----------


## Jeepnokc

What is the status of the park?  I was looking online and it appears the main part of the park is north of I40 with just a smaller strip of park running down south of I40 to the river.  However, I noticed that there are still properties that would be in the actual park part still being actively marketed for sale.  Are they still planning on going all the way to the river on the west side of Robinson.  I also notice some conceptual plans for Parkside developments but I am guessing that will be a long time off before we get any real development next to the park on the South side of I40.

----------


## Laramie

*CORE TO SHORE RIPPLES*
http://oklahoman.com/core-to-shore-r...rticle/5363337

----------


## warreng88

From the Journal Record commentary:

O’Connor: The future of Core to Shore

By: Cathy O'Connor Guest Columnist December 16, 2014

The conversation surrounding downtown development is ever evolving, consisting of a multitude of levels. Where do we develop? What type of development should go where? Would redevelopment of a district – or the creation of a new one – be detrimental to an established district? We work to answer these questions on a daily basis.

Since the Core to Shore district was conceptualized, there has been dialogue among city leaders and stakeholders as to whether it would compete with districts that are maturing downtown, such as Midtown, Bricktown and Deep Deuce, and even new developments like the Wheeler District planned for what is now known as the Downtown Airpark.

The answer is complicated. The Core to Shore district will be unlike any that we currently have, offering a very different type of development. It will be the blank slate that we need to develop a world-class neighborhood by providing much-needed community amenities, like added retail and commercial space, to the downtown area.

From what will be the new Crosstown Boulevard to the river, this project will add an estimated 500,000 square feet of office space, 2,500 residential units and 77,500 square feet of retail and commercial space. The rest of the development will contribute an additional million square feet of office space, 4,225 residential units and 156,200 square feet of retail and commercial space.

That being said, this development may be more complex and potentially more expensive than other districts around the city. Mayor Mick Cornett talks about the need for greater urban density, and that the idea of urban sprawl is one from the past. The new developmental paradigm of high-density, elevated design leads itself to a higher level of overall quality among all projects designed for the core of Oklahoma City.

The Core to Shore district will also be the long-awaited connection between the south site and the urban core. This will help move more investment into an area of Oklahoma City that has been longing for expansion and redevelopment for some time now.

It is important to keep in mind that development is not something that happens overnight. Remember the years it took Bricktown to transform into the entertainment district, and how long it has taken Midtown to run the course of its renaissance.

_Cathy O’Connor is president of The Alliance for Economic Development of Oklahoma City._

----------


## CaptDave

When I was in Orlando for a couple hours today, I drove out to the former site of the Naval Training Center where I attended nuclear power school a long time ago. That base was closed during one of the BRAC rounds and has been redeveloped into what I think (hope) Core to Shore will become. It is called Baldwin Park and meets all the goals of the C2S studies and what many people hope that area will become. I thought about putting this in the Wheeler District thread, but Blair seems to have that one well in hand with a great vision and hopefully the means to achieve it. C2S seems to be a bit adrift now since the original "plan" is fairly old now, so maybe something like Baldwin Park should serve as an example of what could be. (This may have been mentioned in this thread at some point because Baldwin Park is similar to the opportunity OKC has to redevelop a large amount of land at one time.)

Baldwin Park | Orlando, FL 

With all the discussion of the Convention Center and how it could relate to Core to Shore, I thought it might be interesting and relevant to look at some concepts for C2S.

----------


## ljbab728

> When I was in Orlando for a couple hours today, I drove out to the former site of the Naval Training Center where I attended nuclear power school a long time ago. That base was closed during one of the BRAC rounds and has been redeveloped into what I think (hope) Core to Shore will become. It is called Baldwin Park and meets all the goals of the C2S studies and what many people hope that area will become. I thought about putting this in the Wheeler District thread, but Blair seems to have that one well in hand with a great vision and hopefully the means to achieve it. C2S seems to be a bit adrift now since the original "plan" is fairly old now, so maybe something like Baldwin Park should serve as an example of what could be. (This may have been mentioned in this thread at some point because Baldwin Park is similar to the opportunity OKC has to redevelop a large amount of land at one time.)
> 
> Baldwin Park | Orlando, FL 
> 
> With all the discussion of the Convention Center and how it could relate to Core to Shore, I thought it might be interesting and relevant to look at some concepts for C2S.


That is certainly a wonderful development and some aspects would fit in great with Core to Shore.  Most of the home architecture is not what I would envision here, though, and a few parts of it are a little more suburban in appearance than I would want here.  Overall, I wouldn't complain if something similar was what ended up in Core to Shore.

----------


## CaptDave

> That is certainly a wonderful development and some aspects would fit in great with Core to Shore.  Most of the home architecture is not what I would envision here, though, and a few parts of it are a little more suburban in appearance than I would want here.  Overall, I wouldn't complain if something similar was what ended up in Core to Shore.


Right - the concept would need to be adapted to a style more appropriate for OKC (just no more Dallas copycats, please). It is about as mixed use as it can be and as I drove around the area, I felt like I was encroaching by driving instead of walking.

----------


## Teo9969

Not really a fan. C2S ought to be like what Wheeler Park is shooting for, but even more dense. I'd hope that C2S is filled with 5 to 10 story buildings with commercial fronting the entirety of any important streets, and fronting sizable percentages of less important streets in the area (30% to 60%). 

We can take our time building the district. We don't need it to be built out in 5 years…So if to get what we're looking for it takes 20 instead, that's fine…we won't have to rebuild anything for the following 75 years.

----------


## bchris02

I personally wonder what Core 2 Shore will ultimately end up being.  First, the city needs to establish a vision and not grant variances to any developer who wants to stick a suburban development down there.  The city has already set a bad precedent with improving that law office with the setback and surface parking.  

Another thing to consider is the fact that the Core 2 Shore vision is a decade old.  When city leaders were pushing it, OKC didn't have the resurgence currently being seen north of Reno.  This is just me, but I think districts like Midtown that still have such a long way to go would be better places for public investment than Core 2 Shore, a concept that may actually be outdated at this point.   I think OKC is ultimately at risk of having its eggs in too many baskets.   I think the city needs to focus on improving and making great urban neighborhoods out of Bricktown, Midtown, and the area west of the CBD that consists of Film Row, the Clayco development, and the 21c Hotel before worrying about Core 2 Shore.  In my opinion, 5 years is just as important as 25 years from now.

Ultimately I see Core 2 Shore, at best, becoming something like the Wheeler district rather than creating a mini-New York as some has envisioned.

----------


## betts

I'd be thrilled if it were a modern day Brooklyn personally.  It doesn't have to be Manhattan.

----------


## hoya

I want a mini-New York.  

I want stuff surrounding the park that looks like this (currently being built in Houston):



The rest of it I want to look like this:



and this:

----------


## ljbab728

An interesting update by Steve about the proposed new TIF for this area.

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/546...o_redirect=yes




> A $395 million budget is being proposed for a new 772-acre tax increment financing district designed to spur development in the blighted Core to Shore area between downtown and the Oklahoma River.
> 
> The proposal includes $16.6 million that would go to the Oklahoma City school district that might be used for a construction of a new middle school and high school in the project area.

----------


## Pete

They are actually carving this out of the existing TIF 2 and re-starting the 25-year clock.

One thing they always say when they pitch these TIF's:  'At the end of the 25-year period all property taxes go to the taxing jurisdictions'.  Then, 20 years later, they reset the clock long after everyone has forgotten that promise.

As for the money that will 'go to the schools': 1) they would receive much more without the TIF and 2) the TIF requires them to spend the allocation within the district boundaries as opposed to putting that money back in the general fund.  This is hardly any sort of gift to schools; it's really the opposite.


This is also one of a bunch of new TIF's they will be pushing through; well more than just First National and Core to Shore.  That pitch has already been made to City Council (more districts) and will be coming up for approval soon.

Much more on this to come.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

AMG adds Parkview Village to portfolio | The Journal Record

----------


## bchris02

I think if Core 2 Shore is to reach its potential, now is the time to develop a vision and develop design codes to promote that vision and create synergy.  The city needs to learn from the mistakes of Lower Bricktown and do this right, even if that means development will take longer than it would if the city let developers build anything they wanted.

I think Core 2 Shore done right should end up being a combination of Deep Deuce and Uptown Dallas.  It should be a self-sustaining urban community with retail, providing all the services residents need.  One Core 2 Shore is developed, people living there should have no need to drive to NW Expressway for basic needs.

----------


## Plutonic Panda

Core to Shore needs two things. A new name and an urban design code similar to Paris or some other big urban city to use as a model to develop a true mixed-use urban district. These codes need not be overlooked nor should any variances be issued. This is the time for the city to put their foot down and be strict.

No set backs. Very few curb cuts. No dedicated turn lanes. Narrow streets. Low speed limits. Have commercial corridors with residential neighborhoods with row houses behind them. Establish a height limit to 12 stories. Things like that.

----------


## bchris02

Right, and when developers propose substandard development, the city should stand their ground.  I can see it now, people will be defending bad development on grounds that at least something is being developed and it will help spur other development, and mistakes can be corrected later.  However, we've seen how that way of thinking has turned out in Lower Bricktown.  It will be much easier if the city doesn't let mistakes be made in the first place.

----------


## warreng88

> AMG adds Parkview Village to portfolio | The Journal Record


AMG adds Parkview Village to portfolio
Chicago multifamily investor now owns three in OKC metro

By: Molly M. Fleming
The Journal Record
December 18, 2015

OKLAHOMA CITY  A developing district near the Oklahoma River helped persuade a buyer to acquire the Parkview Village Apartments.

The complex sold this week to Chicago-based AMG Realty Group, which already owned two metro-area properties: Western Oaks in Bethany and Cherry Hill in Oklahoma City. The company bought the Parkview, a 240-unit complex, for $4 million.

Justin Wilson, Brandon Lamb, David Burnett and Tim McKay with ARA, A Newmark Company handled the transaction.

The property was on the market for four months before AMG purchased it.

We knew they would be a good fit for us, Wilson said.

Built in 1948, Parkview has 88 buildings, with a combination of quadplexes and duplexes, with one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. Rents are $525 for the one-bedroom units and $625 for the two-bedroom units.

The complex sprawls between SW 22nd Street, SW 20th Street, S. Kentucky Place and S. Mehl Drive. In total, it occupies 17 acres directly south of Rotary Park and southwest of the former Oklahoma City Downtown Airpark. The airpark is being developed into the Windsor District.

The Windsor Districts potential effect in the area, as well as other developments in south Oklahoma City, were big selling points for the apartments, said Wilson. He said the work being done on SW 25th, known as the Capitol Hill area, helped with the sale as well.

The new owners will be good for the propertys future, he said.

(AMGs) model is to go in and buy lower-occupied properties, make them nicer, and fill them up, Wilson said.

Built in 1948, the complex has had some troubles in the last few years. In 2013, it was foreclosed on and owned by Fannie Mae. Tritex Real Estate Advisors helped renovate the buildings and bring the occupancy to 75 percent.

AMG will spend $1 million on continued improvements and wants to increase the occupancy.

They plan to improve the outside of the property and get a convenience store or community store in the neighborhood, Wilson said.

----------


## ljbab728

This is the part of the last article that I posted that I was most interested in.  I'm surprised that nobody else seems to be interested even if it has been discussed as a possibility before.




> The new schools are being looked at by Superintendent Robert Neu and the school board as a response to the growing downtown population and popularity of John W. Rex Elementary.
> 
> School board member Justin Ellis said Monday the elementary would act as a feeder school for the higher grades.
> 
> We've got to have another school down here, and that's exactly what this is about, Ellis said.

----------


## KayneMo

I think another nice precedent for Core to Shore would be Back Bay in Boston, I absolutely love that neighborhood. I also agree about the idea of a new name for C2S.

----------


## shawnw

Oh, did they move the Windsor District from near Bethany to South of the river?  And will it go next to the Wheeler District?   :-P

----------


## Urbanized

Honestly I think the C2S vision should probably be revisited before development starts in earnest. That plan is nearly a decade old at this point (planning sessions were in 2006), and MUCH has changed elsewhere in downtown and even in the local understanding of urban planning and development.

Consider how much Wheeler District's vision changed from when the Humphreys family first announced plans for the old Downtown Airpark property. Night and day differences, and most would agree that the changes were excellent.

Revisit the vision, rework the plan, and codify the results. That is the only way that we can ensure that it works with the downtown we've built since the idea was first hatched, and that what is built bears any resemblance to what's on paper.

----------


## Laramie

OKC could see a breakthrough year in 2019-20 with the completion of these projects:

New convention center.Omni convention center conference hotel.Oklahoma City downtown central park.Intermodal Transit Hub.Oklahoma City street car transit system.American Indian Cultural Center & Museum.New State Fair Arena.

There's private development:

BOK Park Plaza Tower.First National Center Tower renovation.Wheeler Park Development.
Not to mention the private development with a mix of hotels, office & residential you could see on the Producers' Cooperative Mill site; also, the possibility of an MLS style stadium in some early  stages of development.  We should know more once the sale of the site is completed.

----------


## gman11695

Just read an article in 405 Magazine (http://www.405magazine.com/October-2...ct-Discussion/) that at a whole talks about all the districts around OKC, but it also mentioned the South Robinson area, between I-40, the Oklahoma River, Shields and Western. I think this area has so much potential! The article mentions this too. After doing some perusing on Google Maps, it's a really neat area, and I have driven through there a couple times. I know a long time ago, there was renderings of putting high rises in this area long the river. Not sure what I think of that. But I hope that the day this area gets developed, a lot of the structures along Robinson are kept because they could be turned into some neat businesses and restaurants and this whole area could be turned into like what East 6th in Austin is, which also has a large latino influence. The article compared it to the next Automobile Alley. Thoughts? Or anybody know any momentum going on in this area with the development of the park to the north?

----------


## ljbab728

> Just read an article in 405 Magazine (http://www.405magazine.com/October-2...ct-Discussion/) that at a whole talks about all the districts around OKC, but it also mentioned the South Robinson area, between I-40, the Oklahoma River, Shields and Western. I think this area has so much potential! The article mentions this too. After doing some perusing on Google Maps, it's a really neat area, and I have driven through there a couple times. I know a long time ago, there was renderings of putting high rises in this area long the river. Not sure what I think of that. But I hope that the day this area gets developed, a lot of the structures along Robinson are kept because they could be turned into some neat businesses and restaurants and this whole area could be turned into like what East 6th in Austin is, which also has a large latino influence. The article compared it to the next Automobile Alley. Thoughts? Or anybody know any momentum going on in this area with the development of the park to the north?


Please see post number 1231 here.

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=24502&page=50

----------


## bradh

> Just read an article in 405 Magazine (http://www.405magazine.com/October-2...ct-Discussion/) that at a whole talks about all the districts around OKC, but it also mentioned the South Robinson area, between I-40, the Oklahoma River, Shields and Western. I think this area has so much potential! The article mentions this too. After doing some perusing on Google Maps, it's a really neat area, and I have driven through there a couple times. I know a long time ago, there was renderings of putting high rises in this area long the river. Not sure what I think of that. But I hope that the day this area gets developed, a lot of the structures along Robinson are kept because they could be turned into some neat businesses and restaurants and this whole area could be turned into like what East 6th in Austin is, which also has a large latino influence. The article compared it to the next Automobile Alley. Thoughts? Or anybody know any momentum going on in this area with the development of the park to the north?


What's currently labeled "Hubcap Alley" I drive past every day going to and from work.  Someone with some real skill could take some of the bones there and do some neat stuff.  I for one have always loved the old tire shop at the NE corner of 15th and Robinson.  I feel like someone could make a killer sports bar there with those big overhead doors, but it's obviously a little soon for that.

----------


## Pete



----------


## mugofbeer

I'd forgotten about this name.  Seems almost as out there and dated as String of Pearls parks.

----------

