Well, mug, I appreciate the sentiment...I think you and I might disagree on some aspects of the energy issue, or the practical realities of mass transit for a city as spread out as OKC, but that's for a different discussion. Thanks for the props.

I suspect another issue that will be brought up when this all comes out is will the funding be managed in a manner similar to that of the prior MAPS projects...eg what's the mechanism for ensuring we get what is being paid for...

Betts, capitalism in its pure form requires ZERO public assistance. If these developers want a park to make their properties sell for $500/sq ft, then they can build a park or at the very least do a TIF. The reason I keep going back to Nichols Hills is because it's very similar -- a residential park with expensive real estate around it. They paid for their own park, so can developers today. They're going to make a mint and that's fine. I just don't think they need millions of our tax dollars to do it.

Developers do build parks and playgrounds and community pools to increase the value of their residential construction. They are called subdivisions. So what your saying is true 100%. The reason the city has to be involved is to encourage "where" the park gets built that the housing is situated around. In some cases, the only way to encourage park developement is to do it yourself - i.e. a downtown park.

Which is the cart and which is the horse? As Kerry said, developers do build parks to increase the attractiveness or value of a subdivision. That is something very different from a city park. A city park is not built for the residents of a subdivision; it is built for the residents of a city. Access is open to all, and the features of the park should be designed to appeal to as diverse a group as possible, in terms of age, income level, etcl. But, unless the city wants to build public buildings along the park (ala the convention center, which I wouldn't even put there), that land is going to be available for purchase by someone, and that someone is likely to develop it in some fashion. I have an idea in my head of what I'd like to see there, but I see that as part of something other than MAPS. I'm not going to vote against the park because I don't like the development concept adjacent to it. For those people concerned about development adjacent to the park, perhaps OCURA should be the object of their efforts. But, should we not vote for a city park because we're not sure we'll like what's built next to it? I see those as two different issues.

I don't see where the park is any different from the Bricktown canal. The Bricktown canal was built by taxpayers and is accessible to all, yet it's surrounded by private enterprise, and owners of Bricktown properties benefitted financially. Same can be said with almost any public facility built. The downtown Courtyard Marriott benefits financially from the Ford Center. The Sheraton and Renaissance Hotels benefit financially from the Cox Center. Etc Etc.

How will this park be any different from any other city park? If we have the mindset that we shouldn't build parks because private developers may benefit financially, than we wouldn't have any city parks.

I don't see where the park is any different from the Bricktown canal. The Bricktown canal was built by taxpayers and is accessible to all, yet it's surrounded by private enterprise, and owners of Bricktown properties benefitted financially. Same can be said with almost any public facility built. The downtown Courtyard Marriott benefits financially from the Ford Center. The Sheraton and Renaissance Hotels benefit financially from the Cox Center. Etc Etc.

How will this park be any different from any other city park? If we have the mindset that we shouldn't build parks because private developers may benefit financially, than we wouldn't have any city parks.

Exactly. As long as we focus that the park will be for public events, then good.

For those people concerned about development adjacent to the park, perhaps OCURA should be the object of their efforts. But, should we not vote for a city park because we're not sure we'll like what's built next to it? I see those as two different issues.

I agree. At this point I really think the park has to stand on its own, and because of that, I will wait to see what the actual proposal will be. IMO, to win me over it has to have a comprehensive mix of attractions and services that have potential benefit to everyone in the city.

Honestly, I have zero faith in OCURA at this point to not only to choose proper developments, but not even to enforce the quality and integrity of the ones they actually select. Since I assume they will have a lot of control over surrounding developments, the park has to win me over on its merits alone and it has to go way beyond a simple green belt that primarily serves the immediate community.

I still don't think that residential in the actual core has matured to a point where more developments than those completed, planned, or committed are warranted, but I think the potential is still there. I really would hate for residential in the core to be lost in saturation in favor of developments around a park that is still in dream land. Also, I think that the core, including the triangle, bricktown, and midtown is still the best chance for a real urban option in Oklahoma City that will create a choice for people who live here or are looking at living here.

I don't know how to do it, but I would feel better if I saw some sort of assurances that if we build a park that adjacent development would be tempered until a true mix of living options was reached in the core with a satisfactory occupancy in those developments.

Exactly. As long as we focus that the park will be for public events, then good.

Soooooo, you're saying that the citizens of OKC shouldn't have to pay for parks that surrounding residents will use? Just as the previous poster said, if you are saying what it looks like you are saying, then no park in OKC would have ever been built. An urban park done the right way will attract people from all over the city. It doesn't have to be full of high cost, high maintenance capital facilities to attract people from all over town. It needs what the OETA Video showed. Lots of water, lots of trees and lots of open space.

Honestly, I have zero faith in OCURA at this point to not only to choose proper developments, but not even to enforce the quality and integrity of the ones they actually select. Since I assume they will have a lot of control over surrounding developments, the park has to win me over on its merits alone and it has to go way beyond a simple green belt that primarily serves the immediate community.

I still don't think that residential in the actual core has matured to a point where more developments than those completed, planned, or committed are warranted, but I think the potential is still there. I really would hate for residential in the core to be lost in saturation in favor of developments around a park that is still in dream land. Also, I think that the core, including the triangle, bricktown, and midtown is still the best chance for a real urban option in Oklahoma City that will create a choice for people who live here or are looking at living here.


I agree that OCURA has given us very little reason to have faith in it. And, I'm not trying to imply that I'm not concerned about what might be built next to the park, simply that I don't think we should scrap the concept of park because we're afraid of what might be built next to it. I am fairly relaxed regarding what said park will look like. Personally, I'd rather have a big piece of green grass and trees, without a lot of fancy extras. Kensington Park in London is my idea of the ideal park. Some grass, some walkways, a pond, a bunch of trees. But we can vote for the concept of park, and spend time arguing about what should be in it afterwards. I'm not going to vote no because someone has decided we should have all sorts of special features I'm not particularly interested in.

And, I understand your concern about our very infant residential areas like Midtown and the Triangle, but I've been thinking a lot about this the last several days, and I don't think there's as much cause for concern as I originally did. Since I live in the Triangle, this whole discussion started me wondering whether, if I could afford it, I would move to a development adjacent to the park if one were built. After much thought, I decided "no". It would be nice to look out your front window and see a park, to pop out your front door and walk in the park. But, I'm pretty fond of where I live right now. I like being able to walk to Bricktown for dinner, to the Harkins theater for a movie. I like having the Untitled Arts Space nearby. This area is starting to feel like home, and I'm liking the ambience, if brick buildings and empty fields and train whistles can be called ambience. I think each of these residential areas will have a very different feel, and appeal to different sorts of people. There will probably ultimately be different price ranges, and I think all will be reasonable options. If, as someone here said, the average city our size has 30,000 people living near the core, if we can convince people that living near downtown is a good thing, we'll need a lot more housing to accomodate those 25,000 extra people:).

Give those who will build the projects some critical mass that makes it profitable to build, and they will build. With all demand being equal and constant, one project will begat another. The problem now is that no one can get the credit to build anything. A decent portion of the 20 and 30 somethings and the empty nesters would like that kind of urban living. Downtown OKC has yet to see anything built of the type they desire.

... It needs what the OETA Video showed. Lots of water, lots of trees and lots of open space.

The problem though, mug, is that I have two wonderful parks near my home - one literally within walking distance - and another that opened within the last few years barely two/three miles away. One has a water park, both have great kids playgrounds and picnic facilities, to say nothing of a public golf course just next door. I'm in a pretty densely populated area, too.

My point is this - in a city as spread out as is Oklahoma City, I'm struggling with the idea that a park is going to draw so many people downtown - a good 15 minute drive, give or take, to say nothing of parking - if I can grab a frisbee and the kids and walk to the same thing?

If you're saying that's what a downtown park needs for downtown residential success, that's one thing, but if you're suggesting it will have some mass appeal to draw in people from... the suburbs, I guess (?)....I think that notion just doesn't quite work.

I think downtown has to figure out long-term retail before any of the other pieces are going to work....just my opinion...

My point is this - in a city as spread out as is Oklahoma City, I'm struggling with the idea that a park is going to draw so many people downtown - a good 15 minute drive, give or take, to say nothing of parking - if I can grab a frisbee and the kids and walk to the same thing?

If you're saying that's what a downtown park needs for downtown residential success, that's one thing, but if you're suggesting it will have some mass appeal to draw in people from... the suburbs, I guess (?)....I think that notion just doesn't quite work.

I think downtown has to figure out long-term retail before any of the other pieces are going to work....just my opinion...

I don't think a park in and of itself is going to get people to drive in from the suburbs. However, if the park is used for festivals and events, people will come in to use it. I think you're on the right track talking about retail, but I think it's only one of the many pieces needed. No one is going to drive to downtown to shop at Dillards, so if we're going to have retail downtown, it has to be unique, either a group of small locally owned or very limited chain boutiques or a major retailer we don't have anywhere else in the city, like Saks or Nordstroms. Ideally, we would have multiple things to do in a day to bring people downtown, be it recreation, enjoying the arts, dining or shopping. Good downtown transportation would make it easy to plan several things for a day or half day downtown.

I don't think anyone here really wants to denigrate suburban living. Most of us have either lived in or live in the suburbs. But, there is definitely a movement in many cities towards more urban living and recreation, and for Oklahoma City to keep up, in terms of attracting people to live here or to visit, I think we have to be a part of that movement.

The problem though, mug, is that I have two wonderful parks near my home - one literally within walking distance - and another that opened within the last few years barely two/three miles away. One has a water park, both have great kids playgrounds and picnic facilities, to say nothing of a public golf course just next door. I'm in a pretty densely populated area, too.

My point is this - in a city as spread out as is Oklahoma City, I'm struggling with the idea that a park is going to draw so many people downtown - a good 15 minute drive, give or take, to say nothing of parking - if I can grab a frisbee and the kids and walk to the same thing?

If you're saying that's what a downtown park needs for downtown residential success, that's one thing, but if you're suggesting it will have some mass appeal to draw in people from... the suburbs, I guess (?)....I think that notion just doesn't quite work.

I think downtown has to figure out long-term retail before any of the other pieces are going to work....just my opinion...

I understand what you say but my experience in seeing two massively successful urban parks where I used to live convinced me that people draw people. If the downtown park becomes "the place to be," you may go. You may not go everyday but you may be willing to go on nice weekends especially if there's a lot of nice looking folks to people watch. If there's a lake with paddle boats you may do that. If there's biking and jogging trails connected to the river, you may do that. If there are enough people, you may start seeing performers showing up for kids. I keep talking about critical mass - just like there is one for private development to take over, there is one for attracting people. I didn't say people from the suburbs might be attracted, but people from the body of the city certainly might be.

Since when has economic development been a bad thing? What's wrong with the government supplementing the free market in limited and strategic ways?

The reason Oklahoma City has been so successful is because there has been a happy cohabitation between Government and Private industry. The government involvement, for the most part, has been non intrusive and major issues are voted on by the people. Private industry has thrived, and yes a lot of people have gotten rick on the tax payers dime, yet the quality of life has gone up, private capital has flooded in and, by-in-large the investments of the past 15 years have been payed back exponentially. The model has been working, there is no need to stop the momentum for what is a pretty insignificant sales tax.

Small, efficient and well run government. In OKC.

Also Mid, you're the first person I've heard say the park will be "too small", most of the criticism I've heard is that the park was too large for the OKC population?

There have been numerous comments in threads here at OKCTalk about how small the plan for the C2S park seems to be.

As for myself, I'm still not clear whether it is one long narrow park, or a series of narrow rectangles divided by planned development. I don't live in the city so it's not a major call for me either way, but if someone knows, chime in and I'll try to pay more attention and let it register this time.

Since when has economic development been a bad thing? What's wrong with the government supplementing the free market in limited and strategic ways?

The reason Oklahoma City has been so successful is because there has been a happy cohabitation between Government and Private industry. The government involvement, for the most part, has been non intrusive and major issues are voted on by the people. Private industry has thrived, and yes a lot of people have gotten rick on the tax payers dime, yet the quality of life has gone up, private capital has flooded in and, by-in-large the investments of the past 15 years have been payed back exponentially. The model has been working, there is no need to stop the momentum for what is a pretty insignificant sales tax.

Small, efficient and well run government. In OKC.

Also Mid, you're the first person I've heard say the park will be "too small", most of the criticism I've heard is that the park was too large for the OKC population?

Numerous people have commented on how small the park is compared to other parks in other cities. We'll be positively dwarfed by some. This particular park is going to be set on a long and narrow strip, which seems designed to provide maximum frontage for developers.

While no developments have been finalized or even officially proposed, since OCURA is involved, I don't anticipate anything more impressive than brownstones in the area.

Keep in mind that were talking about something that is definitely unique to our entire state. This is not a "normal" park. This park will be extraordinary. The neighborhood association downtown worked hard to encourage the C2S committee and the park consultants that there also be a "structured" play area. Basketball, football, and soccer infrastructure for the "little leaguer's" and the corporate teams. The park is actually bigger than most people think it is and I think that people will be pleasantly surprised.

World Class public spaces with traditional spaces as well.

The "structured" areas took some doing and convincing that more money ought to be applied from reducing the size of the parking garage (there is plenty of parking planned in the area), to make the park larger and accommodate the structured play. If anybody remembers the Urban Renewal lots where the Legacy now stands, that kind of area was in high demand with suburbanites traveling downtown from afar to partake in the great open space.

This park might be an enhancement that helps create demand for adjacent housing, but it is not built for it. It will be built for all of the citizens and visitors of our city.

Numerous people have commented on how small the park is compared to other parks in other cities. We'll be positively dwarfed by some. This particular park is going to be set on a long and narrow strip, which seems designed to provide maximum frontage for developers.

While no developments have been finalized or even officially proposed, since OCURA is involved, I don't anticipate anything more impressive than brownstones in the area.

Millennium Park in Chicago is 25 acres.

Core to Shore's Festival park is supposed to be as large as 34 acres according to greateroklahomacity.com

Here's the proposal:

City of Oklahoma City | Public Information & Marketing (http://www.okc.gov/maps3/)

I am very disappointed in this proposal. 70 acre park? Too small. That alone will get my No vote.

I'm excited!

I would like to find out more about the bike trails, but that sounds great.

Most importantly, they chose to go bigger than $500 million, which is a good decision. These things take so long to tee up I'm glad they put more into it.

70 acres is too small?!? That is nearly 3 times the size of Chicago's Millenium Park!

70 acres is 3 times as large as Millennium Park in Chicago.

70 acres is approximately 64 football fields large. That's huge.

Not sure what the problem is...

Looks like Bennett pulled Cornett's strings and got the fairground improvements in there after all, not happy about that, there are better funding mechanisms. Surprised, but glad to see the 57 miles of bicyling trails in there!

70 acres is 3 times as large as Millennium Park in Chicago.

70 acres is approximately 64 football fields large. That's huge.

Not sure what the problem is...

And 1/12 the size of central park. Once you build it, the size will be set. I will be voting No. I supported the other MAPS plans, not this one.

I am interested to see where they will position the whitewater facility. I would assume it would be in the area between the river and the new I-40 and would spill into the river.

And 1/12 the size of central park. Once you build it, the size will be set. I will be voting No. I supported the other MAPS plans, not this one.

Right....with a population 1/16th the size of NYC...

We actually get more sqarefeet per person than NYC.



Trying to compare Core to Shore to NYC's central park to make a point is retarded. The cities are nothing alike. But somehow you're ignoring the fact that it's 3 times as large as Chicago's Millennium park.

Right....with a population 1/16th the size of NYC...

We actually get more sqarefeet per person than NYC.



Trying to compare Core to Shore to NYC's central park to make a point is retarded. The cities are nothing alike. But somehow you're ignoring the fact that it's 3 times as large as Chicago's Millennium park.

NYC land area size is comparable to OKC.

And NYC's Central park isn't the largets in the US, I am not sure but it may not even be in the top 5 size wize.

Philly has one thats 2200 acres, San Fran has one that has 1100.


FYI, Chicago has Lincoln Park(its largest), which is 1200 acres.

Right....with a population 1/16th the size of NYC...

We actually get more sqarefeet per person than NYC.



Trying to compare Core to Shore to NYC's central park to make a point is retarded. The cities are nothing alike. But somehow you're ignoring the fact that it's 3 times as large as Chicago's Millennium park.

Millennium park isn't Chicago's largest park, Lincoln park is 1200 acres.

The cities are nothing alike. But somehow you're ignoring the fact that it's 3 times as large as Chicago's Millennium park.

And don't forget that Chicago is about five times larger than OKC (when it comes to estimated population, not metro-area population.)

I agree with hoya. You don't hear people saying, man that extra penny I'm paying on the dollar is killing me, I don't want this city to improve....


Agee,

This is the continuation of an already existing penny sales tax and not anything new.

So far, the city his delivered quality projects and it's about time that Mass Transit get its initial track laid and the new convention center and a city central park will be great for now.

MAPS 4 can later expand the canal, mass transit and build a decent high school/college football-soccer-track & field stadium (capable of being expanded, initial 25,000 capacity) and make improvements on previous MAPS projects.

Millennium park isn't Chicago's largest park, Lincoln park is 1200 acres.

True, but it is in the heart of DT, as this one will be as well. If you are comparing largest parks, why don't we compare Herner Park or Overholser? I don't know the actual size, but I believe they are bigger than Lincoln Park.

FYI, Central park probably the third largest park in NYC.

From Twitter:

cityofokc Watch news conference live on okc.gov - http://www.okc.gov/ch_20/st...
about 2 hours ago from web

cityofokc Tune in to City Channel 20 at 11 a.m. for a news conference held by Mayor Cornett and Council.

FYI, Central park probably the third largest park in NYC.

Stop with all these largest park obsessions. The C2S park is not intended to be Oklahoma City's LARGEST park, it's intended to be OKC's BEST park. The reason people are comparing this to 25-acre Millennium Park rather than Central Park is because it will be more similar to Millennium Park- highly programmed, highly interactive, and highly unique. Millennium Park has become the heart of Chicago in the 5 years of its existence. 70 acres is HUGE for that type of park.

I don't understand how anyone can be pessimistic when a proposal that can have so much positive impact is given to their city for one penny per dollar.

"Mayor Cornett urged citizens to withhold judgment on the MAPS 3 proposal as he and the Council explain the eight projects in detail over the next two-and-a-half months. The Mayor announced that each of the projects will be the focus of regular press conferences starting in October."

Apparently only positive things about Maps 3 should be shared until right before the election? If nada else, that's a right nice little attempt to control the message from the getgo.

I won't be voting, being a non-resident, but that says a bit about how this might play out between now and December.

Here's the entire 24-page press release:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/s17maps3.pdf

And 1/12 the size of central park. Once you build it, the size will be set. I will be voting No. I supported the other MAPS plans, not this one.

Oh that is just silly. Are you just going to take your toys and go home because you couldn't have everything your way?

How do you feel about the other initiatives?

"Mayor Cornett urged citizens to withhold judgment on the MAPS 3 proposal as he and the Council explain the eight projects in detail over the next two-and-a-half months. The Mayor announced that each of the projects will be the focus of regular press conferences starting in October."

Apparently only positive things about Maps 3 should be shared until right before the election? If nada else, that's a right nice little attempt to control the message from the getgo.

I won't be voting, being a non-resident, but that says a bit about how this might play out between now and December.

I think a lot of people have concerns about Maps 3 that they didn't have on Maps 1 and 2.

I am very disappointed in this proposal. 70 acre park? Too small. That alone will get my No vote.

THAT'S RIDICULOUS. So you'd rather that area continue to be a blight (AS THE NEW ENTRYWAY TO DOWNTOWN) just because it's not as big as you want it to be?? It's not nearly as big as I think it should be, but I'm not going to vote no because of it. I don't get your logic.

"Mayor Cornett urged citizens to withhold judgment on the MAPS 3 proposal as he and the Council explain the eight projects in detail over the next two-and-a-half months. The Mayor announced that each of the projects will be the focus of regular press conferences starting in October."

Apparently only positive things about Maps 3 should be shared until right before the election? If nada else, that's a right nice little attempt to control the message from the getgo.

I won't be voting, being a non-resident, but that says a bit about how this might play out between now and December.

I guess I'm reading a different quote than you. To me it seems the mayor is saying don't jump to conclusions, more specific details on each project will be forth coming.

Exactly.

NYC land area size is comparable to OKC.

And NYC's Central park isn't the largets in the US, I am not sure but it may not even be in the top 5 size wize.

Philly has one thats 2200 acres, San Fran has one that has 1100.


FYI, Chicago has Lincoln Park(its largest), which is 1200 acres.


OU Adonis... The Largest U.S. City Parks

Rank Park Name City Acres
4 Lake Stanley Draper Park Okla. City, Okla. 9,090
10 Lake Hefner Park Oklahoma City, Okla. 4,440
18 Lake Overholser Park Oklahoma City, Okla. 3,225
20 Mohawk Park And Golf Course Tulsa, Okla. 2,820
64 Central Park New York, N.Y. 840
93 Trosper Park Oklahoma City, Okla. 640


Rank Park Name City Acres
1 Franklin Mountain State Park El Paso, Tex. 24,000
2 South Mountain Preserve Phoenix, Ariz. 16,283
3 Cullen Park Houston, Tex. 11,321
4 Lake Stanley Draper Park Okla. City, Okla. 9,090
5 North Mountain Preserve Phoenix, Ariz. 7,500
6 Mission Trails Park San Diego, Calif. 5,700
7 Forest Park Portland, Ore. 4,836
8 Mission Bay Park San Diego, Calif. 4,600
9 Mountain Creek Lake Park Dallas, Tex. 4,500
10 Lake Hefner Park Oklahoma City, Okla. 4,440
11 False Cape State Park Virginia Beach, Va. 4,321
12 Eagle Creek Park Indianapolis, Ind. 4,279
13 Griffith Park Los Angeles, Calif. 4,171
14 Fairmount Park-Wissahickon Philadelphia, Pa. 4,167
15 Walter Long Park Austin, Tex. 3,802
16 Bidwell Park Chico, Calif. 3,670
17 Ft. Worth Nat. Ctr/Wildlife Ref. Fort Worth, Tex. 3,331
18 Lake Overholser Park Oklahoma City, Okla. 3,225
19 Trinity River Park Dallas, Tex. 3,173
20 Mohawk Park And Golf Course Tulsa, Okla. 2,820
21 Pelham Bay Park New York, N.Y. 2,766
22 Warner Parks Nashville, Tenn. 2,684
23 Los Penasquitos Canyon Pres San Diego, Calif. 2,572
24 San Pasqual Open Space San Diego, Calif. 2,341
25 Steele Creek Park Bristol, Tenn. 2,214
26 Sepulveda Basin Rec. Area Los Angeles, Calif. 2,031
27 Floyd Lamb State Park Las Vegas, Nev. 2,027
28 Rock Creek Park/Potomac Pk Washington, D.C. 1,949
29 White Rock Lake Park Dallas, Tex. 1,873
30 Greenbelt Park New York, N.Y. 1,778
31 Barton Creek Austin, Tex. 1,771
32 Swope Park Kansas City, Mo. 1,769
33 Ft. Harrison State Park Indianapolis, Ind. 1,640
34 Pennypack Park Philadelphia, Pa. 1,618
35 Burns Park North Little Rock, Ark 1,575
36 Beaman Park Nashville, Tenn. 1,500
37 Memorial Park Houston, Tex. 1,498
38 Mt. Airy Forest Cincinnati, Ohio 1,471
39 Hansen Dam Rec. Center Los Angeles, Calif. 1,437
40 Garden Of The Gods Park Colorado Springs, Colo 1,367
41 City Park New Orleans, La. 1,300
42 Forest Park St. Louis, Mo. 1,293
43 Latta Plantation Nature Prsrv. Charlotte, N.C. 1,282
44 North Cheyenne Canon Park Colorado Springs, Colo 1,260
45 Flushing Meadows/Corona Park New York, N.Y. 1,255
46 Anacostia Park Washington, D.C. 1,215
47 Lincoln Park Chicago, Ill. 1,212
48 Gwynns Falls/Leakin Park Baltimore, Md. 1,200
49 Cave Buttes Recreation Area Phoenix, Ariz. 1,200
50 River Rouge Park Detroit, Mich. 1,181
51 Van Cortlandt Park New York, N.Y. 1,146
52 Red Mountain Mesa, Ariz. 1,146
53 Emma Long Park Austin, Tex. 1,137
54 Golden Gate Park San Francisco, Calif. 1,107
55 McDowell Nature Preserve Charlotte, N.C. 1,098
56 Balboa Park San Diego, Calif. 1,048
57 Rochester Park Dallas, Tex. 1,032
58 Olmos Basin San Antonio, Tex. 1,010
59 Belle Isle Park Detroit, Mich. 982
60 Riverfront Park Kansas City, Mo. 955
61 Brown Park Houston, Tex. 902
62 Papago Park Phoenix, Ariz. 895
63 McAllister Park San Antonio, Tex. 856
64 Central Park New York, N.Y. 840
65 Wm T Davis Wildlife Refuge New York, N.Y. 814
66 Shelby Bottoms Park Nashville, Tenn. 810
67 Bells Bend Park Nashville, Tenn. 808
68 Robert H. Hodge Park Kansas City, Mo. 801
69 Tres Rios Phoenix, Ariz. 800
70 Gerritsen Beach Park (Marine) New York, N.Y. 798
71 Hamilton Creek Park Nashville, Tenn. 790
72 Cobb's Creek Park Philadelphia, Pa. 786
73 White Rock Creek Greenbelt Dallas, Tex. 773
74 Bear Creek Canon Park Colorado Springs, Colo 769
75 Leif Ericson Dr. (Shore Pkwy) New York, N.Y. 760
76 Iroquois Park Louisville, Ky. 739
77 Palmer Park Colorado Springs, Colo 737
78 Forest Park Springfield, Mass. 735
79 Delta Park Portland, Ore. 719
80 Bronx Park New York, N.Y. 718
81 Alum Rock Park San Jose, Calif. 718
82 El Dorado East/West Long Beach, Calif. 704
83 Lake Merced Park San Francisco, Calif. 700
84 Keney Park Hartford, Conn. 694
85 Tiffany Springs Kansas City, Mo. 689
86 O'Melveny Park Los Angeles, Calif. 672
87 Cowans Ford Wildlife Refuge Charlotte, N.C. 660
88 Alley Pond Park New York, N.Y. 655
89 Squaw Peak Phoenix, Ariz. 653
90 Druid Hill Park Baltimore, Md. 650
91 Virginia Key Miami, Fla. 642
92 Whitnall Park Milwaukee, Wis. 640
93 Trosper Park Oklahoma City, Okla. 640
94 Midland Boardwalk And Beach New York, N.Y. 639
95 McAlpine Creek Greenway Charlotte, N.C. 638
96 FDR Boardwalk And Beach New York, N.Y. 638
97 River Legacy Parks Arlington, Tex. 634
98 Theodore Wirth Park Minneapolis, Minn. 634

From reading the 24 page outline that goes into more detail on the projects, it looks like the park is going to be broken up like originally shown in a 40 acre Central Park and then 30 acres going from the new I-40 to the river connected via the Skydance bridge. And it will cost an estimated $130 million.

Here is the break down of cost estimates:

Park- $130 million
Transit- $130 million
Convention Center- $280 million
Sidewalks- $10 million
Trails- $40 million
Oklahoma River- $60 million ($25 whitewater & $35 million other improvements)
Health & Wellness Centers- $50 million
OK State Fairgrounds- $60 million
Contingency- $17 million

Total- $777 million

This looks to be a great plan. Whitewater, bikes, and trains! Woot.

Sounds amazing. Count me in.

What ever happened to the big proposed development all around Draper lake? I seem to recall something about restaurants, shops, etc but then it just died out.

That was never going to be a city-funded development, kd5ili.

I like it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 5-6 miles of streetcar seems like more than we originally though we would get. Definitely more than just a downtown to bricktown run.

That was never going to be a city-funded development, kd5ili.

Ahhh...ok. For some reason I thought that they were involved with it somehow..sorry.

Something said the convention center would be a 10-year effort??

NOTABLY ABSENT: The Bricktown canal extension

I'm very happy about this. It was a bad idea. We don't need to extend the canal when we haven't even adequately developed the one we have.


Ahhh...ok. For some reason I thought that they were involved with it somehow..sorry.

The city and/or the Army Corps of Engineers would have to approve it, much like East Wharf at Lake Hefner, but it would be private development.

I think a lot of people have concerns about Maps 3 that they didn't have on Maps 1 and 2.


That's ridiculous. People had concerns about MAPS I as well. It didn't pass by an overwhelming margin by any scope of the imagination.

Is maps 3 exactly what everyone wants, no. But it will add a bunch of great stuff to the city that we do not have. I for one think its great. :tiphat: to the city and I am just wishing I could vote more than once.

NOTABLY ABSENT: The Bricktown canal extension

I'm very happy about this. It was a bad idea. We don't need to extend the canal when we haven't even adequately developed the one we have.

I agree completely. We need to finish developing the current canal (mostly the north canal) before we consider adding on to the canal we currently have. Maybe for MAPS 4. Adding onto the canal now would be too ambitious when we haven't even filled up the current one.

This plan covers a lot of ground. For those that are unhappy with it, what exactly are you expecting?

And as far as the park is concerned, do we really want a 5,000 acre park in the middle of a dense urban area? Sounds pretty suburban to me. I think 70 acres will be plenty. Concerning Central Park, you have to remember that there's more than just a park in that 800 acres. There's also a zoo. We already have our zoo in the Adventure District.

There's definitely a theme of improving quality of life, especially HEALTHY LIVING, which we all know needs major improvement in this state.


I agree completely. We need to finish developing the current canal (mostly the north canal) before we consider adding on to the canal we currently have. Maybe for MAPS 4. Adding onto the canal now would be too ambitious when we haven't even filled up the current one.

It's not a bad idea for the future. It's just premature.

I am very disappointed in this proposal. 70 acre park? Too small. That alone will get my No vote.

Personally, I'm satisified with 70 acres. I think Millenium Park is a great park, and this is going to be signficantly larger. I'd prefer the park be two blocks wide all the way to the river, which would increase the size to approximately 100 acres, but the size of the park south of the Crosstown is almost assuredly still open to discussion, I suspect. Some of the rate limiting factors may be what it will cost to acquire all that land, as well as develop it.

I'm not that excited about a convention center, but I will vote yes because I'm so in favor of all the other items listed. Remember, if we vote "no" on this, they're not going to give us a bigger proposal. We won't get a vote a year from now with a 200 acre park on the ballot. And the area south of the CBD will either stay blighted, or we'll see slow development without a park. The Myriad Gardens will be it for downtown. We'll have no streetcar system, nor any of the other proposed developments. Everyone will assume that the voters don't want to pay for anything, not that they want to pay for more. I'd rather have a slightly smaller park than I want than have that happen.

Something said the convention center would be a 10-year effort??

Yes, as already explained, between studies, site selection, site prep, and oh, enough funding coming in to start construction, it will be about 2019 before it opens. Thus the repeated quote of leaders saying it Cox will be about 50 years old when/if the new convention center opens.

70 acres is great. Look what Pasadena did with 61.1 acres:

http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/humanservices/images/PDF%20Files/parkmaps/Brookside%20Park.pdf

I'm excited! While I think things like fair park and senior centers would be better funded from other sources, I like the majority.