I fixed their map for them:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7734/conceptualupdate.jpg

dear god. . .

The canal extension design as apparently proposed now at canalconnection.com is different than originally proposed it seems, and it is hard to see how it makes any kind of significant difference to Downtown connectivity and walkability.

Why does their route cross Shields so far south? This does nothing for the current lack of connectivity across EK Gaylord between downtown and Bricktown on Reno and Sheridan as originally proposed and supported by Urban Neighbors and as Jeff Speck mentioned where there was a connectivity issue. To clarify this is NOT the same as Urban Neighbors originally endorsed.

I fixed their map for them:

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7734/conceptualupdate.jpg

:yourock:

Central Park looks ridiculously pathetic. . .

Wouldn't want to take up space which could otherwise be sued for overpriced condo development!

Yes, the rest of Core to Shore will be block upon block of fantastic new development like Lower Bricktown, The Hill, The Legacy at the Arts District and Overholser Green...

So we want to have as much of that as possible. :)

You can cut the sarcasm on this thread with a knife.

Why are both Humphreys and Norick throwing so much into this?

Because it's big and sexy.

I hate to be a cynic but has there ever been any decent new, private development as a result of the city buying blighted properties, scraping the buildings, then choosing a developer?

A park with a bunch of empty lots around it -- or worse yet, a bunch of half-built and half-arsed generic stuff you see everywhere else -- would be a disaster.

I would rather see a much bigger park where the edges could be developed over time. I just can't imagine how any of that property would draw decent private development when there are a bunch of much better sites sitting idle right now. And I don't see that changing for a decade or two.

I'm really starting to get concerned about MAPS III. This city has a long standing history of shooting itself in the foot at key times. We've made some good moves in the last decade, but as Pete's comments point out, we have continued to witness blunders left and right.

Core to Shore alone could be a disaster. And it seems they are going to keep piling on more ill-conceived options.

Here's a question: Out of all the options, which scheme being suggested for MAPS 3 is the most politically unrealistic/poorly thought out/poorly presented/lacking in consensus/etc./etc. to sink the whole MAPS 3 vote? What has the most potential as things stand to take the whole lot down, puts us back years - if ever - to then raise a "new" tax and means we lose everything?

Wouldn't want to take up space which could otherwise be sued for overpriced condo development!

Freudian slip?

lol.

Nice.

Tier2city, I would guess not having enough money going toward mass transit would sink it. Something like 60% of all the people on the MAPS poll voted that they would like to see some sort of mass transit. I hope there will be some sort of announcement for a light rail line connecting Edmond to Norman to satisfy all the rail enthusiasts.

Maps 3 is doomed IMO no matter what is involved. General public is fed up with anything that is perceived as the government spending anything needlessly. While I don't necessarily agree with the perception it will arise in peoples minds. People are going to want hard answers as to why spend money on extending a canal that is already partially empty or not used to its full potential now and so forth. I will be amazed if it passes no matter what the proposals are...but we shall see.

dalelakin, the public may be jaded by government spending, but I'd have to say that the city of Oklahoma City has a pretty good record of putting tax dollars to good use, especially when it comes to MAPS projects.

Who is going to be a part of the group that officially decides on the MAPS 3 ballot? I presume the city council. But I'm not sure how informed council members are of these issues that we are discussing. Most of what they hear comes from vocal special interest groups who sign up to speak at council meetings...plus irate phone calls from lop-sided constituents.

I'm just afraid this is all going to get pushed through WAY prematurely. I don't want the MAPS tax to lapse, but we must have more thoughtful discussion of these BIG TIME plans.

so we have a murky deadline for which proposals will end up on the maps ballot, which will be voted on some random tuesday in the future.

and special interest group number 2 has rolled out its canal expansion website...

I hope the straddling-the-river-tourist-attraction group rolls out their webpage soon... gotta get some media before the ballot is finalized.

-----

I'm imagining five years from now, and people are arguing that maps 7/8/9 is essential and must be done, if only to continue the original sales tax and keep it from expiring, regardless of the quality or validity of the actual ballot projects.

give me a 1/2 cent sales tax and i can find a project to fund.

It'll be years before any Maps 4, let alone 7, 8, or 9.

And nah, there are still plenty of things that can be completed with that 1-cent tax. There is always improvement needed somewhere.

I'm really starting to get concerned about MAPS III. This city has a long standing history of shooting itself in the foot at key times. We've made some good moves in the last decade, but as Pete's comments point out, we have continued to witness blunders left and right.

Core to Shore alone could be a disaster. And it seems they are going to keep piling on more ill-conceived options.

Yeah, and why all the closed door talks about MAPS 3 and the delay in announcing it. I thought the City was going to announce it last year and then because of the Thunder/arena issue, it was delayed. Sounds to me Mick never had it ready to run with then. Why are they releasing it in what is highly speculated to be September, just a couple months before the vote?

Who is going to be a part of the group that officially decides on the MAPS 3 ballot? I presume the city council. But I'm not sure how informed council members are of these issues that we are discussing. Most of what they hear comes from vocal special interest groups who sign up to speak at council meetings...plus irate phone calls from lop-sided constituents.

I'm just afraid this is all going to get pushed through WAY prematurely. I don't want the MAPS tax to lapse, but we must have more thoughtful discussion of these BIG TIME plans.

My sources tell me the City Council will hear about MAPS 3 in August with a public unveiling in Sept. We'll see if that unfolds or what.

Personally, I think MAPS was very well done and I really like what has come out of it. It is actually the private end of the developments that have failed us and a lot of that has to do with Urban Renewal mishandling it.

But the reality is that we have a long ways to go to realize the full effects of the first maps and I really think that that anything pitched as a way to stimulate even more development should be given low priority. Honestly, I would be happier sinking more money into improving previous projects even further or to help developments that have already started. I just can't look at lower bricktown or all the empty space on the upper canal and think we need to spend more public money to try and get the same half-assed developments that will no doubt be headed by the same half-assers.

I would much rather have a downtown streetcar that linked all of downtown's current assets than extending the canal in the hopes we get more development in an area that is still not full and wasn't developed well to begin with.

Agreed... Maps 3 solely streetcar and revamped buses...if that was it I'd be happy.

Spreading ourselves too thin, just like C2S if it happened right now. If we can't get our current canal-front properties filled with tenants (or how about even clear of dirt piles), why should we make it three times as long by extending it into barren parking lots?

agreed

I really want to see a 1st class convention center. I mean 1st class with the ability to expand. This is what will bring tax dollars in to the city and will also spur more business in the area.

I would also like to see the start of a streetcar system downtown.

The canal needs to be extended to the new convention center,Ford Center,Myriad Gardens areas.

My .02 cents

I will be voting NO, on the MAPS 3, canal extenstion. We need to fill in all of the existing canal before expanding. Don't tell me that if there were more canal then the competion would cause the canal to finish itself.

Since it is a foregone conclusion that a new convention center will be built, what happes to the Cox center? At that point it's primary benefit would be a 2nd downtown arena being only 50-some-odd steps from the 1st. An argument could be made for whether-or-not a 2nd arena is enough reason to keep the building, but it is my opinion that it is not the highest and best use (besides, its nearing the end of it's design life).

Currenly, the main barrier between Bricktown is not the railroad tracks but the bleak row of buildings along the west side of EK Gaylord. The Cox is one of those buildings. The Cox is also guilty of the same crime on the east side of the Myriad Gardens. The removal of the Cox center would be an opportunity to connect the more walkable parts of the CBD and the under-utilzed Gardens with Bricktown. This site would also be the ideal location for the canal extension that has been discussed ad naseum. Something like this:

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s225/CuatrodeMayo/concept1.jpg

During the Core-to-Shore discussions a commercial/retail development was always located the the south of the Gardens. This development could be moved to the Cox site would open up the car-lots for parkland connecting the Gardens with the new Central Park. The former Cox site then would serve as a pedestrian enhancement rather than detriment as it is now.

I think there's a need for a 2nd arena downtown. Would be home to the new AHL team, as well as for NCAA women tournament. I can't see demolishing Cox....the building isn't in that bad a shape. It could definitely be renovated for another use though.

I'm not so sure the Cox center has reached the end of its life yet. I mean, the outside was remodeled fairly recently if I'm not mistaken. Sure, the arena area is pretty dated with all the mirrors and everything, but the inside is pretty open air and it seems like it could be easily renovated. I mean, I'm sure its days are numbered, but I don't particularly see the need to demolish a perfectly functional and often used convention center. Plus, rental prices would probably go significantly down once a new convention center is built, bringing more attractions and events downtown. idk just my 2 cents. :p

If the rental prices do go down, then the public school districts should be able to afford a day of graduation. I'm surprised that parents is not protesting the Mid-Del schools to host their graduations at a church.

I think there's a need for a 2nd arena downtown. Would be home to the new AHL team, as well as for NCAA women tournament. I can't see demolishing Cox....the building isn't in that bad a shape. It could definitely be renovated for another use though.

True. And the banquet facilities are actually in excellent shape. OU and OCU Law both held their graduations in the upstairs banquet hall this past May. This is a rough guess, but I think there may have been a few thousand people packed into that room. I don't think there are any comparable facilities in OKC, so tearing down at this juncture just wouldn't be prudent.

Now, if we get a Hyatt Regency or something to that effect and the Cox isn't able to compete? Maybe then there'd be a better use for the land. That's at least 15-20 years off though (if ever).

I agree Midtowner. I mean, the grand ball room is fairly new, an expansion project of MAPS I. And the exhibit halls on the west side and the complete exterior were renovated with MAPS I. The only thing really needed now is to renovate the interior of the arena itself, i.e., new fixtures, seating, etc. Would be a great home to an AHL team, NCAA women's basketball, smaller shows that don't need the large Ford Center arena, and local events in the ballroom like proms, graduations, wedding receptions, etc. It essentially serves as the banquet hall space for the Renaissance Hotel.

Later I wouldn't mind seeing a Hyatt Regency convention hotel replace parts of the Cox Center.

If the rental prices do go down, then the public school districts should be able to afford a day of graduation. I'm surprised that parents is not protesting the Mid-Del schools to host their graduations at a church.

Oklahoma City Public Schools graduate there?

And the southern portion of the Cox needs to be renovated. It looks way outdated, then you walk through a door to the north side and it looks brand spanking new. I don't like that.

I have to say, I went to the Addys at the Cox Center this year and thought the banquet facilities were top notch.

I also saw the Lips on New Year's Eve and thought the arena section needs some TLC.

Later I wouldn't mind seeing a Hyatt Regency convention hotel replace parts of the Cox Center.

I agree. If we could land a major convention hotel, that would be a natural spot for it. I would hate to move it too far out of the core.

I'll be voting yes to this wether it's on the maps ballad or not. Our canal sucks compared to San Antonios, which looks very nice.

I want to see this city flourish for the sake of my kids who have to live here. No need to be selfish and think about myself and if it benefits me.

I will also be voting yes on the maps ballad, and will be making sure everyone in my family gets out to vote on both of these projects.

Viva la OKC...

Our canal sucks compared to San Antonios, which looks very nice.

But this proposal doesn't make it better, it just makes it longer. I certainly respect your enthusiasm for the city and for public projects that you feel give it a better and brighter future. I just think that filling in and improving current canal front property is more important than creating more empty canal front property that may or may not be developed in the same way the current property has been.

As it is now, the canal on California still has lots of empty real estate and, in addition to much of the lower half of the canal featuring parking, there is a large canal front property at California and Mikey Mantle that doesn't have anything built on it at all. I just don't see how, at this point, spending more money to create more empty canal space works to improve the canal as a whole.

Ideally, we would fill up and improve what we have, creating an actual demand for more canal front real estate. At that point, maybe then we could provide improvements to other real estate through canal extensions only for developers that promise to respect and acknowledge the public investment into their development and then actually build what they promise.

We don't even have enough demand to fill up the canal real estate we've already created. Building more, imo, would simply be a another recipe for the city letting any developer build anything they want on the new canal space, including parking lots, just to see some sort of return on the public's investment. In addition, it would only further hinder the development and occupation of the current canal space due to further saturation. In the end, we'll just get more of the same, which, as you pointed out, does not compare favorably to similar projects, even within the same region.

Like with MAPS I, you likely won't get to vote on individual projects. I'm guessing it will be a yes or no vote for the entire package of projects.

I assume the same. It will be interesting to see how its packaged and marketed.

If the extension is included in MAPS3 (or is it 4?) along with mass transit, then everyone have no choice but to vote Yes. The city people know that it will be passed with the mass transit in the package, so they will have to put as much they could in the package.

I like the idea of having longer canal. Why should it be filled with businesses along side of it? Wouldn't it be better to have most of the canal to be landscaped with beautifications and statues?

With additional canal space, we do have the opportunity to create districts on the canal. I don't see any reason the thing has to have every foot be a commercial/residential building. I'm totally fine with part of it being a garden area...much like they have done so far. You can mix the two very easily.

We aren't going to get an area like the upper canal along the whole thing. It's not in the CBD. And for those of you that are so crazy about San Antonio....remember they connect to the river....a real river. It's hard to compare there...but they also have sections of bland conrete wall with nothing there. So it's not like they have it all figured out. Not to mention that a lot of their area is gardened and NOT developed. They also had the unfortunate fate of create some lots that are absolutely horrible....businesses that have their entire dining room outside. That means when it rains or is too hot to go outside, they don't have customers.

We're still infants in the canal world. We have an opportunity San Antonion will now never have. A chance to expand it to a more interesting and widely branching way. SA's is a U...that's all it ever will be. Why is that? Because they've blocked it in. We have the opportunity to expand and create PRIME real estate on land that has been crap up to now.

This is the city's game to lose. The citizens are all for MAPS because they've seen what it's done. They like it, and are ready for more....as long as it doesn't raise taxes. Unless the city decides to do something that is so stupid that the general public goes, "HUH?", then it will pass. I guess a good comparison...as long as we don't do The Channels, we'll be fine.

I read the first two pages of responses, so I'm not sure if this has been said. I think the idea of connecting the canal to other parts of downtown is a good idea, but we should fully use the one we have now first.

What about introducing a second line of water "taxis," (or convert a portion of the current ones that are often docked) that actually serve as taxis. That way, if you're shopping near Bass Pro or eating at Earl's or something and want to get to the other end of the canal, you can take the boat instead of walking.

Instead of giving tours and slowing down to point out bridges that were built only 10 years ago :P, they would simply make stops and carry people along the canal. They could have a different color scheme to distinguish them from the tour boats.

Is there a huge need for them? No, but they could utilize the often-docked boats that aren't being used and offer people another way to enjoy the canal without having to wave on command at the people on "shore."

Why should it be filled with businesses along side of it? Wouldn't it be better to have most of the canal to be landscaped with beautifications and statues?


I'm totally fine with part of it being a garden area

Totally agree with these thoughts. In fact, extending the canal with a focus on making it the attraction, as opposed to it being a development stimulator, may be the way to go, as then we don't have to worry about it being used as a parking lot.

So, I can see where extending the canal would make sense as long as they restricted it to no commercial development and included funds to landscape it in an interesting way as to make it an attraction in and of itself.

i think a great example of what the canal extension could be is what San Antonio has done with their canal by the convention center, there is no retail or anything just landscaped and those beautiful tiled walls, something like that would be great in some parts of he extension

I'm still down with the first plan that was brought up on having a canal extension. South from the western most part of the canal, down to Reno Avenue, over to the Myriad Gardens, with its western most terminus being just east of Hudson Avenue. With a nice pedestrian bridge linking the Ford & Cox Centers, I think that would be pretty nice. And you wouldn't have to worry about commercial development along this route like you would along the southern most route where the Co-Op exists now because all of the spaces in this area are already developed and in use--just gotta get rid of that Downtown Ford dealership!

Im not sure what kind of value is added with a landscaped canal section. Nice landscapping should be required of all property owners/developers regardless and if water is so attractive, add a fountain.
And I think its idiotic to expect the canal to be some sort of public transportation. It just isnt feasible and simply wont be used by people.

Im just not seeing the added value of extending the canal compared to a streetcar. Take the money used for canal extension and put it toward a streetcar system and I think the return on investment will be far greater. No one ever said a stream of water wasnt nice, but the functionality and value created by a modern streetcar is something that would be much better for the future of not just downtown, but OKC as well.

i think a great example of what the canal extension could be is what San Antonio has done with their canal by the convention center, there is no retail or anything just landscaped and those beautiful tiled walls, something like that would be great in some parts of he extension

Unless there is something going on at the convention center, that end of the canal is deserted. It's a ghost town compared to the other portions of the canal.

I'm a huge proponent of what MAPS has done for this city. I supported both MAPS votes as well as the "revote" for additional funds. For the record, I also supported the Ford Center vote last fall.

That said, the city has moved to a higher plane of expectations. Remember, when MAPS 1 was voted on, this city was in dire straits. No one could have foreseen the improvement we've witnessed.

And yet, we're still a newcomer to "big league" status, and have a lot of growing up to do.

The powerful forces who have led to numerous stupefyingly bad decisions over the decades are still here -- and still throwing their weight around.

It's about time the citizens of this city raise the expectations of what we want to be when we grow up.

The canal extension has very limited appeal, and makes little economic sense, and doesn't seemingly promote good use of our inner city land.

The same ol' same ol' developers (and former mayors) are pushing this.

Look, this would have been good when OKC was a dump and we needed visible signs of improvement -- any improvement -- to feel better about ourselves. We're past that stage now.

At this point, we need to flush -- not encourage -- more bad development.

We need to keep fighting for the transit this city desperately needs to truly become a "big league" city. And we need to encourage better use of the acre upon acre of undeveloped or underdeveloped inner city land.

I don't think the canal is to be used for transportation. It is not wide enough and the operators have to be careful not to crash head on into each other. Touring and for fun is the best use. We need several fountains and waterfalls. Landscaping with lots of shrubs, flowers, trees, and rocks. Of course, some of those bronze statues. I'd also like to see some sort of underwater lighting and along the canal.

> I'd also like to see some sort of underwater lighting

Not sure I follow. It's murky, organic filled, some dish, some trash. I'm not seeing a bennie in subsurface lighting in the canal

Then they need extensive filtrations to make the water blue and sparkling. They also need patrols to give hefty tickets and/or jail time for littering.

Ok, now you're just being a troll.

Im not sure what kind of value is added with a landscaped canal section. Nice landscapping should be required of all property owners/developers regardless and if water is so attractive, add a fountain.
And I think its idiotic to expect the canal to be some sort of public transportation. It just isnt feasible and simply wont be used by people.

Im just not seeing the added value of extending the canal compared to a streetcar. Take the money used for canal extension and put it toward a streetcar system and I think the return on investment will be far greater. No one ever said a stream of water wasnt nice, but the functionality and value created by a modern streetcar is something that would be much better for the future of not just downtown, but OKC as well.

That's the most educated response I've heard so far. Well said! :congrats:

Really? So calling someone else's very valid opinion idiotic is an educated response? The canal isn't about transportation, true, but if you're going to complain about a high traffic area having another option, then you have to ask why we have riverboats too. Why not take the bus there as well?

It's about attracting people to an interesting place...not just being a practical means of transportation.

If we only planned practically, the canal would never had been built.

I would like to reiterate that the original justification for the canal expansion is to deal with the divide that is EK Gaylord Ave. Bricktown officials initially made a very solid case for needing a direct connection to the Ford/Cox area that could accommodate thousands of people at once streaming out of the convention district instead of the "bottleneck" that occurs at the major street intersection thus driving people away from Bricktown.

The streetcar and mass transit proposals are completely complimentary to the canal/Gaylord crossing concept being mutual major mechanisms to help people get around as pedestrians.

bombermwc: With additional canal space, we do have the opportunity to create districts on the canal.

So if they do build it south, can we call the new district SoCal ?

"I would like to reiterate that the original justification for the canal expansion is to deal with the divide that is EK Gaylord Ave. Bricktown officials initially made a very solid case for needing a direct connection to the Ford/Cox area that could accommodate thousands of people at once streaming out of the convention district instead of the "bottleneck" that occurs at the major street intersection thus driving people away from Bricktown."

They are pitching this very same plan right now at Bricktown Association meeting.

So then I ask why are they proposing it cross Shields so far south then? I don't get that.

If you check early renderings of the current canal you will notice that even in MAPS ads, those drawings are different from what was built. This drawing, I think, is meant as a conversation starter only. A work in progress.

There is room for both canal extension an streetar starter line in MAPS 3, both will enhance mobility and navigation for pedestrians downtown.