Perhaps you should study our city's recent history a little more closely. We have dozens and dozens of condos currently languishing on the market without attracting a sniff.

Don't act like putting more condos on the market -- in a less than optimal location -- isn't a risky move.

I fully expect you'll be the first in line to buy a condo with a view of a loading ramp at a convention center.

Goodness, surely you've noticed a little something called a nationwide recession centered on housing. I guess because "dozens and dozens of condos currently languishing" nobody would be ever be interested in something completely unique and in a potentially amazing location . . . I don't pretend to know for sure how much market there would be for these, or for that matter for all of the other housing proposed in this plan. But I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people out there who do think outside the box and just might be interested in a completely unique residential choice.

And please stop playing your silly strawman games. You surely know very well that these townhouses will have no view of and will in fact be very far away from any loading docks.

The small size of this park is the real problem. The Core to Shore park should be at least four times in size of the proposed drawings I have seen.

I would like to see the park include a golf course.

With respect, I think you completely misunderstand the goals and functions of this park and, indeed the whole plan. This is to be an extension of downtown. It is to be urban, filled and surrounded with activities, and have complete pedestrian connectivity.

If you place a giant park with a golf course in the middle, you will have created a huge barrier to pedestrian connection. Millennium Park in downtown Chicago and Discovery Green in downtown Houston are two great examples of the kind of thing I'm sure they are aiming for (and OKC's is a good deal larger than either of those).

I'm a little confused by this thread. The suggested housing would be on the western edge of the park- with a glorious view of the park looking eastward. Yes, you would be looking at the convention center straddling the eastern edge, but you are separated by a two block wide green space. I can't imagine anyone wanting a better view of urban green from their balcony. The western view from the convention center exemplifies the pride we have in our city from within and our new found pride in our investment in parks for all our citizens.

There are flaws. Notably the immense expense in an underground parking garage that could instead go towards an even better park. In my years studying planning, I would say the greatest flaw is an I-40 that is a conventional highway rather than the origionally proposed/sold fully depressed highway. The ramping to get over it takes up tremendous space and requires giant "band aids" such as Sky Dance bridge to try to get people over to the other side.

The things you guys are arguing about are somewhat icing compared to the cake that has been half baked due to ODoT and our fears of inadequate parking.

Are you sure the underground parking garage will truly be an "expense"? Often parking garages are financed with revenue bonds backed by the anticipated revenue stream from the parking garage. If done this way, they take no money away from any other project.

You are quite right about the housing on the western side of the park. In addition, the concept is for them not to be looking at the front of the convention center, per se (although if designed well, that too could be a good urban view), they will be looking the townhouses and retail that line the front of the convention center.

I guess I haven't been following the I-40 project. What has changed about the design? Is it not being depressed through that area any more?

Are you sure the underground parking garage will truly be an "expense"? Often parking garages are financed with revenue bonds backed by the anticipated revenue stream from the parking garage. If done this way, they take no money away from any other project.

You are quite right about the housing on the western side of the park. In addition, the concept is for them not to be looking at the front of the convention center, per se (although if designed well, that too could be a good urban view), they will be looking the townhouses and retail that line the front of the convention center.

I guess I haven't been following the I-40 project. What has changed about the design? Is it not being depressed through that area any more?

It is "semi-depressed" now. It was originally sold as a fully depressed highway such as 75 in Dallas. Much less detrimental to the grid, site lines, and a more efficient use of space.

Regarding the parking garage, not against it but fill the cost savings from a conventional elevated structure that is hidden behind the housing on the Western edge is a better approach. Other cities commonly build these "hidden" garages such as the "uptown" core at Mockingbird Station. Looks great, surrounded with activity, and you wouldn't know it's there.

The underground design is billed at $40,000 per car space and I have heard of no other financing mechanism other than MAPS.

If the housing is on the opposite side of the park, then my concerns are unwarranted. A "view" of the convention center would be appealing. Having the convention center abut your residential building would not be so appealing.

I would like to see the park include a golf course.

Please no!!! I'd love to explore the most of Lincoln Park... but it's a golf course and I'm not a golfer. A golf course only serves a small minority.

If golf is warranted how about a driving range in another part of the core to shore plan? That would probably appeal to a great many businessmen.

I was actually thinking more of a driving range. A late night driving range with the city skyline in the background would be great.

I was actually thinking more of a driving range. A late night driving range with the city skyline in the background would be great.

agreed.

Oil Capital

The hotels between the Myriad and "Central Park" are a bad design for citizens of the city. I know you care more about the tourists. Why, I don't know.

I feel that if we are voting on a park for the city, it should be a park for the city not the tourists. The Convention center should be where the Mill is, not next to the park. The hotels should be where the convention center is which would be next to the Ford Center and across the tracks from the Convention Center. Having the hotels on the edge of the park will give visitors a view of the park.

I personally don't think we should build a convention center. I know you don't like that, but Maps should be for the citizens of OKC, not for the tourists. I know it will be bring people and money to the city, but I just don't see that being a longterm benefit to the citizens of the city.

That is why I feel the park should be bigger. I think it would be nice to have the hotels on the side of the park, but not intersecting it. The park should be large so that it is a destination for people in the city, whether it be for an outdoor concert, ice skating in the winter, or for wedding pictures in a natural setting. The park should be for the city and not for the tourists. Development will grow around a large destination park.

The interstate cutting through the park can't be changed, so that will be a barrier, but we shouldn't be making more, by chopping it up with other developments and having small parks here and there.

I know you don't agree with anything I say Oil Capital, because you care about the tourists and how many steps they have to take to get from the Colcord to the Convention Center. That is why there will be the street cars. If we have the street cars going through downtown, then they can hop on the street cars and go to the convention center. Problem solved! Or for those with legs they can walk.

MAPS 4: "Fixing the problems we screwed up with MAPS 3.......and some other projects"

I was actually thinking more of a driving range. A late night driving range with the city skyline in the background would be great.

Include exploding ceramic statues, and I'm in.

I just want the park big enough where if you want to go for a jog around it you don't have to do 4 laps to get one mile.

While I agree it should be much bigger, 40 acres is not small. To put in perspective, that is more than twice the size of Myriad Gardens (17 acres).

Take a drive down 36th street in Bethany and look at Eldon Lyon Park. According to the Bethany website the park is 60 acres. Granted, that is a nice park that is well-used and is a great asset to this part of town but it is not quite what I think the citizens of OKC have in mind as a world class central park.
Eldon Lyon Park | City of Bethany.org (http://www.cityofbethany.org/?q=node/68)

For a "Major League City" , 40 acres is extremely dissapointing.

This Core to Shore park is nothing more than a real estate venture with the elite Okc property owners.

I don't trust our city at this point to handle anything that has to do with development. Just look at the latest venture developments: Lower Bricktown, The Hill, The Legacy, Overhaulser Greens.

All extremely dissapointing, just like the Core to Shore will be. We need to "Shore" up the Urban areas that we have now and not venture into creating more unfinished areas that we will regret later.

yeah, the more I educate myself on this subject, the more disappointed I am with Core To Shore.

OK, so you don't like Core To Shore in it's current form. Get involved and try to change it. It's certainly not too late. I was just in Kansas City and got to see The Plaza there for the first time. What a wonderful area - - of course all it would take is money but wouldn't it be fantastic if they used that as the model for the OK River lakes or if they used Wash. Park in Denver as the model for the Central Park? Unlike the I-40 reconstruction and move, its not too late for input on this project. OKCLee states this is nothing more than something for developers...well, of course it is. Who else is supposed to 'develop' an area? Especially if you are building on a large scale, experienced developers kinda have to be the ones to do it. They aren't doing it for free so, yes, they may even make a <gasp> profit on it! :)

OKCLee states this is nothing more than something for developers...well, of course it is. Who else is supposed to 'develop' an area? Especially if you are building on a large scale, experienced developers kinda have to be the ones to do it. They aren't doing it for free so, yes, they may even make a <gasp> profit on it! :)

If that's the case, let the developers foot the estimated $1 billion dollar MAPS III.

JUst like with Bricktown, there has to be seed money and seed development to attract private development. If there had never been a MAPS 1, bricktown would still be a bunch of decaying warehouses. If C2S is done with MAPS money, it will be another total transformation of the central city - the way Bricktown has been. There has been chat about how few people there are living in the central core. This will be the catalyst that will attract people downtown. The demographic change of the 2000's will be a move back to the city and more urbanization. OKC is so spread out this would be of great benefit to our city. C2S will start the process. Just as with Bricktown, there is a critical mass where private industry takes over. The only reason you haven't seen more development in Bricktown in recent months is, quite simply, the fact developers can't secure funding for their projects. 12-18 months from now this, hopefully, will correct itself and you will see more projects get underway. OKC doesn't have a "Bass brothers" to just come in and put their own $ billion into renovations. It's going to have to be seeded with public money and, so far, the MAPS projects have been great successes.

If that's the case, let the developers foot the estimated $1 billion dollar MAPS III.

Yeah, let them fund it and watch as that area stays the exact same for the next 50 years.

If you own a home, you have to put money into it at some point for remodeling and renovation, otherwise it decays and looks like ****. At some point, citizens need to pony up and put money into renovating and remodeling their city. MAPS has been successful. I am not sure I favor all the points being brought up on C2S right now but I am in total favor of the concept of renovating and redeveloping the blighted areas south of downtown to the river. The specifics have yet to be worked out so instead of griping about projects that haven't been finalized, give your input to those who are working on C2S.

OK, so you don't like Core To Shore in it's current form. Get involved and try to change it. It's certainly not too late. I was just in Kansas City and got to see The Plaza there for the first time. What a wonderful area - - of course all it would take is money but wouldn't it be fantastic if they used that as the model for the OK River lakes or if they used Wash. Park in Denver as the model for the Central Park? Unlike the I-40 reconstruction and move, its not too late for input on this project. OKCLee states this is nothing more than something for developers...well, of course it is. Who else is supposed to 'develop' an area? Especially if you are building on a large scale, experienced developers kinda have to be the ones to do it. They aren't doing it for free so, yes, they may even make a <gasp> profit on it! :)

I have been very involved with it behind the scenes and been vocal.

Include exploding ceramic statues, and I'm in.

Pull!

I think I proved yesterday before you posted this, in the thread with the C2S models that I've seen them behind the scenes. Show me where they are widely and easily viewable to the public please. How can we take you seriously when you've been known to be schizophrenic on this website with multiple alias' and personalities over the last few years? What "proof" do you have that C2S sucks? What is you're rational behind it? Were you in on the steering committee's? What have you done to notify City leader's your thoughts on why C2S sucks? Bash all you want, but at least I've done my diligence with City leaders and also provided pics.

Can anyone even take this guy? Good grief..

"Please refer to this other thread where I posted something." "You are schizophrenic on this website." "At least I've done my diligence with City leaders and also provided pics." "What 'proof' do you have that C2S sucks?" Um, I started this thread..did you read any of it? Drama queen troll...

Metro - that's great that you have gotten involved. SInce I am not involved at this point, I don't know if they are even at the point of making any concrete plans. Master plans and preliminary proposals are really all I have seen and those can always be changed. To say C2S sucks and that its nothing but a way for developers to make a profit is silliness. That's like saying the new paint job on my house sucks when they haven't even started painting it.

If that's the case, let the developers foot the estimated $1 billion dollar MAPS III.But that would eat into their profits. Why would they want to do that?

Can anyone even take this guy? Good grief..

"Please refer to this other thread where I posted something." "You are schizophrenic on this website." "At least I've done my diligence with City leaders and also provided pics." "What 'proof' do you have that C2S sucks?" Um, I started this thread..did you read any of it? Drama queen troll...

Get over it, you're the one that goes 2 weeks back and digs up my posts. I don't know why you're always so obsessed with me. You act like I don't get involved with things in this City I talk about or provide no proof of what I'm talking about, when in fact the opposite is the reality. Move on.:doh:

Back to the topic at hand. How did the meeting go? Did you mention that the designs are for parks that are just superficial and not functional or a benefit ecologically?

No the design is very real and the City has been moving forward with it. It is being presented to the Council this month and Mayor is rumored to announce MAPS 3 next month.

I don't think you understood what I said. The design is for a park that is just for looks and not a functional park. The park will not be used!

lasomeday, yes I made my thoughts known, but the more I learn and understand urban planning, park planning and just the whole C2S thing the more I get involved, the more I don't like the park. I wish I could have made it to today's City Council meeting.

This item is up at today's City Council meeting which started at 8:30. See Steve's blog for more details:

Spending money on Core to Shore (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2009/08/03/spending-money-on-core-to-shore/)

Metro, I was at the city council meeting this morning. And spoke on rail transit. What about you? I don't have an obsession with you, I just get extremely agitated by the bull **** you're constantly streaming, not to mention the personal attacks you slip in, so I am responding to that.

I don't think you understood what I said. The design is for a park that is just for looks and not a functional park. The park will not be used!

The park hasn't even been designed yet. You cannot possibly know or reliably predict whether it will be used without even knowing it's design. A park does not have to be huge to be extremely functional.

FWIW, Hargreaves is one of the world's best park/landscape design companies. They will most likely deliver an awesome design for OKC. For those interested in learning and exploring and not just blindly insisting that c2s sucks no matter what, I encourage to take a look through Hargreave's website. You will learn that functional beautiful parks come in all sizes.

Hargreaves did the Grant Park framework (but not specific design for Millennium Park) and the AICC, right?

Metro, I was at the city council meeting this morning. And spoke on rail transit. What about you? I don't have an obsession with you, I just get extremely agitated by the bull **** you're constantly streaming, not to mention the personal attacks you slip in, so I am responding to that.

I couldn't make that meeting, I couldn't take off from my employer. That's the main downside to our city council meetings as they are smack dab in the middle of the workday unlike many of our suburban cities who have them at night. Just curious but what aspect of rail did you speak on?What is your background in rail transportation or mass transit?

I talked to Urban Pioneer from MTP yesterday and he didn't make the meeting either. Are you going to launch a rail proposal? If so how are you proposing it be funded?

I was in a meeting yesterday and was pretty much assured MAPS 3 is going to stick to the "basic 3" of Convention Center (being the most funded item), Central Park (about $150 mil) and a Downtown Streetcar. Mayor Cornett has been pretty clear that there will not be rail in MAPS 3. It's obvious we won't have the funding to start a light rail with MAPS 3. The consensus with the "city leaders" are that MAPS 3 has become a grab bag and everyone is coming to the table wanting their piece of the pie. I think cooler heads have prevailed as they are now sticking to the basics. I am also told that a councilperson (I believe it was Sam Bowman if I remember correctly), is pushing for some Senior Centers in MAPS 3 and may actually get it, although they will be at a MUCH smaller cost than the other main projects. Hopefully one of us can catch yesterdays meeting replayed on Ch. 20.

Hargreaves did the Grant Park framework (but not specific design for Millennium Park) and the AICC, right?

Yes on the Grant Park framework. I don't recognize the AICC acronym

Oil Capital

I looked at the website a few times. Some of the parks look funcitonal and some of them don't.

The problem I have with the park they are proposing is the size. IF we are going to build a park to attract people to our city core, then it should be a big enough park to do more than sit and look at cars. It should be big enough to have many different uses. Small parks typically don't have development boom around them. And with the city developments being spread thin, I don't see a small 40 acre park attracting any development around it.

VOTE NO ON CORE TO SHORE CENTRAL PARK! It is a disaster waiting to happen.

I couldn't make that meeting, I couldn't take off from my employer. That's the main downside to our city council meetings as they are smack dab in the middle of the workday unlike many of our suburban cities who have them at night.
That way they can "get things done" without too much interference...in their minds.
It's not just suburban cities, the City of Austin has theirs in the evenings sometimes lasting until 1:00am or so.

Its so people with real 8-5 jobs can't run for council.

I couldn't make that meeting, I couldn't take off from my employer. That's the main downside to our city council meetings as they are smack dab in the middle of the workday unlike many of our suburban cities who have them at night. Just curious but what aspect of rail did you speak on?What is your background in rail transportation or mass transit?

I talked to Urban Pioneer from MTP yesterday and he didn't make the meeting either. Are you going to launch a rail proposal? If so how are you proposing it be funded?

I was in a meeting yesterday and was pretty much assured MAPS 3 is going to stick to the "basic 3" of Convention Center (being the most funded item), Central Park (about $150 mil) and a Downtown Streetcar. Mayor Cornett has been pretty clear that there will not be rail in MAPS 3. It's obvious we won't have the funding to start a light rail with MAPS 3. The consensus with the "city leaders" are that MAPS 3 has become a grab bag and everyone is coming to the table wanting their piece of the pie. I think cooler heads have prevailed as they are now sticking to the basics. I am also told that a councilperson (I believe it was Sam Bowman if I remember correctly), is pushing for some Senior Centers in MAPS 3 and may actually get it, although they will be at a MUCH smaller cost than the other main projects. Hopefully one of us can catch yesterdays meeting replayed on Ch. 20.

Sam Bowman said nothing about wanting senior centers in Maps 3. We already have senior centers, though.

[QUOTE=Spartan;243744]I was at the city council meeting this morning. And spoke on rail transit.[/QUOTE


Thank you for speaking in support of the streetcar. You verbalized the need to attract an retain the creative class and it is an argument that needed to be vocalized. If more people in their 20's took the time to attend council meetings perhaps the council would see and appreciate that the pedestrian life style is important to young professionals.

Spartan,for someone you age,you are wise beyond your years!looks like you might have a bright future ahead of you!

It really is. The difficulty is that nobody arguing for a radical investment in downtown wants to use the argument because it's too intangible. The City Council is ran by old geriatrics who'd scoff at anything that doesn't sound practical and prudent to them. The idea that we need a streetcar system in order to be cool and hip doesn't even sound practical to me, even though it's absolutely what is needed.

I'm not sure that in today's world, representing 50-80,000 people in your district IS a job you can do along with your 8-5 job. Unless they are going to expand the number of council districts there are simply too many things to undertake to make it a "hobby." This may be "too bad" but it is a fact of the 21st century.

Oil Capital

I looked at the website a few times. Some of the parks look funcitonal and some of them don't.

The problem I have with the park they are proposing is the size. IF we are going to build a park to attract people to our city core, then it should be a big enough park to do more than sit and look at cars. It should be big enough to have many different uses. Small parks typically don't have development boom around them. And with the city developments being spread thin, I don't see a small 40 acre park attracting any development around it.

VOTE NO ON CORE TO SHORE CENTRAL PARK! It is a disaster waiting to happen.

You obviously need to spend more time looking at hargreaves' site, the Project for Public Spaces (http://www.pps.org/) website, and others. Parks even much smaller than 40 acres can have a lot of different uses in them AND can attract development around them.

Look at Millennium Park (http://www.millenniumpark.org/). Look at Bryant Park (http://www.bryantpark.org/) in NYC. Look at Discovery Green (http://www.discoverygreen.com/) in Houston.

Discovery Green, for example, is just over 12 acres. It's been open for about 1 1/2 years. Currently under construction on adjacent land: a 30 story office building, a 35 story apartment tower, and a 22 story hotel.

And, yes, there were many people on Houston development forums who confidently predicted abject failure for Discovery Green, just as you are doing with the (not even designed) OKC park. They said nobody would use it. They said it was too small. They said it would not attract any development around it.

I would like to repeat for my 2 cents worth that I wish the planners would look at Washington Park in Denver as a model. IT is about 150 acres and has a very simply design. It has 2 lakes, paddle boats and walking/running and biking trails. It has a botanical garden but otherwise it is a lot of large matured trees, large open grassy areas and it well watered. The main thing is that it is safe so on nice days there are literally thousands of people using the park. There are NO commercial developments, no amphitheaters, no large capital projects except the WPA era boathouse. Its simple and beautiful.

I would like to repeat for my 2 cents worth that I wish the planners would look at Washington Park in Denver as a model. IT is about 150 acres and has a very simply design. It has 2 lakes, paddle boats and walking/running and biking trails. It has a botanical garden but otherwise it is a lot of large matured trees, large open grassy areas and it well watered. The main thing is that it is safe so on nice days there are literally thousands of people using the park. There are NO commercial developments, no amphitheaters, no large capital projects except the WPA era boathouse. Its simple and beautiful.

Never mind that we're discussing a park for downtown and Washington Park is not in downtown Denver, to put it mildly (approximately 8-9 miles distant).

Never mind that we're discussing a park for downtown and Washington Park is not in downtown Denver, to put it mildly (approximately 8-9 miles distant).

Oil Capital - please check your geography before you make such a comment. Washington Park sits one half mile east of Broadway and one and one-half miles south of Colfax which is the corner of the Central Business district of Denver. In between is the state capitol and state offices and then an area of older homes called Capital Hill.

Washington Park is quite relevant to what they wish to do with the Central Park proposal because of it's size and how utterly and completely successful it is, attracting thousands on a nice weekend. It is simple and if the OKC folks used it as a guideline, they would find they can have a world class park without having to spend tens of millions (or a hundred million +) on capital expenditures. The city also shouldn't make the mistake of promoting a lot of commercial development around the park but make it the focal point for mid to high-rise residential development.

Wash Park in Denver is one of the most highly desireable and most expensive areas to live in as long as you can live with a lot of traffic. A successful Central Park would use some of these characteristics that Wash Park has.

You obviously need to spend more time looking at hargreaves' site, the Project for Public Spaces (http://www.pps.org/) website, and others. Parks even much smaller than 40 acres can have a lot of different uses in them AND can attract development around them.

Look at Millennium Park (http://www.millenniumpark.org/). Look at Bryant Park (http://www.bryantpark.org/) in NYC. Look at Discovery Green (http://www.discoverygreen.com/) in Houston.

Discovery Green, for example, is just over 12 acres. It's been open for about 1 1/2 years. Currently under construction on adjacent land: a 30 story office building, a 35 story apartment tower, and a 22 story hotel.

And, yes, there were many people on Houston development forums who confidently predicted abject failure for Discovery Green, just as you are doing with the (not even designed) OKC park. They said nobody would use it. They said it was too small. They said it would not attract any development around it.

People in Htown just tend to be more negative in general toward everything. That's actually a pretty optimistic thing for some of those people to have said about the Discovery Green.

Oil Capital - please check your geography before you make such a comment. Washington Park sits one half mile east of Broadway and one and one-half miles south of Colfax which is the corner of the Central Business district of Denver. In between is the state capitol and state offices and then an area of older homes called Capital Hill.



Ummmm... I did and you need to. You are trying to make it sound like Washington Park sits on the border of downtown when it is nowhere near. It is 3+ miles from the state capitol to Washington Park. More to the CBD (I confess my 9 miles was exaggerated; I just took the longish route that bing maps gave me; but the point is the same. It is not in or particularly near downtown Denver.)

And is your argument that because this large-ish park 3+ miles from downtown is successful, therefore a small-ish park immediately adjacent to/in downtown cannot be successful? Very odd argument.

See my previous examples of small-ish downtown parks that are VERY successful.

People in Htown just tend to be more negative in general toward everything. That's actually a pretty optimistic thing for some of those people to have said about the Discovery Green.

:-) And yet, here we have people in OKC (including you) saying the very same things about park plans for downtown OKC.

Oil Capital

You live in a bubble. Think outside the bubble to see that you are the only one defending the small size of the park.

Yeah small parks are great in neighborhoods or as an infill for an developed area, but if you are wanting to do all that the city has mentioned they want to do in the park it will need to be bigger. The problem I have is the other little parks here and there they have on the Core to Shore map. If they combine the parks it will have more functional use and be less fragmented. Pull up the core to shore design again and see what I am talking about. The ecological benefits of having one large park is greater than having the smaller ones.

The larger park will take up more space and will help in spurring development along the edge and will be good to have one streetcar line going along the edge. It will focus the development. Also, why put a convention center next to a park? You can put the convention center where the mill is and kill two birds with one stone. That will develop land that won't be developed for 40 years otherwise, and it will take up the entire space, plus you could put parking to the south where the pull a part lot is currently. Killing three birds with one stone. Also they could build a hotel next to the convention center, which would be walking distance to the boat houses (bridge or tunnel under the new interstate needed).

Just think outside the bubble. BIGGER IS BETTER! I know you won't agree because you are stuck on the design, but look at how fragmented it is.

Why have hotels between the Myriad gardens and the central park? Why have a massive 6 lane Boulevard? How is this making the city more walkable. Just think if you lived in the Park Harvey building and wanted to walk to the central park. You could walk to the Myriad gardens and then to the park crossing a 4 lane road instead of a 6 land boulevard and then by some hotels which will have parking lots somewhere.

Sam Bowman said nothing about wanting senior centers in Maps 3. We already have senior centers, though.

Didn't say he said it at Tuesday's council meeting, and didn't say it was him 100% sure, I said I think it was him, but there is one of the gentlemen on the council that is pushing for senior centers in MAPS 3. Yes, I know we have Senior Centers, that fact has nothing to do with them pushing for more or more money to improve them. With that logic, one could say, we have parks, why do we need another park in MAPS 3?

Metro, this Tuesday nobody talked about Senior Centers as far as I can remember..of course the very idea puts me to sleep, so I could be wrong..but I doubt it. The only mention of Maps 3 was a discussion on at what point they would consider bringing down the potential price tag if the economy does not improve. Mayor said, "I think immediately."

Oil Capitol, I'm not challenging that the downtown park would draw development..on the western side. I am however challenging that the park should not be broken up, but one continuous long park, and that the park should not be bordered by the convention center, or else it will turn into a front lawn for the convention center. That is not acceptable, but other than that, I actually do strongly believe in the park concept.

I'm starting to believe that the City just doesn't want to buy up the land from the downtown car dealerships..

P.S. (shameless plug time) anyone can follow the saga of this week's City Council meeting on my blog at A Downtown ontheRange (http://www.downtownontherange.blogspot.com/) , including video of my speech, email correspondence with Councilman Walters, a rundown of the other issues that were debated, and more. I'm also fixing to do a piece on Hargreaves, the firm that we just awarded half a million dollars to for the design of a park (at the Tuesday meeting) that has not yet been funded by the people.

Nice shorts, Nick. :smile:

Seriously, I admire the fact you take the time to become involved in civic matters, especially at your age.

Lots of good points in your speech and I hope they heard you.

The larger park will take up more space and will help in spurring development along the edge and will be good to have one streetcar line going along the edge. It will focus the development. Also, why put a convention center next to a park? You can put the convention center where the mill is and kill two birds with one stone. That will develop land that won't be developed for 40 years otherwise, and it will take up the entire space, plus you could put parking to the south where the pull a part lot is currently. Killing three birds with one stone. Also they could build a hotel next to the convention center, which would be walking distance to the boat houses (bridge or tunnel under the new interstate needed).

Just think outside the bubble. BIGGER IS BETTER! I know you won't agree because you are stuck on the design, but look at how fragmented it is.

Why have hotels between the Myriad gardens and the central park? Why have a massive 6 lane Boulevard? How is this making the city more walkable. Just think if you lived in the Park Harvey building and wanted to walk to the central park. You could walk to the Myriad gardens and then to the park crossing a 4 lane road instead of a 6 land boulevard and then by some hotels which will have parking lots somewhere.

That's my question. What is the reason for the block between the Myriad Gardens and the park being something other than parkland? I've never understood that. And, I'm not a fan of the boulevard either. I don't mind the concept of a boulevard, but why does it have to be anything other than a four lane road? Couldn't agree with you more about making this a walkable area, which multi-lane roads seem to negate. It's bad enough we have to have I-40 in the midst of this redevelopment. Why add another big road?

I'm beginning to think Oil Capital has a financial stake in Core to Shore.

Soonerguru!

I totally agree with you!

I wish I had time to go to the City Council Meetings to voice my opinions.